The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing proposed regulations to eliminate the 10-year statute of limitations on collection of debt by administrative offset, which includes centralized salary offset. The proposed regulations conform with an amendment to 31 U.S.C. 3716(e) made by section 14219 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246 (122 Stat. 1651) that became effective on June 18, 2008. This change authorizes the offset of nontax payments (via salary offset) to collect delinquent Federal debt without regard to the amount of time the debt has been delinquent.

The Department of the Treasury has updated its regulations to reflect this change ( see 74 FR 68537, December 28, 2009). To avoid any undue hardship, the Secretary of the Treasury has added a requirement applicable to debts that were previously ineligible for collection by offset because they have been outstanding for more than 10 years. For these debts, creditor agencies must certify to the Secretary of the Treasury that the notice of intent to offset was sent to the debtor after the debt became 10 years delinquent. This is intended to alert the debtor that his or her debt may now be collected by offset and allows the debtor additional opportunities to dispute the debt, enter into a repayment agreement, or otherwise avoid offset.

To be consistent with the Department of the Treasury regulations, OPM is proposing to revise the regulations at 5 CFR 550.1106 to provide that agencies may initiate salary offset to collect a debt without time limitations on debt outstanding after the Government's right to collect the debt first accrued.

OPM is also proposing to revise regulations at 5 CFR 550.1102(b)(1) to clarify that, because the salary offset procedures contained in 5 CFR part 550, subpart K, must be consistent with the Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS), they do not apply to any debts which may be excluded by the FCCS or 31 CFR part 285. OPM is proposing to add a new paragraph (b)(3) in 5 CFR 550.1102 to recognize that certain statutes may exist that allow specific agencies to take certain compromise, suspension, or termination of collection actions as provided under such statutes and the FCCS. Further, OPM is proposing to revise the definition of FCCS to include a reference to 31 CFR parts 900 through 904 and delete the obsolete reference to 4 CFR parts 101 through 105.

Also, OPM is proposing to revise regulations at 5 CFR 550.1104 to clarify that the amount deducted for any involuntary installment deductions may exceed 15 percent of the disposable pay only when a greater deduction has been ordered by a court of the United States in an action or suit brought against the debtor. This is to conform with section 124 of Public Law 97-276, October 2, 1982 (96 Stat. 1195) which allows an agency to deduct an amount greater than 15 percent of disposable pay, as determined by a court of the United States.

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

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

Accordingly, OPM is proposing to amend 5 CFR part 550 as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2011-0392; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-12-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

We received four reports of General Electric Company (GE) CT7-8 series turboshaft helicopter engines experiencing unrecoverable engine stalls, during hover in a left-roll attitude. Investigation revealed that during a prolonged left roll, excessive return oil from the AGB may return to the A-sump and exceed the sump's scavenging capability. The sump then floods, leading to over-heated oil, which preheats the air entering the engine's compressor. This preheated air causes inlet thermal distortion. This condition, if not corrected, could result in an unrecoverable engine stall, leading to a helicopter forced landing or accident.

We reviewed GE Aircraft Engines CT7-8 Turboshaft Engine Service Bulletin (SB) No. CT7-8 S/B 72-0033, dated February 11, 2011. The SB describes procedures for installing the AGB axis-A oil slinger nut to the axis-A shaft assembly.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other engines of the same type design.

This proposed AD would require the installation of an AGB axis-A oil slinger nut to the axis-A shaft assembly.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 80 engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about one work-hour per engine to perform the actions required by this proposed AD, and that the average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $700 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be $62,800.

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 above, 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, 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.

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

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-0122/Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures at Bill Martin Memorial Airport, Ava, MO. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Bilmart NDB and the cancellation of the NDB approach. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify controlled airspace at Bill Martin Memorial Airport, Ava, MO.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

On July 1, 2010, the President signed CISADA  1 into law. Section 104(c) of CISADA requires the Secretary of the Treasury (“the Secretary”) to prescribe regulations to prohibit, or impose strict conditions on, the opening or maintaining in the United States of correspondent accounts and payable-through accounts for foreign financial institutions that the Secretary finds knowingly engage in sanctionable activities described in section 104(c)(2) of CISADA. The relevant statutory language reads as follows:

On August 16, 2010, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC') published the Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations, 31 CFR Part 561 (the “IFSR”). Section 561.201 of the IFSR implements section 104(c) of CISADA. It states that the Secretary will, consistent with authorities under CISADA, prohibit or impose strict conditions on the opening or maintaining in the United States of correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts for a foreign financial institution that the Secretary finds knowingly engages in one or more of the sanctionable activities described in section 561.201(a) of the IFSR.

Section 104(e) of CISADA requires the Secretary to prescribe regulations to establish one or more specific requirements for U.S. financial institutions maintaining correspondent accounts for foreign financial institutions, in connection with the sanctionable activities described in section 104(c)(2) of CISADA. The relevant statutory language reads as follows:

In order to comply with the congressional mandate to prescribe regulations under section 104(e) of CISADA, and consistent with its statutory mission under 31 U.S.C. 310, FinCEN is implementing section 104(e)(1)(B) of CISADA. FinCEN took into consideration the possibility of implementing any one or more of the options under section 104(e)(1) of CISADA, and determined that implementing section 104(e)(1)(B) is the most useful vehicle for effecting the intent of section 104(e) at this time. Section 104(e)(1)(B) of CISADA authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations that require a domestic financial institution maintaining a correspondent account in the United States for a foreign financial institution to report to the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) with respect to transactions or other financial services provided with respect to sanctionable activities described in section 104(c)(2) of CISADA that may be carried out by the foreign financial institution.

Section 104(e)(1)(B) of CISADA authorizes Treasury to require a domestic financial institution maintaining a correspondent account for a foreign financial institution to report to Treasury with respect to transactions or other financial services the foreign financial institution may provide with respect to sanctionable activities described in section 104(c)(2) of CISADA. FinCEN believes that among the services included within the concept of “transactions or other financial services provided” by a foreign financial institution are correspondent accounts the foreign financial institution maintains for other foreign financial institutions and transfers of funds the foreign financial institution processes for other foreign financial institutions, individuals, or entities. Because a foreign financial institution's provision of correspondent account services and transfer of funds services to a financial institution designated by the U.S. Government in connection with Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction, or in connection with Iran's support for international terrorism may be relevant to the sanctionable activities described under section 104(c)(2) of CISADA, FinCEN is focusing this reporting requirement on the provision of information relating to such correspondent accounts and transfers of funds. 2 In addition, because a foreign financial institution's provision of transfer of funds services to the IRGC or any of its agents or affiliates designated by the U.S. Government may also be relevant to the sanctionable activities described under section 104(c)(2) of CISADA, FinCEN is also focusing this reporting requirement on the provision of information relating to such transfers of funds. 3

FinCEN is proposing to implement section 104(e)(1)(B) of CISADA by issuing regulations that would require a bank that maintains a correspondent account for a foreign bank to inquire of the foreign bank, and report to FinCEN, with respect to whether the foreign bank maintains a correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”);  4 whether the foreign bank has processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, other than through a correspondent account; and whether the foreign bank has processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA. 5 Specifically, if a bank receives a written request from FinCEN and the bank maintains a correspondent account for the foreign bank(s)  6 specified in FinCEN's request, the bank will be required to report to FinCEN the following information:

• The name of any specified foreign bank that certifies that it maintains a correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, and certain information with respect to such account;

• The name of any specified foreign bank that certifies that it has processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, other than through a correspondent account, and certain information with respect to such transfers of funds;

• The name of any specified foreign bank that certifies that it has processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA, and certain information with respect to such transfers of funds;

• The name of any specified foreign bank that certifies that it does not maintain a correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, and/or it has not processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution or an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA; and

• The name of any specified foreign bank for which the bank has not been able to establish to its satisfaction that the foreign bank does not maintain a correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, and/or has not processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution or an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA, together with the reason(s) for this, such as the failure of the foreign bank to respond to the inquiry by or a request from the bank, the failure of the foreign bank to certify its response, or if the bank knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the certification is incorrect. 7

In addition, FinCEN is proposing to require a bank to request, upon inquiry of a specified foreign bank, that the foreign bank agree to notify the bank if the foreign bank subsequently establishes a new correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA at any time within 365 calendar days from the date of the foreign bank's initial response, and report such information to FinCEN.

FinCEN is also proposing to require a bank to report to FinCEN instances in which the bank does not maintain a correspondent account for a foreign bank specified in a written request from FinCEN. This requirement will only apply when FinCEN specifically requests in writing that the bank report such information. To the extent possible and based on all available information, FinCEN intends to send requests directly to banks that FinCEN believes may maintain correspondent accounts with the specified foreign bank(s). The number of banks that receive a request may vary in each specific case, based on the availability of information to FinCEN and other circumstances.

On August 16, 2010, OFAC published the IFSR, 31 CFR part 561. As noted above, section 561.201 of the IFSR implements section 104(c) of CISADA. It states that the Secretary will, consistent with authorities under CISADA, prohibit or impose strict conditions on the opening or maintaining in the United States of correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts for a foreign financial institution that the Secretary finds knowingly engages in one or more of the sanctionable activities described in section 561.201(a) of the IFSR. The names of foreign financial institutions that are found by the Secretary to knowingly engage in such sanctionable activities, and for which U.S. financial institutions may not open or maintain correspondent accounts or payable-through accounts in the United States, will be published in the Federal Register and listed in appendix A to the IFSR. If the Secretary decides to impose strict conditions on the opening or maintaining of a correspondent account or a payable-through account for a foreign financial institution, the actual condition(s) to be imposed will be specified upon the identification of the foreign financial institution in an order or regulation published in the Federal Register .

The reports will be used primarily to provide Treasury with potentially useful information from U.S. banks regarding the nature of foreign bank activities that may be relevant to CISADA. Based on the reports, Treasury officials may decide to take immediate action under section 104(c) of CISADA, or, among other things, to consult with those foreign banks that maintain correspondent accounts with Iranian-linked financial institutions designated under IEEPA, that have processed one or more transfers of funds related to an Iranian-linked financial institution or an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA, or that have been unwilling to respond to inquiries from the banks at which the foreign banks maintain correspondent accounts. An investigation by OFAC into the activities of such foreign banks could result in a finding by the Secretary under section 104(c) of CISADA and section 561.201 of the IFSR. For example, when a bank reports that a foreign bank maintains a correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, or has processed one or more transfers of funds related to an Iranian-linked financial institution or an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA, OFAC could use the information to corroborate or supplement data derived from other sources and may request further information from the foreign bank to clarify whether the foreign bank is facilitating significant transactions or providing significant financial services for an Iranian-linked financial institution or an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA. Such transactions or services can be the basis for prohibiting or imposing strict conditions on the foreign bank's correspondent or payable-through accounts in the United States under section 104(c) of CISADA and section 561.201 of the IFSR.

FinCEN proposes to add 31 CFR 1060.300(a). This section would add a requirement that upon receiving a written request from FinCEN, a bank that maintains a correspondent account for a specified foreign bank shall inquire of the foreign bank and report to FinCEN within 30 days, to the best of the knowledge of the bank, with respect to any correspondent account maintained by such foreign bank for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, any transfer of funds related to an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA processed by such foreign bank within the preceding 90 calendar days, other than through a correspondent account, and any transfer of funds related to an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA processed by such foreign bank within the preceding 90 calendar days.

For the purpose of this proposed rulemaking the term “bank” is defined in 31 CFR § 1010.100(d). A bank includes each agent, agency, branch, or office within the United States of persons doing business in one or more of the following capacities: commercial banks or trust companies, private banks, savings and loan associations, national banks, thrift institutions, credit unions, other organizations chartered under banking laws and supervised by banking supervisors of any State, and banks organized under foreign law.

FinCEN and Treasury have determined that limiting the reporting requirement in this proposed rulemaking to banks will provide useful information as it relates to CISADA, while limiting the obligations of the financial industry. Although there are other financial institutions that could fall within the scope of this rule in light of the breadth of the definition of financial institution in CISADA and the breadth of the definition of correspondent account, this rule focuses on those financial institutions deemed to provide the services most traditionally associated with correspondent banking. FinCEN and Treasury may consider expanding this reporting requirement to other types of financial institutions that maintain correspondent accounts with foreign financial institutions if we determine that information will be useful for Treasury's implementation of CISADA. FinCEN requests comment as to whether this rulemaking should be expanded to include other types of financial institutions, such as those financial institutions included in FinCEN's definition of “covered financial institution.”  8

For the purpose of this proposed rulemaking the term “correspondent account” is defined in 31 CFR 1010.605(c)(1)(ii) and means an account established for a foreign bank to receive deposits from, or to make payments or other disbursements on behalf of, the foreign bank, or to handle other financial transactions related to such foreign bank. 9 Although there is a reference in section 104(e) of CISADA to payable-through accounts, as FinCEN is incorporating this requirement into its regulations, such payable-through accounts are subsumed within the definition of a correspondent account at 31 CFR 1010.610(b)(1)(iii)(B). 10

FinCEN is using the general phrase “processed one or more transfers of funds.” This terminology is meant to address circumstances through which transfers of funds are made without requiring a correspondent account, specifically including circumstances in which financial institutions are part of a common payments or clearing mechanism that provides for transfers of funds among participants without requiring bilateral correspondent account relationships. FinCEN requests comment as to whether this terminology should be further clarified, and if so, how and what terms should be used in the alternative.

For the purpose of this proposed rulemaking the term “foreign bank” is defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(u) and means a bank organized under foreign law, or an agency, branch, or office located outside the United States of a bank. The term does not include an agent, agency, branch, or office within the United States of a bank organized under foreign law.

FinCEN and Treasury have determined that limiting the reporting requirement in this proposed rulemaking to information pertaining to the activities of foreign banks will provide useful information as it relates to CISADA, while limiting the obligations of the financial industry. Although there are other foreign financial institutions that maintain correspondent accounts with U.S. financial institutions that could provide useful information with respect to CISADA-relevant activities, this rule focuses on those foreign financial institutions deemed to receive the services most traditionally associated with correspondent banking. FinCEN and Treasury may consider expanding this reporting requirement to include reports to FinCEN with respect to other types of foreign financial institutions serviced by U.S. financial institutions if we determine that such information will be useful for Treasury's implementation of CISADA. FinCEN requests comment as to whether this rulemaking should be expanded to include other types of foreign financial institutions, such as those included in FinCEN's definition of “foreign financial institution,”  11 or OFAC's definition of “foreign financial institution”  12 in the IFSR.

For the purpose of this proposed rulemaking the term “Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA” means a financial institution designated by the United States Government pursuant to IEEPA (or listed in an annex to an Executive order issued pursuant to such Act) in connection with Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction, or in connection with Iran's support for international terrorism. 13

For the purpose of this proposed rulemaking the term “IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA” means Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or any of its agents or affiliates designated by the United States Government pursuant to IEEPA (or listed in an annex to an Executive order issued pursuant to such Act). 14

The names of persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to IEEPA are published on OFAC's Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (“SDN List”). Iranian-linked financial institutions designated under IEEPA are those whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to 31 CFR part 544 or 31 CFR part 594 in connection with Iran's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction or Iran's support for international terrorism and are identified by “[IFSR]” tags located at the end of their entries on the SDN List (e.g., [NPWMD][IFSR] or [SDGT][IFSR]). IRGC-linked persons designated under IEEPA are those whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to one or more parts of 31 CFR Chapter V and are identified by “[IRGC]” tags located at the end of their entries on the SDN List ( e.g., [NPWD][IRGC] or [SDGT][IRGC]). OFAC's electronic SDN List can be found at the following URL: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/default.aspx . The following financial institutions meet the criteria of Iranian-linked financial institutions designated under IEEPA ([IFSR] tags), and the following persons meet the criteria of IRGC-linked persons designated under IEEPA ([IRGC] tags): http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/irgc_ifsr.pdf. These listings are part of the SDN List, administered by OFAC. Please note that OFAC's SDN List is dynamic and should be reviewed regularly for the most current information regarding Iranian-linked financial institutions designated under IEEPA and IRGC-linked persons designated under IEEPA.

This section describes a bank's duty to inquire of a specified foreign bank for which the bank maintains a correspondent account, as to whether such foreign bank maintains a correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, and/or has processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution or an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA. Upon receiving a written request from FinCEN, a bank that maintains a correspondent account for a specified foreign bank shall inquire of such foreign bank for the purpose of having such foreign bank certify: whether it maintains a correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA; whether it has processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, other than through a correspondent account; and whether it has processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA. In addition, when the bank makes its inquiry, the bank shall request that the foreign bank agree to notify the bank if the foreign bank subsequently establishes a new correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA at any time within 365 calendar days from the date of the foreign bank's initial response.

To assist a bank in obtaining the required information from a specified foreign bank, FinCEN is proposing a model certification format for a bank to provide to a specified foreign bank when the bank makes its inquiry regarding whether the specified foreign bank maintains a correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, and/or has processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution or an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA. This proposed model certification will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations; however, it is included at Appendix A to this Federal Register notice. In addition, FinCEN will use its website to make this proposed model certification available to the public. FinCEN requests comment as to the effectiveness of the proposed model certification.

The proposed model certification includes language identifying the purpose for which the bank is requesting information from the foreign bank. As proposed, the model certification will include the following language: “The information contained in this Certification is sought for purposes of Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (“CISADA”) (Public Law 111-195). This Certification will be used to provide the Department of the Treasury with information regarding the nature of foreign bank activities that may be relevant to CISADA.” In addition, the model certification will define foreign bank, bank, correspondent account, Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, and IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA in accordance with the proposed rule.

In the certification, a foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account with a bank is asked to certify to the bank either that (1) it does not maintain a correspondent account(s) for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA; or (2) it maintains a correspondent account(s) for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA. If a foreign bank certifies that it maintains a correspondent account(s) for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, it is asked to report the following related information for each such correspondent account: the name of the Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, the full name(s) on the correspondent account and the correspondent account number(s), applicable information regarding whether the correspondent account has been blocked or otherwise restricted, other applicable identifying information for the correspondent account, and the approximate value in United States Dollars (“USD”) of transactions processed through the correspondent account within the preceding 90 calendar days.

In the certification, a foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account with a bank is also asked to certify to the bank either that (1) it has not processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, other than through a correspondent account; or (2) it has processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, other than through a correspondent account. If a foreign bank certifies that it has processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, other than through a correspondent account, it is asked to report the following related information for each Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA: the name of the Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, the identity of the system or means by which the transfer(s) of funds was processed, the full name on the account(s) and the account number(s), if applicable, other applicable identifying information for the transfer(s) of funds, and the approximate value in USD of such transfer(s) of funds processed within the preceding 90 calendar days.

In the certification, a foreign bank that maintains a correspondent account with a bank is also asked to certify to the bank either that (1) it has not processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA; or (2) it has processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA. If a foreign bank certifies that it has processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA, it is asked to report the following related information for each IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA: the name of the IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA, the identity of the system or means by which the transfer(s) of funds was processed, the full name on the account(s) and the account number(s), if applicable, other applicable identifying information for the transfer(s) of funds, and the approximate value in USD of such transfer(s) of funds processed within the preceding 90 calendar days.

As part of the certification, the foreign bank is asked to agree to notify, in writing, the bank at which it maintains a correspondent account if the foreign bank establishes a new correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA at any time within 365 calendar days from the date of the foreign bank's response. The certification form sets forth the expectation that the notification shall be due to the bank within 30 calendar days of such change. If a bank does not utilize the proposed model certification, the bank will need to request separately that the foreign bank provide such information with respect to the establishment of a new correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA.

This section describes the filing procedures a bank shall follow to report to FinCEN information required by this proposed rulemaking. Upon receiving a written request from FinCEN, a bank is required to report to FinCEN, in such format and manner as may be prescribed by FinCEN, the following information for any specified foreign bank:

• The name of any specified foreign bank, for which the bank maintains a correspondent account, that certifies that it maintains a correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, together with the name of the Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, the full name(s) on the correspondent account and the correspondent account number(s), applicable information regarding whether the correspondent account has been blocked or otherwise restricted, other applicable identifying information for the correspondent account, and the approximate value in USD of transactions processed through the correspondent account within the preceding 90 calendar days;

• The name of any specified foreign bank, for which the bank maintains a correspondent account, that certifies that it has processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, other than through a correspondent account, together with the name of the Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, the identity of the system or means by which such transfer(s) of funds was processed, the full name on the account(s) and the account number(s), if applicable, other applicable identifying information for such transfer(s) of funds, and the approximate value in USD of such transfer(s) of funds processed within the preceding 90 calendar days;

• The name of any specified foreign bank, for which the bank maintains a correspondent account, that certifies that it has processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA, together with the name of the IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA, the identity of the system or means by which such transfer(s) of funds was processed, the full name on the account(s) and the account number(s), if applicable, other applicable identifying information for such transfer(s) of funds, and the approximate value in USD of such transfer(s) of funds processed within the preceding 90 calendar days;

• The name of any specified foreign bank, for which the bank maintains a correspondent account, that certifies that it does not maintain a correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, that certifies that it has not processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, other than through a correspondent account, and/or that certifies that it has not processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA;

• The name of any specified foreign bank, for which the bank maintains a correspondent account, about which the bank has not been able to establish to its satisfaction that the foreign bank does not maintain a correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, has not processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, other than through a correspondent account, and/or has not processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA, together with the reason(s) for this, such as the failure of the foreign bank to respond to the inquiry by or a request from the bank, the failure of the foreign bank to certify its response, or if the bank knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the certification is incorrect;

• The name of any specified foreign bank, for which the bank maintains a correspondent account, that notifies the bank that it has established a new correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA at any time within 365 calendar days from the date of the foreign bank's initial response, together with the name of the Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, the full name(s) on the correspondent account and the correspondent account number(s), applicable information regarding whether the correspondent account has been blocked or otherwise restricted, and other applicable identifying information for the correspondent account; and

• If applicable, confirmation that the bank does not maintain a correspondent account for the specified foreign bank(s), but only in instances in which FinCEN specifically requests that the bank report such information.

If a bank utilizes the proposed model certification to inquire of a specified foreign bank, the bank can submit the certification from the specified foreign bank to FinCEN in order to comply with this proposed reporting requirement. If a bank does not utilize the proposed model certification to inquire of a specified foreign bank, the bank can report to FinCEN, in such format and manner as may be prescribed by FinCEN, the information required by this proposed rulemaking. If a specified foreign bank, for which the bank maintains a correspondent account, does not adequately respond to the bank's inquiry, the bank can report to FinCEN, in such format and manner as may be prescribed by FinCEN, the name of the foreign bank for which the bank has not been able to establish to its satisfaction that the foreign bank does not maintain a correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, has not processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, other than through a correspondent account, and/or has not processed one or more transfers of funds within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA, together with the reason(s) for this, such as the failure of the foreign bank to respond to the inquiry by or a request from the bank, the failure of the foreign bank to certify its response, or if the bank knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the certification is incorrect.

If a bank receives a notification from a specified foreign bank regarding the establishment of a new correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, the bank shall report to FinCEN, in such format and manner as may be prescribed by FinCEN, the information required by this proposed rulemaking, including the name of the specified foreign bank, the name of the Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA for which the specified foreign bank has established a new correspondent account, the full name(s) on the correspondent account and the correspondent account number(s), applicable information regarding whether the correspondent account has been blocked or otherwise restricted, and other applicable identifying information for the correspondent account.

If a bank receives a written request from FinCEN regarding a specified foreign bank, for which the bank does not maintain a correspondent account, and FinCEN has specifically requested that the bank report instances in which the bank does not maintain a correspondent account for such specified foreign bank, the bank shall report this information to FinCEN, in such format and manner as may be prescribed by FinCEN.

A bank is required to report the information required by this proposed rulemaking to FinCEN within 30 days of the date of the written request from FinCEN. If a bank receives notification from a foreign bank that the foreign bank has established a new correspondent account for an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA, the bank is required to report the information required by this proposed rulemaking within 10 days of receiving that notification. FinCEN requests comment as to whether these proposed timeframes are appropriate.

This section describes the recordkeeping requirements applicable to this proposed rulemaking. A bank shall maintain for a period of five years a copy of any report filed and the original or any business record equivalent of any supporting documentation for a report, including a foreign bank certification or other responses to an inquiry under this proposed rulemaking.

Paragraph (e) states that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require a bank to take any action, or to decline to take any action, other than the requirements identified in this section, with respect to an account established for, or a transaction engaged in with, a foreign bank. However, nothing in this section relieves a bank of any other applicable regulatory obligation.” While this paragraph clarifies that the section does not require a bank to take any steps with respect to the foreign bank other than those relating to the collection of information outlined in this section, it also clarifies that this section does not preclude a bank from taking any other action, including restricting or terminating a correspondent account relationship with a foreign bank, or filing a suspicious activity report, based on the bank's risk-based assessment of the facts and bank policy.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” although not economically significant, under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), Public Law 104-4 (March 22, 1995), requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that may result in expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. FinCEN has determined that it is not required to prepare a written statement under section 202.

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ), FinCEN certifies that this proposed regulation would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would apply to banks that maintain correspondent accounts with foreign banks. As previously stated in our final rules implementing section 312, 15 313, 16 and 319(b)  17 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, most banks that maintain correspondent accounts with foreign banks tend to be large banks. We expect that small banks will be less likely to maintain correspondent accounts with foreign banks. In most cases, small banks utilize their domestic correspondent accounts with large banks to conduct transactions with foreign banks. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. FinCEN invites comments on the impact of this proposal on small entities.

The collection of information contained in this proposed rule is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and an individual is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. Comments on the information collection should be sent to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1506), Washington, DC 20503, or by the Internet to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov with a copy to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network by mail or as part of the comments through the Internet. Comments are welcome and must be received by July 1, 2011.

The collection of information in this proposal is in 31 CFR 1060.300. The information may be transmitted to one or more departments or agencies of the United States of America for the purpose of fulfilling such departments' and agencies' governmental functions. The collection of information is mandatory. FinCEN is proposing to issue regulations that would require a bank to report to FinCEN, upon request, certain information regarding certain foreign banks specified by FinCEN.

Description of Affected Financial Institutions: Banks as defined in 31 CFR 1010.100(d).

Estimated Number of Affected Financial Institutions: 350 banks.

FinCEN estimates that approximately 350 banks maintain correspondent accounts with foreign banks. 18 However, FinCEN estimates that on average only around five percent of banks that maintain correspondent accounts with foreign banks will have an account with the specific foreign bank about which FinCEN is requesting information. This smaller proportion of actual affected financial institutions in each case of a request is based on the fact that foreign banks generally only hold a limited number of correspondent account relationships with separate U.S. banks. For this reason, the estimated number of financial institutions that may maintain a correspondent account with a specific foreign bank identified in any one request from FinCEN will be in the range of 18 banks. In order to further reduce the number of affected financial institutions, when possible, FinCEN will rely on information available to Treasury to help limit the number of banks requested to provide information with respect to the foreign banks that are the subject of specific requests. In turn, FinCEN intends to send requests directly to banks that FinCEN, based on all available information, believes maintain correspondent accounts with the specified foreign bank(s). The number of banks that receive a request may vary in each specific case, based on the availability of information to FinCEN and other circumstances.

Estimated Average Annual Burden Hours Per Affected Financial Institution: Fewer than 31 hours per bank

FinCEN estimates that while there may be a series of requests to U.S. banks at the outset of implementing this regulation, subsequent requests will be infrequent. The scope of any request may be with respect to one foreign bank or a number of foreign banks (for example, a number of foreign banks operating in the same jurisdiction). FinCEN believes that regardless of the number of requests transmitted, such requests will pertain to 50 foreign banks or fewer in any given year.

A bank will only be required to comply with the requirements of this proposed rulemaking if the bank receives a written request from FinCEN. As noted above, FinCEN estimates that on average fewer than five percent of the banks that maintain correspondent accounts with foreign banks, i.e., fewer than 18 banks, will maintain correspondent accounts with the specific foreign bank about which FinCEN is requesting information. If FinCEN makes requests with respect to fewer than 50 foreign banks per year and fewer than 18 banks are required to respond, per request, with regard to a correspondent account they maintain with a specified foreign bank, there will be fewer than 900 CISADA-related reports per year.

Each time a bank receives a request from FinCEN regarding a specific foreign bank for which it maintains a correspondent account, it will incur a reporting burden associated with section 1060.300(b) (inquiry); a reporting burden associated with section 1060.300(c) (reporting); and a recordkeeping burden associated with section 1060.300(d) (record retention).

The estimated average reporting burden associated with section 1060.300(b) for one request from FinCEN is one hour per responding U.S. bank with respect to each specific foreign bank about which FinCEN is requesting information. The estimated average reporting burden associated with section 1060.300(c) for one request from FinCEN is one hour per bank. The estimated average recordkeeping burden associated with section 1060.300(d) for one request from FinCEN is one hour per bank. This results in a total estimated average burden of three hours per bank with respect to each foreign bank about which FinCEN is requesting information. In the unlikely scenario in which the same bank were required to respond to FinCEN with respect to each foreign bank about which FinCEN is seeking information in any given year, the estimated annual burden hours would be 150. It is more likely that a particular U.S. bank will only have to respond to FinCEN queries in more limited situations and the average time spent per bank will be much less. FinCEN believes that even with respect to the banks that are most active in the provision of correspondent accounts to foreign banks, they are likely to be required to respond to FinCEN with respect to one fifth of the foreign banks about which FinCEN is seeking information, which corresponds to roughly 30 burden hours per year based on the above calculations.

In certain instances FinCEN may request that if a bank receives a written request from FinCEN regarding a specified foreign bank, and the bank does not maintain a correspondent account for such specified foreign bank, the bank report this information to FinCEN. As noted above, FinCEN intends to send requests to banks that FinCEN is aware have a correspondent account with a specified foreign bank as often as possible. In instances in which FinCEN is not aware of which banks maintain a correspondent account for a specified foreign bank, FinCEN may send requests to those banks FinCEN believes might have a correspondent account with a specified foreign bank.

In instances in which FinCEN is sending a request to a small number of banks that FinCEN believes might have a correspondent account with a specified foreign bank, FinCEN may request, in the written request sent to those banks, that the banks that do not have an account with the specified foreign bank report such information to FinCEN. FinCEN believes that we will rarely be sending a request to a large number of banks that we are not certain have an account with the specified foreign bank for which we are requesting information. In those rare cases, FinCEN would most likely not ask those banks to report if they do not maintain a correspondent account with such foreign bank.

FinCEN believes that the estimated average reporting burden for a bank to report to FinCEN that it does not maintain a correspondent account for the foreign bank specified in a request from FinCEN will only be 30 minutes per request. FinCEN also estimates that across the 50 requests FinCEN anticipates making annually, on average only two to five banks will receive a request from FinCEN regarding a foreign bank for which they do not maintain a correspondent account, and for which FinCEN requests that they report such information. This means that no more than 250 banks will be required to report that they do not maintain a correspondent account with a foreign bank specified in a request from FinCEN in any given year. This also means that no more than 125 estimated annual burden hours will be expended each year. FinCEN also estimates that no single bank will receive a request from FinCEN more than two times per year regarding a specified foreign bank for which it does not maintain a correspondent account, and for which FinCEN requests that it report such information. This corresponds to roughly one estimated average annual burden hour per bank.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,825 total annual burden hours.

Fewer than 900 CISADA-related reports anticipated each year (provided by a varying number of banks) multiplied by three burden hours per report. (2,700 total annual burden hours). Fewer than 250 reports from banks that do not maintain a correspondent account with a specified foreign bank (provided by a varying number of banks) multiplied by 30 minutes of burden per report. (125 total annual burden hours).

FinCEN is seeking comments on these estimates. Comments are specifically requested concerning:

• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of FinCEN and other components of Treasury, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information;

• How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced; and

• How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

FinCEN invites comments on any and all aspects of this proposal.

FinCEN specifically invites comment on requests above, as well as the following:

Effects of the Rule on Foreign Correspondent Account Relationships: FinCEN is also seeking comments regarding the impact of this information collection on banks' correspondent account relationships with foreign banks.

Minimum Dollar Threshold for Reporting on Transfers of Funds Related to an Iranian-Linked Financial Institution Designated Under IEEPA or an IRGC-Linked Person Designated Under IEEPA: FinCEN is also seeking comments regarding whether setting a minimum dollar threshold for a foreign bank to be required to report on transfers of funds processed within the preceding 90 calendar days related to an Iranian-linked financial institution designated under IEEPA or related to an IRGC-linked person designated under IEEPA would lessen the reporting obligations, while still providing useful information. FinCEN seeks comments regarding what that minimum dollar threshold should be.

For the reasons set forth above, part 1060 is added to read as follows:

Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” means EPA.

Section 109 of the Act requires EPA to establish NAAQS for pollutants that “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare,” and to develop a primary and secondary standard for each NAAQS. The primary standard is designed to protect human health with an adequate margin of safety, and the secondary standard is designed to protect public welfare and the environment. EPA has set NAAQS for six common air pollutants, referred to as criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. These standards present state and local governments with the minimum air quality levels they must meet to comply with the Act. Also, these standards provide information to residents of the United States about the air quality in their communities.

The SIP is a set of air pollution regulations, control strategies, other means or techniques, and technical analyses developed by the state, to ensure that the state meets the NAAQS. The SIP is required by section 110 and other provisions of the Act. These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emissions inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to EPA for approval and incorporation into the Federally enforceable SIP. Each Federally approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin.

On July 18, 1997, we promulgated new and revised NAAQS for ozone (62 FR 38856) and PM (62 FR 38652). For ozone, we set an 8-hour standard of 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to replace the 1-hour standard of 0.12 ppm. For PM, we set a new annual and a new 24-hour NAAQS for particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers (denoted PM 2.5 ). The annual PM 2.5 standard was set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ). The 24-hour PM 2.5 standard was set at 65 μg/m 3 . For more information on these standards, please see the 1997 Federal Register notices (62 FR 38856 and 62 FR 38652).

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act, states are required to submit SIPs that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement (the infrastructure) of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of the NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the specific infrastructure elements that must be incorporated into the SIPs, including for example, requirements for air pollution control measures, and monitoring that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. A table listing all 14 infrastructure elements is included in subsection D of section I of this proposed rulemaking. 1 Thus states were required to submit such SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2000. 2 However, intervening litigation over the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS created uncertainty about how to proceed and many states did not provide the required “infrastructure” SIP submission for these newly promulgated NAAQS.

On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related to the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA entered into a consent decree with Earthjustice which required EPA, among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice announcing EPA's determinations pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the Act as to whether each state had made complete submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by December 15, 2007. Subsequently, EPA received an extension of the date to complete this Federal Register notice until March 17, 2008, based upon agreement to make the findings with respect to submissions made by January 7, 2008. In accordance with the consent decree, EPA made completeness findings for each state based upon what the Agency received from each state as of January 7, 2008. With regard to the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS, EPA entered into a consent decree with Earthjustice which required EPA, among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice announcing EPA's determinations pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) of the Act as to whether each state had made complete submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS by October 5, 2008.

On March 27, 2008, and October 22, 2008, we published findings concerning whether states had made the necessary 110(a)(2) submissions for the 1997 ozone (73 FR 16205) and PM 2.5 standards (73 FR 62902). In the March 27, 2008 action, we found that New Mexico had made a submission that addressed some, but not all of the section 110(a)(2) requirements of the Act necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 3 In the October 22, 2008 action, we found that New Mexico had made a complete SIP submission that provides for the basic program elements specified in section 110(a)(2) of the Act necessary to implement the 1997 PM 2.5 NAAQS.

On October 2, 2007, we issued “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM 2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” Memorandum from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. 4 The guidance provides that to the extent that existing SIPs for ozone and PM already meet the requirements, states need only certify that fact to us.

On December 10, 2007, the Governor of New Mexico submitted a letter certifying that NMED has evaluated the New Mexico SIP and found that the SIP satisfies the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On March 3, 2008, the Governor of New Mexico submitted a letter certifying that NMED has evaluated the New Mexico SIP and found that the SIP does not satisfy all the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 PM  2.5 NAAQS. The March 3, 2008 letter included a table with an explanation of how the current New Mexico SIP meets most of the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for the PM  2.5 NAAQS and also a table outlining what sections of New Mexico's SIP need to be revised to comply with the section 110(a)(2) requirements for the PM  2.5 NAAQS. 5 On April 19, 2011, NMED submitted a letter clarifying its submittals to make clear that the portion of the PSD SIP that is currently not acted upon by EPA ( i.e., the portions from which EPA removed its previous approval) is not part of its infrastructure submissions. 6 These letters are in the docket for this rulemaking.

EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part distinct from one another, establish the overall framework for today's proposed action on the New Mexico SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly called, the “Endangerment Finding” and “Cause or Contribute Finding,” which EPA issued in a single final action, 7 the “Johnson Memo Reconsideration,”  8 the “Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,”  9 and the “Tailoring Rule.”  10 Taken together and in conjunction with the CAA, these actions: (1) Established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; (2) determined that such regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and (3) limited the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA took this last action in the Tailoring Rule, which, more specifically, established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources. In December 2010, EPA followed up on these actions by issuing the “PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,”  11 in which EPA withdrew its previous approval of SIP PSD programs in 24 states, including New Mexico, that apply to GHG-emitting sources below the thresholds in the final Tailoring Rule. The Tailoring Rule and PSD SIP Narrowing Rule both discuss the states' ability to provide assurances that they will have adequate resources to meet the new GHG PSD permitting requirements at statutory levels of emissions, and the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule affected EPA's prior approval of portions of a state's SIP that do not incorporate thresholds established under the Tailoring Rule. On November 10, 2010, New Mexico adopted revisions to the State's PSD rules to implement the GHG thresholds established in EPA's GHG Tailoring Rule and submitted the corresponding SIP revision to EPA on December 1, 2010. On April 14, 2011, EPA proposed approval of New Mexico's GHG rules submitted on December 1, 2010 (76 FR 20907). EPA intends to take final action on the December 1, 2010 submittal in a separate rulemaking no later than EPA's final action on New Mexico's 1997 ozone and PM  2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals. Additionally, the NMED submitted a clarification letter to EPA on April 19, 2011, clarifying that the portions of the PSD program related to greenhouse gas permitting that remained approved after the promulgation of EPA's PSD SIP Narrowing Rule satisfy sections 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) of the Act. As we discuss further in this notice and in the TSD, New Mexico currently has adequate resources to carry out the GHG component of the currently approved PSD SIP program, which requires PSD permitting for sources emitting GHGs at or above the 75,000/100,000 tons per year (tpy) threshold specified by the Tailoring Rule.

The October 2, 2007, EPA guidance for addressing the SIP infrastructure elements required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 ozone and PM  2.5 NAAQS, provides a list of 14 essential components that States must include in their SIPs. These are listed in Table 1 below.

EPA is proposing to approve the New Mexico SIP submittals that identify where and how the 14 basic infrastructure elements are in the EPA-approved SIP as specified in section 110(a)(2) of the Act. The New Mexico submittals do not include revisions to the SIP, but document how the current New Mexico SIP already includes the required infrastructure elements. In today's action, we are proposing to find that the following section 110(a)(2) elements are contained in the current New Mexico SIP and provide the infrastructure for implementing the 1997 ozone and PM  2.5 standards: Emission limits and other control measures (section 110(a)(2)(A)); ambient air quality monitoring/data system (section 110(a)(2)(B)); program for enforcement of control measures (section 110(a)(2)(C)); international and interstate pollution abatement (section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)); adequate resources (section 110(a)(2)(E)); stationary source monitoring system (section 110(a)(2)(F)); emergency power (section 110(a)(2)(G)); future SIP revisions (section 110(a)(2)(H)); consultation with government officials (section 110(a)(2)(J)); public notification (section 110(a)(2)(J)); PSD and visibility protection (section 110(a)(2)(J)); air quality modeling/data (section 110(a)(2)(K)); permitting fees (section 110(a)(2)(L)); and consultation/participation by affected local entities (section 110(a)(2)(M)).

EPA is proposing to correct a CFR codification technical error made in the table titled “ EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP,” found at 40 CFR 52.1620(e). 14 EPA approved New Mexico's Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan into the SIP on August 21, 1990 (55 FR 34013) under the SIP codification method in existence at the time. When we changed our SIP codification method for New Mexico on July 13, 1998 (63 FR 37493), we added the table currently found under 40 CFR 52.1620(e), and included entries in this table for all EPA approved nonregulatory provisions in the New Mexico SIP, including those approved prior to 1998. We note that we made an error in not including the already SIP approved New Mexico Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan when we added this table under 40 CFR 52.1620(e). We are proposing to make a CFR codification technical correction to amend the table titled “ EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP” to include an entry for the New Mexico Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan approved by EPA into the SIP on August 21, 1990 (55 FR 34013, 40 CFR 52.1639(a)). 15 EPA is proposing to make this CFR codification technical correction because it clarifies that EPA has approved the State's air pollution episode provisions into the New Mexico SIP.

EPA is also proposing to correct two CFR codification technical errors made in the table titled “ EPA Approved New Mexico Regulations,” found at 40 CFR 52.1620(c). 16 On October 20, 1995, New Mexico adopted a recodification of the State's air quality control regulations (AQCRs). 17 New Mexico submitted the recodification of, and revisions to, the SIP on January 8, 1996, and EPA approved these revisions into the SIP on September 26, 1997 (62 FR 50514). We would like to clarify that when we approved the recodification of, and revisions to, the New Mexico SIP in the September 26, 1997 rulemaking, we made a codification error in 40 CFR 52.1620(c) by incorrectly including entries in the table titled “ EPA Approved New Mexico Regulations” for part 70 ( Operating Permits ) and part 71 ( Operating Permit Emission Fees ) of 20.2 NMAC, which constitute New Mexico's Title V permitting program and the associated permitting fees, respectively. 18 The preamble of the September 26, 1997 rulemaking contains a table listing the rules submitted by New Mexico as a recodification, which EPA had reviewed and approved as a recodification to the New Mexico SIP (62 FR 50514, see pages 50516-17). This table in the preamble did not contain part 70 or part 71 of 20.2 NMAC, yet the CFR table found at 40 CFR 52.1620(c) and the New Mexico Identification of Plan at 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(66)(i)(B)  19 erroneously included the two Title V regulations. The preamble of the September 26, 1997 rulemaking did not act to approve these two Title V regulations as part of the New Mexico SIP. Further, we have never taken any rulemaking action to approve parts 70 and 71 into the New Mexico SIP. Therefore, New Mexico's Title V permitting program has always been, and continues to be outside the scope of the New Mexico SIP. 20 In addition, the table titled “ EPA Approved New Mexico Regulations,” currently incorrectly lists the EPA approval date of the recodification of New Mexico's regulations in the SIP to be November 25, 1997. Although the Federal Register citation (62 FR 50514) listed under the table is correct, the November 25, 1997 date is incorrect and should be changed to September 26, 1997. EPA is proposing to amend the table titled “ EPA Approved New Mexico Regulations,” found at 40 CFR 52.1620(c), by deleting the entries for parts 70 and 71 of 20.2 NMAC and by changing the EPA approval date of the 62 FR 50514 rulemaking from the currently listed date of November 25, 1997 to the correct date of September 26, 1997. We are also proposing to amend 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(66)(i)(B) such that it reads as follows: “New Mexico Administrative Code, Title 20, Chapter 2, Parts 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 40, 41, 60, 61, 72 (Subparts I, II and III; Subpart V, Sections 501 and 502), 73, 75, 79, and 80; adopted by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board on October 20, 1995, and filed with the State Records and Archives Center on October 30, 1995.” EPA is proposing to make the CFR codification technical corrections to 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(66)(i)(B) and to the table titled “ EPA Approved New Mexico Regulations,” found under 40 CFR 52.1620(c), as indicated above, because it is necessary to clarify which New Mexico air quality regulations are currently approved into the New Mexico SIP and the EPA approval date of these regulations into the SIP. 21

In reviewing the history of New Mexico's PSD program for the purposes of the infrastructure SIP, we found that the State's PSD program was conditionally approved into the SIP on February 27, 1987 (52 FR 5964). In the February 27, 1987 rulemaking, New Mexico's PSD program was conditionally approved by EPA on the basis that (i) the State would not issue permits to sources that would require review under EPA's stack height regulations because they would have a stack height over 65 meters or would use any other dispersion techniques, as defined at 40 CFR 51.1(hh); and (ii) as quickly as possible, the State would adopt and submit as a plan revision a regulation that is equivalent to the regulations in 40 CFR Part 51 promulgated to implement Section 123 of the Act, regarding stack heights. On May 14, 1985, the Governor of New Mexico submitted a letter in which he committed the State not to issue PSD permits to sources that would require review under EPA's stack height regulations because they would have stack heights over 65 meters or would use any other dispersion techniques, as defined at 40 CFR 51.1(hh). 22 On April 26, 1988, New Mexico submitted as a SIP revision a new regulation on stack height requirements to satisfy the Federal requirements of 40 CFR Part 51. On November 2, 1988, EPA approved New Mexico's stack height regulation into the SIP (53 FR 44191). Thus, condition (i) of our February 27, 1987 conditional approval of New Mexico's PSD program was met when New Mexico complied with the Governor's May 14, 1985 commitment letter in the interim, and condition (ii) was met when we approved New Mexico's stack height regulations in the November 2, 1988 rulemaking. Therefore, upon our approval of New Mexico's stack height regulations in the November 2, 1988 rulemaking, New Mexico had fully met all the conditions of EPA's February 27, 1987 conditional approval of the State's PSD program. However, due to an administrative oversight, EPA failed to convert the conditional approval of New Mexico's PSD program into a full approval at that time. We note that the fact that EPA has not formally converted the conditional approval to a full approval has no impact on the State's authority to implement the PSD program. Therefore, we now propose to convert our February 27, 1987 conditional approval of the State's PSD program to a full approval based on our approval of the State's stack height regulations in the November 2, 1988 rulemaking (53 FR 44191).

In accordance with our proposal to convert our February 27, 1987 conditional approval of New Mexico's PSD program to a full approval, we intend to make codification technical corrections to 40 CFR 52.1634(a) and 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(39). 23 40 CFR 52.1634(a) currently identifies New Mexico's PSD program as meeting the requirements of part C of the Act for prevention of significant deterioration of air quality and as being SIP approved, but does not explain that we initially conditionally approved the State's PSD program on February 27, 1987, and that New Mexico has since then met the conditions of our conditional approval. We are proposing to amend the paragraph at 40 CFR 52.1634(a) to read as follows: “The plan submitted by the Governor of New Mexico on February 21, 1984 (as adopted by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (NMEIB) on January 13, 1984), August 19, 1988 (as revised and adopted by the NMEIB on July 8, 1988), and July 16, 1990 (as revised and adopted by the NMEIB on March 9, 1990), Air Quality Control Regulation 707—Permits, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and its Supplemental document, is approved as meeting the requirements of part C, Clean Air Act, for preventing significant deterioration of air quality. Additionally, on November 2, 1988, EPA approved New Mexico's stack height regulation into the SIP (53 FR 44191), thereby satisfying the conditions of EPA's conditional approval of the State's PSD program on February 27, 1987 (52 FR 5964). Therefore, the conditional approval is converted to a full approval when we take final action on this CFR correction.” 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(39) currently identifies New Mexico's stack height regulation submitted on April 26, 1988 as having been approved into the SIP, but does not identify that this denotes that New Mexico has fully satisfied all conditions of our February 27, 1987 conditional approval of New Mexico's PSD program. We are proposing to amend the paragraph at 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(39) to read as follows: “On April 26, 1988, the Governor of New Mexico submitted a revision to the State Implementation Plan that contained Air Quality Control Regulation No. 710—Stack Height Requirements, as adopted by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board on March 10, 1988. Regulation No. 710 enables the State to ensure that the degree of emission limitation required for the control of any air pollutant under its SIP is not affected by that portion of any stack height that exceeds GEP or by any other dispersion technique. With EPA's November 2, 1988, approval of the State's revision to the State Implementation Plan to include Regulation No. 710 (53 FR 44191), the State has satisfied the conditions of our February 27, 1987 conditional approval of the State's plan for preventing significant deterioration of air quality (52 FR 5964). When we take final action on this CFR correction, the conditional approval will be converted to a full approval.”

We are proposing the above CFR codification technical corrections to the paragraphs at 40 CFR 52.1634(a) and 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(39) because we are proposing to convert our February 27, 1987 conditional approval of New Mexico's PSD program to a full approval.

In conjunction with our proposed finding that the New Mexico SIP meets the section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure SIP elements listed above, we are also proposing to fully approve a severable portion of a SIP revision submitted by NMED to EPA on November 2, 2006. This portion of the submittal contains a revision to 20.2.3 NMAC ( Ambient Air Quality Standards ) and is not a requirement under the infrastructure SIPs, and therefore our proposed approval of this revision is severable from our proposed approval of New Mexico's infrastructure SIP submittals. The revision adds a new subpart 9 to 20.2.3 NMAC, including language to ensure that sources being issued a permit under the State's minor source permitting program, found at 20.2.72 NMAC ( Construction Permits ), are required to continue to address the State's ambient air quality standards in their application. The revision includes language in 20.2.3.9 NMAC that removes the state ambient air quality standards from being an applicable requirement under the State's Title V permitting program, found at 20.2.70 NMAC ( Operating Permits ). Because New Mexico's Title V program is outside the scope of the New Mexico SIP, this revision does not constitute a relaxation of the current New Mexico SIP. 24 As described above in subsection C of this section, we made a codification error in 40 CFR 52.1620(c) by incorrectly including entries in the table titled “ EPA Approved New Mexico Regulations” for part 70 ( Operating Permits ) and part 71 ( Operating Permit Emission Fees ) of 20.2 NMAC, which are State regulations that have not been approved into the New Mexico SIP. As the New Mexico Title V permitting program, codified at 20.2.70 NMAC, has not been approved into the New Mexico SIP, approval of the November 2, 2006 revision to 20.2.3 NMAC is appropriate and will not constitute a relaxation of the current New Mexico SIP. The SIP revision to 20.2.3 NMAC we are proposing to approve is severable from the portions of the November 2, 2006 SIP submittal on which we are taking no action in this rulemaking. By severable, we mean that the portion of the SIP revisions we are proposing to approve can be implemented independently of the portions on which we are not acting, without affecting the stringency of the submitted rules. EPA is not proposing to take action on any other portions of the November 2, 2006 SIP revisions in this proposed rulemaking; EPA intends to act on the other revisions in a separate rulemaking. EPA proposes to approve the portion of the November 2, 2006 revision, as indicated above, because it clarifies the permitting requirements under the New Mexico SIP.

The New Mexico submittals address the elements of Section 110(a)(2) as described below. We provide a more detailed review and analysis of the New Mexico infrastructure SIP elements in the Technical Support Document (TSD), located in the docket for this rulemaking.

Enforceable emission limits and other control measures, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(A): Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that all measures and other elements in the SIP be enforceable. This provision does not require the submittal of regulations or emission limits developed specifically for attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 standards. Those regulations are due later as part of attainment demonstrations.

The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Act, found in Chapter 74, Article 1 of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978 (denoted NMSA 1978 74-1), created the NMED and the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board (EIB). The New Mexico Air Quality Control Act codified at NMSA 1978 74-2, delegates authority to the EIB to adopt, promulgate, publish, amend and repeal regulations consistent with the Air Quality Control Act to attain and maintain NAAQS and prevent or abate air pollution. See NMSA 1978 74-2-5(B)(1). The Air Quality Control Act also designates the NMED as the State's air pollution control agency and the Environmental Improvement Act provides the NMED with enforcement authority. The SIP rule at Title 20 of the New Mexico Administrative Code (denoted as 20 NMAC) describes NMED as the State's air pollution control agency and its enforcement authority, referencing the NMSA 1978 (44 FR 21019, April 9, 1979; revised 49 FR 44101, November 2, 1984; recodified approved in 62 FR 50518, September 26, 1997).

The NMED has promulgated rules to limit and control emissions of PM, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 25 These rules include emission limits, control measures, permits, fees, and compliance schedules and are found in Title 20, chapter 2 of the NMAC 26 (denoted 20.2 NMAC): 20.2 NMAC parts 3, 5, 7-8, 10-22, 30-34, 40-41, 72-75, and 98-99.

In this proposed action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing New Mexico SIP provisions with regard to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility. 27 EPA believes that a number of states may have SSM SIP provisions that are contrary to the Act and existing EPA guidance, 28 and the Agency plans to address such state regulations in the future. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to correct it as soon as possible. Similarly, in this proposed action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states may have such provisions that are contrary to the Act and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987), 29 and the Agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision in its SIP which is contrary to the Act and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

A detailed list of the applicable 20.2 NMAC parts discussed above is provided in the TSD. New Mexico's SIP clearly contains enforceable emission limits and other control measures, which are in the Federally enforceable SIP. EPA is proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Ambient air quality monitoring/data analysis system, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(B): Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to include provisions for establishment and operation of ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to EPA upon request. The NMED operates and maintains a statewide network of air quality monitors; data are collected, results are quality assured, and the data are submitted to EPA's Air Quality System 30 on a regular basis. New Mexico's Statewide Air Quality Surveillance Network was approved by EPA on August 6, 1981 (46 FR 40005), and consists of stations that measure ambient concentrations of the six criteria pollutants, including ozone and PM 2.5 . The air quality surveillance network undergoes annual review by EPA. On July 7, 2010, NMED submitted its 2010 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan (AAMNP) that included the plans for the 1997 ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA approved New Mexico's 2010 AAMNP on January 7, 2011. 31 The NMED Web site provides the ozone and PM 2.5 monitor locations, and current and historical data ( http://air.nmenv.state.nm.us/ ).

In summary, New Mexico meets the requirement to establish, operate, and maintain an ambient air monitoring network, collect and analyze the monitoring data, and make the data available to EPA upon request. EPA is proposing to find that the current New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program, as required by Parts C and D, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C): Regarding a program for enforcement of control measures, as stated previously, the Air Quality Control Act designates the NMED as the State's air pollution control agency and the Environmental Improvement Act provides the NMED with authority to enforce the state's environmental quality rules. The NMED established rules governing emissions of the criteria pollutants and their precursors throughout the State and these rules are in the Federally enforceable SIP. The rules in 20.2 NMAC parts 3, 5, 7-8, 10-22, 30-34, 40-41, 72-75, and 98-99 include allowable emission rates, compliance, control plan requirements, actual and allowable emissions, monitoring and testing requirements, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and control schedules. These rules clarify the boundaries beyond which regulated entities in New Mexico can expect enforcement action.

To meet the requirement for having a program for the regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, including a permit program as required by Parts C and D, generally, the State is required to have SIP-approved PSD, Nonattainment, and Minor NSR permitting programs adequate to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. We are not evaluating nonattainment-related provisions, such as the Nonattainment NSR program required by part D in 110(a)(2)(C) and measures for attainment required by section 110(a)(2)(I), as part of the infrastructure SIPs for these two NAAQS because these submittals are required beyond the date (3 years from NAAQS promulgation) that section 110 infrastructure SIP submittals are required.

PSD programs apply in areas that are meeting the NAAQS, referred to as areas in attainment, and in areas for which there is insufficient information to designate as either attainment or nonattainment, referred to as unclassifiable areas. As described in the section titled “ What Action is EPA Proposing ?,” New Mexico's PSD program was conditionally approved into the SIP on February 27, 1987 (52 FR 5964). Today, we propose to convert the conditional approval to a full approval on the basis of our November 2, 1988 approval of New Mexico's April 26, 1988 submittal to include in the SIP a new regulation on stack height requirements to satisfy the Federal requirements of 40 CFR Part 51. Subsequent revisions to New Mexico's PSD program were approved into the SIP on August 21, 1990 (55 FR 34013), May 2, 1991 (56 FR 20137), October 15, 1996 (61 FR 53639), March 10, 2003 (68 FR 11316), December 24, 2003 (68 FR 74483), September 5, 2007 (72 FR 50879), and November 26, 2010 (75 FR 72688).

To meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone standard, EPA believes the State must have updated its PSD rules to treat NO X as a precursor for ozone (70 FR 71612). On November 26, 2010, EPA approved revisions to New Mexico's PSD SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to include NO X as an ozone precursor (75 FR 72688).

To implement section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 PM 2.5 standard, EPA believes that States should appropriately implement the interim policy for preconstruction (PSD) review as interpreted by legal rulings. 32 States may follow this approach until May 16, 2011, the date by which we required states to provide revisions to their PSD regulations to implement the PM 2.5 standard as provided under 73 FR 28321. 33 During the transition to SIP-approved PSD requirements for PM 2.5 , New Mexico confirmed to EPA by letter that: (1) it does not use PM 10 as a surrogate for PM 2.5 in its permitting programs; (2) it requires that applicants include PM 2.5 modeling and emissions in their PSD and minor source permit applications; and (3) the record for the NMED's permitting decision includes an explanation of how PM 2.5 emissions have been appropriately analyzed and estimated. 34 (See also 75 FR 52692, page 52700; 75 FR 72688, page 72694). Furthermore, the State has recently proposed to revise their rules to address PM 2.5 in their PSD program, and expects to adopt these revisions in May 2011. The State is planning to submit these revised PSD rules to EPA as a SIP revision by May 16, 2011. EPA will act on this submission in a separate rulemaking.

New Mexico has the authority to issue permits under the SIP-approved PSD program to sources of GHG emissions (75 FR 82536, page 82536, December 30, 2010). 35 The Tailoring Rule established thresholds that phase in the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources, starting with the largest GHG emitters, and were designed to relieve the overwhelming administrative burdens and costs associated with the dramatic increase in permitting burden that would have resulted from applying PSD requirements to GHG emission increases at or above only the mass-based statutory thresholds of 100/250 tpy generally applicable to all PSD-regulated pollutants starting on January 2, 2011. However, EPA recognized that even after it finalized the Tailoring Rule, many SIPs with approved PSD programs would, until they were revised, continue to apply PSD at the statutory thresholds, even though the states would not have sufficient resources to implement the PSD program at those levels. EPA consequently implemented its “PSD SIP Narrowing Rule” and narrowed its approval of those provisions of previously approved SIPs of 24 states, including New Mexico, that apply PSD to GHG emission increases from sources emitting GHGs below the Tailoring Rule thresholds (75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010). Through the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA withdrew its previous approvals of those programs to the extent the SIPs apply PSD to increases in GHG emissions from GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds. The portions of the PSD programs regulating GHGs from GHG-emitting sources with emission increases at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds remained approved. The effect of EPA narrowing its approval in this manner is that the provisions of previously approved SIPs that apply PSD to GHG emissions increases from sources emitting GHGs below the Tailoring Rule thresholds have the status of having been submitted by the state but not yet acted upon by EPA (75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010).

On November 10, 2010, New Mexico adopted revisions to the State's PSD rules to implement the GHG thresholds established in EPA's GHG Tailoring Rule and submitted the corresponding SIP revision to EPA on December 1, 2010. On April 14, 2011, EPA proposed approval of New Mexico's GHG rules submitted on December 1, 2010 (76 FR 20907). EPA intends to take final action on the above proposal in a separate rulemaking no later than EPA's final action on New Mexico's 1997 ozone and PM 2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals. We are proposing to find that the current New Mexico PSD SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS, as long as we are able to fully approve New Mexico's GHG submittal on or before our final action on New Mexico's 1997 ozone and PM 2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals.

Additionally, New Mexico submitted a clarification letter to EPA on April 19, 2011, clarifying that the portion of the GHG PSD program in the State's submittal under infrastructure SIP review is only the portion that remained approved after EPA's promulgation of the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, which is the portion that regulates GHG-emitting sources with GHG emissions at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds. Therefore, if we are unable to fully approve New Mexico's GHG submittal, in the alternative, we are proposing to find that the current New Mexico PSD SIP meets section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS on the basis of the State's April 19, 2011 clarification letter.

Section 110(a)(2)(C) creates “a general duty on States to include a program in their SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved” (70 FR 71612, 71677). EPA provides states with a “broad degree of discretion” in implementing their Minor NSR programs (71 FR 48696, 48700). The “considerably less detailed” regulations for minor NSR are provided in 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164. EPA has determined that New Mexico's Minor NSR program adopted pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act regulates emissions of all regulated air contaminants for which there is a NAAQS (20.2.72.200 NMAC). New Mexico's Minor NSR permitting requirements are found at 20.2.72 NMAC and were approved into the SIP on May 14, 1973 (38 FR 12702). 36 In this action, EPA is proposing to approve New Mexico's infrastructure SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove the State's existing Minor NSR program itself to the extent that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA believes that a number of states may have Minor NSR provisions that are contrary to the existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA intends to work with states to reconcile state Minor NSR programs with EPA's regulatory provisions for the program. The statutory requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in designing Minor NSR programs, and EPA believes it may be time to revisit the regulatory requirements for this program to give the states an appropriate level of flexibility to design a program that meets their particular air quality concerns, while assuring reasonable consistency across the country in protecting the NAAQS with respect to new and modified minor sources.

EPA is proposing to find that the current New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Interstate and international transport, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act requires compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. Section 115(a) addresses endangerment of public health or welfare in foreign countries from pollution emitted in the United States. Pursuant to section 115, the Administrator has neither received nor issued a formal notification that emissions from New Mexico are endangering public health or welfare in a foreign country. Section 126(a) of the Act requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from such sources. Under section 126(a)(1)(A), SIPs must require notification to nearby, affected states of “major proposed new (or modified) sources” when the source is subject to PSD. New Mexico's SIP approved PSD program rules at 20.2.74.400 NMAC satisfy the requirements of section 126(a)(1)(A) by providing that the NMED must send notice of the proposed action on PSD permits to, among others, “any state * * * whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source or modification.” The State also has no pending obligations under section 126 of the Act.

EPA is proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Adequate personnel, funding, and authority, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(E): The Department of the Environment Act provides that the secretary of the NMED “shall * * * employ and fix the compensation of those persons necessary to discharge his duties * * *” See NMSA 1978 9-7A-6(B). The NMED is also authorized to receive State appropriations to implement environmental programs. See generally, NMSA 1978 9-7A. There are Federal sources of funding for the implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS, through, for example, the CAA sections 103 and 105 grant funds. The NMED receives Federal funds on an annual basis, under sections 103 and 105 of the Act, to support its air quality programs. Additionally, the State provides funds equal to 40 percent of the 105 grant fees it receives.

Fees collected for the Title V and non-Title V permit programs, and other inspections, maintenance and renewals required of other air pollution sources also provide necessary funds to help implement the State's air programs. Information on permitting fees is provided in the discussion for section 110(a)(2)(L) below. The Air Quality Control Act designates the NMED as the State air pollution control agency for all purposes under Federal legislation relating to air pollution and provides the NMED with the power “to accept, receive and administer grants or other funds or gifts from public and private agencies, including the Federal government, or from any person * * *” See NMSA 1978 74-2-5.1(F). For more detail on funding sources, please see the TSD.

The Air Quality Control Act delegates authority to the EIB to adopt, promulgate, publish, amend and repeal regulations consistent with the Air Quality Control Act to attain and maintain national ambient air quality standards and prevent or abate air pollution. See NMSA 1978 74-2-5(B)(1). The Environmental Improvement Act provides the NMED with the power “to enforce the rules, regulations and orders promulgated by the board * * *” See NMSA 1978 74-1-6(F). The Air Quality Control Act also gives the NMED the duty to “develop and present to the environmental improvement board or the local board a plan for the regulation, control, prevention or abatement of air pollution * * *” and gives the EIB the authority to adopt such a plan. See NMSA 1978 74-2-5.1(H) and NMSA 1978 74-2-5(B)(2). Therefore, the State has demonstrated it has adequate authority under its rules and regulations to carry out its SIP obligations with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

As discussed previously in this rulemaking with regards to section 110(a)(2)(C), on November 10, 2010, New Mexico adopted revisions to the State's PSD rules to implement the GHG thresholds established in EPA's GHG Tailoring Rule and submitted the corresponding SIP revision to EPA on December 1, 2010. EPA proposed approval of these revisions on April 14, 2011 (76 FR 20907). The GHG Tailoring Rule implemented thresholds establishing applicability of the PSD permitting program to GHG-emitting sources only if they emit GHGs in amounts above the 75,000/100,000 tpy of carbon dioxide equivalent (denoted CO 2 e). Thus sources in affected states, including New Mexico, will not be subject to Federal or state requirements to obtain permits at the lower 100/250 tpy level. The Tailoring Rule thresholds were designed to relieve the overwhelming administrative burdens and costs associated with the dramatic increase in permitting burden that would have resulted from applying PSD at the statutory levels (100/250 tpy). EPA intends to take final action on the above proposal in a separate rulemaking no later than EPA's final action on New Mexico's 1997 ozone and PM 2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals. We are proposing to find that the current New Mexico PSD SIP meets section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS, as long as we are able to fully approve New Mexico's GHG submittal on or before our final action on New Mexico's 1997 ozone and PM 2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals; or, in the alternative, we are proposing to find that the current New Mexico PSD SIP meets section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS on the basis of the State's April 19, 2011 clarification letter.

EPA is proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Stationary source monitoring system, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(F): New Mexico's regulations at 20.2 NMAC parts 5, 7-8, 10-20, 30-34, 40-41, and 72-74 require source monitoring for compliance, recordkeeping and reporting, and provide for enforcement with respect to all the NAAQS and their precursors. These source monitoring program requirements generate data for, among other pollutants, ozone, PM 2.5 , and the precursors to these pollutants (VOCs, NO X , and SO 2 ).

Under the New Mexico SIP rules, the NMED is required to analyze the emissions data from point, area, mobile, and biogenic (natural) sources. The NMED uses this data to track progress towards maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies, identify sources and general emission levels, and determine compliance with New Mexico and EPA requirements. The State's emissions data are available on the NMED Web site ( http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us ). These rules have been approved by EPA into the SIP. A list of the rules and Federal Register citations are provided in the TSD.

There are two requirements that New Mexico must meet regarding emissions inventories (EIs): the EI requirement for nonattainment areas, and the requirement to submit annual EI data to EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database. Because Nonattainment NSR is outside the scope of this rulemaking, we are not addressing New Mexico's EI for nonattainment areas in this proposed action. The NEI is EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states are given to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System (EIS). States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and the precursors that form them—nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. The NMED is current with their submittals to the NEI database; the 2008 data was submitted to EPA in 2010. The State's emissions data are also available on EPA's AirData Web site ( http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html ). 37

EPA is proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Emergency power, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(G): Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires States to provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs. The Air Quality Control Act provides the NMED with authority to address environmental emergencies, and the NMED has contingency plans to implement emergency episode provisions in the SIP. New Mexico promulgated the “Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan for New Mexico,” which includes contingency measures, and these provisions were approved into the SIP on August 21, 1990 (55 FR 34013). The criteria for ozone are based on a 1-hour average ozone level. These episode criteria and contingency measures are adequate to address ozone emergency episodes and are in the Federally approved SIP.

As explained in the section of this rulemaking titled “ What Action Is EPA Proposing? ,” in this rulemaking we are also proposing to make a CFR codification technical correction to amend the table titled “ EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions And Quasi-Regulatory Measures In The New Mexico SIP ” under 40 CFR 52.1620(e), to include an entry for the New Mexico Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan approved by EPA into the SIP on August 21, 1990 (see 55 FR 34013, 40 CFR 52.1639(a)). EPA is proposing to make this CFR codification technical correction because it clarifies that EPA previously approved the State's air pollution episode provisions into the New Mexico SIP.

The 2009 Infrastructure SIP Guidance for PM 2.5 recommends that a state with at least one monitored 24-hour PM 2.5 value exceeding 140.4 µg/m 3 since 2006 establish an emergency episode plan and contingency measures to be implemented should such level be exceeded again. The 2006-2010 ambient air quality monitoring data  38 for New Mexico do not exceed 140.4 µg/m 3 . The PM 2.5 levels have consistently remained below this level (140.4 µg/m 3 ), and furthermore, the State has appropriate general emergency powers to address PM 2.5 related episodes to protect the environment and public health. Given the State's low monitored PM 2.5 levels, EPA is proposing the State is not required to submit an emergency episode plan and contingency measures at this time, for the 1997 PM 2.5 standard. Additional detail is provided in the TSD.

EPA is proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Future SIP revisions, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H): The Air Quality Control Act provides that the EIB shall “* * * adopt, promulgate, publish, amend, and repeal regulations consistent with the Air Quality Control Act to attain and maintain national ambient air quality standards and prevent or abate air pollution * * *.” See NMSA 1978 74-2-5(B)(1). The Environmental Improvement Act provides that the NMED shall, “* * * enforce the rules, regulations and orders promulgated by the board * * *.” See NMSA 1978 74-1-6(F). In addition, the Air Quality Control Act requires the NMED to, “* * * advise, consult, contract with and cooperate with local authorities, other states, the Federal government and other interested persons or groups in regard to matters of common interest in the field of air quality control * * *” See NMSA 1978 74-2-5.2(B). Thus, New Mexico has the authority to revise its SIP from time to time as may be necessary to take into account revisions of primary or secondary NAAQS, or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standards. Furthermore, New Mexico also has the authority under the above provisions to revise its SIP in the event the EPA, pursuant to the Act, finds the SIP to be substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS.

EPA is proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Consultation with government officials, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(J):  39 The Air Quality Control Act, as codified at NMSA 1978 74-2-6, provides that, “no regulations or emission control requirement shall be adopted until after a public hearing by the environmental improvement board or the local board” and provides that, “at the hearing, the environmental improvement board or the local board shall allow all interested persons reasonable opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments orally or in writing and to examine witnesses testifying at the hearing.” See NMSA 1978 74-2-6(B) and (D). In addition, the Air Quality Control Act provides that the NMED shall have the power and duty to “advise, consult, contract with and cooperate with local authorities, other states, the Federal government and other interested persons or groups in regard to matters of common interest in the field of air quality control * * *” See NMSA 1978 74-2-5.2(B). The State's SIP approved PSD rules at 20.2.74.400 NMAC mandate that the NMED shall provide for public participation and notification regarding permitting applications to any other state or local air pollution control agencies, local government officials of the city or county where the source will be located, and Federal Land Managers (FLM) whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source or modification. The State's SIP approved PSD rules at 20.2.74.403 NMAC require the NMED to consult with FLMs regarding permit applications for sources impacting Class I Federal areas. 40 Furthermore, the State of New Mexico has committed in the SIP to consult continually with the FLMs on the review and implementation of the visibility program and to notify the FLM of any advance notification or early consultation with a major new or modifying source prior to the submission of the permit application. 41 The State's SIP approved Transportation Conformity rules at 20.2.99.116 and 20.2.99.124 NMAC require that interagency consultation and opportunity for public involvement be provided before making transportation conformity determinations and before adopting applicable SIP revisions on transportation-related SIPs. 42 These rules are in the Federally-approved SIP.

EPA is proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Public notification if NAAQS are exceeded, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(J): Public notification begins with the air quality forecast, which advises the public of conditions capable of exceeding the NAAQS (see 54 FR 9783). New Mexico's provisions regarding public notification of instances or areas in which any primary NAAQS was exceeded were approved into the SIP on August 24, 1983 (48 FR 38466). In addition, the NMED air monitoring Web site provides live air quality data for each of the monitoring stations in New Mexico. 43 The Web site also provides information on the health effects of ozone, particulate matter, and other criteria pollutants.

EPA is proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

PSD and visibility protection, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(J): This portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) in part requires that a state's SIP meet the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) as relating to PSD programs. As detailed in the subsection titled “ Program for enforcement of control measures and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source * * * pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(C)” of this rulemaking and in the TSD, New Mexico's PSD program was conditionally approved into the SIP on February 27, 1987 (52 FR 5964). New Mexico has since then met the conditions of our conditional approval, so we are proposing to convert our conditional approval into a full approval. The State's PSD program is in the SIP (52 FR 5964, 53 FR 44191, 55 FR 43013, 56 FR 20137, 61 FR 53639, 68 FR 11316, 68 FR 74483, 72 FR 50879, and 75 FR 72688). In addition, to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 ozone standard, EPA believes the State must have updated its PSD rules to treat NO X as a precursor for ozone. On November 26, 2010, EPA approved a SIP revision that modified New Mexico's PSD SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard to include NO X as an ozone precursor (75 FR 72688). To implement section 110(a)(2)(C) for the 1997 PM 2.5 standard, EPA believes that States should appropriately implement the interim policy for preconstruction review, as described above. During the transition to SIP-approved PSD requirements for PM 2.5, NMED submitted a letter to EPA clarifying that: (1) It does not use PM 10 as a surrogate for PM 2.5 in its permitting programs; (2) it requires that applicants include PM 2.5 modeling and emissions in their PSD and minor source permit applications; and (3) the record for the NMED's permitting decision includes an explanation of how PM 2.5 emissions have been appropriately analyzed and estimated. Furthermore, the State has recently proposed to revise their rules to address PM 2.5 in their PSD program, and expects to adopt these revisions in May 2011. The State is planning to submit to EPA these revised PSD rules as a SIP revision by May 16, 2011. The State's minor source permitting requirements were approved at 38 FR 12702. The portions of the State's PSD program related to permitting GHGs at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds are approvable in light of the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule. As discussed above, regarding GHG permitting, EPA intends to take final action on the December 1, 2010 submittal in a separate rulemaking no later than EPA's final action on New Mexico's 1997 ozone and PM 2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals. We are proposing to find that the current New Mexico PSD SIP meets section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS, as long as we are able to fully approve New Mexico's GHG submittal on or before our final action on New Mexico's 1997 ozone and PM 2.5 infrastructure SIP submittals; or, in the alternative, we are proposing to find that the current New Mexico PSD SIP meets section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS on the basis of the State's April 19, 2011 clarification letter. EPA is proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the PSD requirement of section 110(a)(2)(C). A more detailed discussion is provided in subsection 110(a)(2)(C) above and in the TSD. EPA is proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

EPA approved New Mexico's Visibility Protection Plan and approved a Long-Term Strategy for Visibility Protection into the New Mexico SIP on January 27, 2006 (71 FR 4490). The State submitted a Regional Haze SIP to EPA on December 1, 2003. On January 15, 2009, we published a “Finding of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plans Required by the 1999 regional haze rule” (74 FR 2392). We found that New Mexico had failed to submit for our review and approval a complete SIP for improving visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas by the required date of December 17, 2007. Specifically, we found that New Mexico had failed to submit the plan elements required by 40 CFR 51.309(g), 44 and the plan element required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), which requires BART for stationary source emissions of NO X and PM under either 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or 51.308(e)(2). 45 On January 13, 2009, New Mexico submitted a letter to EPA, clarifying that they intended to submit a Regional Haze SIP revision in 2009 to address the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) and 40 CFR 51.309(g). 46 New Mexico has since stated that they intend to make this necessary submission in 2011. To date, the State has not made a Regional Haze SIP submission. The State proposed to adopt a Regional Haze SIP on February 28, 2011, and the public comment period will run through June 1, 2011. EPA will take action separately on New Mexico's Regional Haze SIP once the State makes this submittal. With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, EPA recognizes that States are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under Part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation “triggered” under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective; and as such, visibility protection requirements are not relevant for purposes of this action. This would be the case even in the event a secondary PM 2.5 NAAQS for visibility is established, because this NAAQS would not affect visibility requirements under part C. EPA is therefore proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Air quality modeling and submission of data, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(K): The Air Quality Control Act authorizes NMED to “develop facts and make investigations and studies,” thereby providing for the functions of environmental air quality assessment. As an example, New Mexico submitted modeling and control measures in a SIP revision to demonstrate attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 47 The modeling and control measures in the SIP revision were approved by EPA and adopted into the SIP.

This section of the Act also requires that a SIP provide for the submission of data related to such air quality modeling to the EPA upon request. The Air Quality Control Act authorizes NMED to cooperate with the Federal government in regard to matters of common interest in the field of air quality control, thereby allowing it to make this submission to EPA. See NMSA 1978 74-2-5.2(B).

EPA is proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Permitting fees, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(L): The Air Quality Control Act provides the EIB with the legal authority for establishing an emission fee schedule and a construction permit fee schedule to recover the reasonable costs of acting on permit applications, implementing, and enforcing permits. See NMSA 1978 74-2-7. New Mexico's Permit Fee System was approved by EPA on July 17, 1991 (56 FR 32511). New Mexico's Permit Fee System implements a fee system for all preconstruction air permits issued by NMED. New Mexico's regulations for construction permit fees are found at 20.2.75 NMAC. The State's Title V program and associated fees legally are not part of the SIP, but were approved by EPA on November 26, 1996 (61 FR 60032) as part of the New Mexico Title V Program. EPA is reviewing the New Mexico Title V program, including the Title V fee structure, separate from this action. Because the Title V program and associated fees legally are not part of the SIP, the infrastructure SIP action we are proposing today does not preclude EPA from taking future action regarding New Mexico's Title V program.

EPA is proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

Consultation/participation by affected local entities, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(M): As indicated above, the Air Quality Control Act provides that, “no regulations or emission control requirement shall be adopted until after a public hearing by the environmental improvement board or the local board” and provides that, “at the hearing, the environmental improvement board or the local board shall allow all interested persons reasonable opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments orally or in writing and to examine witnesses testifying at the hearing.” See NMSA 1978 74-2-6(B) and (D). In addition, the Air Quality Control Act provides that the NMED shall have the power and duty to “advise, consult, contract with and cooperate with local authorities, other states, the Federal government and other interested persons or groups in regard to matters of common interest in the field of air quality control * * *” See NMSA 1978 74-2-5.2(B). New Mexico's SIP approved PSD regulations at 20.2.74.400 NMAC mandate that the NMED shall provide for public participation and notification regarding permitting applications to any other state or local air pollution control agencies, local government officials of the city or county where the source will be located, and FLMs whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source or modification. New Mexico's SIP approved Transportation Conformity regulations at 20.2.99.116 and 20.2.99.124 NMAC require that interagency consultation and opportunity for public involvement be provided before making transportation conformity determinations and before adopting applicable SIP revisions on transportation-related SIPs. 48

EPA is proposing to find that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS.

We are proposing to approve the submittals provided by the State of New Mexico to demonstrate that the New Mexico SIP meets the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Act for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5 NAAQS. We are proposing to find that the current New Mexico SIP meets the infrastructure elements listed below:

Emission limits and other control measures (110(a)(2)(A) of the Act);

Ambient air quality monitoring/data system (110(a)(2)(B) of the Act);

Program for enforcement of control measures (110(a)(2)(C) of the Act);

Interstate and international transport (110(a)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act);

Adequate resources (110(a)(2)(E) of the Act);

Stationary source monitoring system (110(a)(2)(F) of the Act);

Emergency power (110(a)(2)(G) of the Act);

Future SIP revisions (110(a)(2)(H) of the Act);

Consultation with government officials (110(a)(2)(J) of the Act);

Public notification (110(a)(2)(J) of the Act);

Prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection (110(a)(2)(J) of the Act);

Air quality modeling data (110(a)(2)(K) of the Act);

Permitting fees (110(a)(2)(L) of the Act); and

Consultation/participation by affected local entities (110(a)(2)(M) of the Act).

EPA is also proposing to make CFR codification technical corrections to amend the following:

1. The table titled “ EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions And Quasi- Regulatory Measures In The New Mexico SIP,” found under 40 CFR 52.1620(e), by including an entry for New Mexico's already SIP approved Air Pollution Episode Contingency Plan.

2. The table titled “ EPA Approved New Mexico Regulations,” found under 40 CFR 52.1620(c), by (i) deleting entries for part 70 ( Operating Permits ) and part 71 ( Operating Permit Emission Fees ) of 20.2 NMAC and (ii) correcting the currently listed EPA approval date for the recodification of New Mexico's air quality regulations in the SIP.

3. 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(66)(i)(B), by amending the paragraph such that it correctly identifies the State regulations submitted by the State and approved by EPA into the New Mexico SIP.

4. 40 CFR 52.1634(a) and 40 CFR 52.1640(c)(39), by amending each paragraph such that it identifies that New Mexico has fully met all conditions of our February 27, 1987 conditional approval of New Mexico's PSD program such that our conditional approval is converted to a full approval.

We are also proposing to convert our February 27, 1987, conditional approval of New Mexico's PSD program (52 FR 5964), to a full approval based on the November 2, 1988, approval of New Mexico's stack height regulations (53 FR 44191), at which point New Mexico fully met the condition in the conditional approval.

Lastly, EPA is proposing to approve a severable revision to regulation 20.2.3 NMAC ( Ambient Air Quality Standards ), which was submitted by New Mexico on November 2, 2006. The revision to 20.2.3 NMAC removes the state ambient air quality standards from being an applicable requirement under the State's Title V permitting program, found at 20.2.70 NMAC ( Operating Permits ). The revision also adds language to ensure that sources being issued a permit under the State's minor source permitting program, found at 20.2.72 NMAC ( Operating Permits ), are required to continue to address the State's ambient air quality standards in their application.

EPA is proposing these actions in accordance with section 110 and part C of the Act and EPA's regulations and is consistent with EPA guidance.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

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

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. 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/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

• 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. 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.

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

In this FNPRM adopted February 1, 2011 and released February 2, 2011, the Commission seeks comment on requiring anyone making an ex parte presentation to disclose the identity of any real party in interest to the issues discussed. At times a party making an ex parte contact may be representing the interests of another undisclosed party, or the presenter's interest in the proceeding may not be entirely clear. The Commission found that a disclosure requirement that addresses these problems without imposing undue burdens on the disclosing party, or requiring duplicative filing of generally-available information, would serve the public interest. The FNPRM solicits comment on what type of disclosure rule would balance those two interests, and how it should be applied. Comment is sought on the suitability of using existing judicial disclosure rules, such as Supreme Court Rules 29.6 and 37.6, or Rule 26.1 of the Rules for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Comment is also sought on the possible use of the Lobbying Disclosure Act as a model. Comment is requested on the range of proceedings to which new disclosure rules should apply, and whether disclosure requirements should apply to trade associations and non-profit entities. Finally, the Commission asks a number of logistical questions regarding disclosure. Comment is sought on whether disclosure should be required when the information to be disclosed can be found in existing Commission records or on the party's Web site. If reliance were to be placed on information already in the Commission's records, how would the Commission ensure its information is up-to-date and easily accessible? Comment is requested on whether the Commission should create a single electronically accessible source for all disclosure statements, and how often filers should be required to update this information.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Our proposed action does not require notice and comment, and therefore falls outside the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), and requires no initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis under Section 604 of that Act, 5 U.S.C. 604. We nevertheless note that we anticipate that the alternatives proposed in the FNPRM will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities or impose significant costs on parties to Commission proceedings. We will, however, send a copy of the FNPRM to the Chief Counsel of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as 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, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due July 1, 2011.

Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0430.

Title: Section 1.1206, Permit-but-Disclose Proceedings.

Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profits; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; and State, local or tribal governments.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 11,500 respondents; 34,500 responses.

Estimated time per Response: 45 minutes (0.75 hours).

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

Frequency of Response: On-occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure.

Total Annual Burden: 25,875 hours.

Total Annual Cost: None.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impacts.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting that respondents submit confidential information; however, consistent with the Commission's rules on confidential treatment of submissions, under 47 CFR 0.459, a presenter may request confidential treatment of ex parte presentations. In addition, the Commission will permit parties to remove metadata containing confidential or privileged information, and the Commission will also not require parties to file electronically ex parte notices that contain confidential information. The Commission will, however, require a redacted version to be filed electronically at the same time the paper filing is submitted, and that the redacted version must be machine-readable whenever technically possible.

Needs and Uses: The Commission's rules, under 47 CFR 1.1206, require that a public record be made of ex parte presentations ( i.e., written presentations not served on all parties to the proceeding or oral presentations as to which all parties have not been given notice and an opportunity to be present) to decision-making personnel in “permit-but-disclose” proceedings, such as notice-and-comment rulemakings and declaratory ruling proceedings. Persons making such presentations must file two copies of written presentations and two copies of memoranda reflecting new data or arguments in oral presentations no later than the next business day after the presentation; alternatively, in proceedings in which electronic filing is permitted, a copy may be filed electronically.

On February 2, 2011, the FCC released a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket Number 10-43, FCC 11-11, which amends and reforms the Commission's rules on ex parte presentations (47 CFR 1.1206(b)(2)) made in the course of Commission rulemakings and other permit-but-disclose proceedings. The modifications to the existing rules adopted in this Report and Order address these problems by requiring that parties file more descriptive summaries of their ex parte contacts, by ensuring that other parties and the public have an adequate opportunity to review and respond to information submitted ex parte, and by improving the FCC's oversight and enforcement of the ex parte rules. The modified ex parte rules provide as follows: (1) Ex parte notices will be required for all oral ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings, not just for those presentations that involve new information or arguments not already in the record; (2) If an oral ex parte presentation is limited to material already in the written record, the notice must contain either a succinct summary of the matters discussed or a citation to the page or paragraph number in the party's written submission(s) where the matters discussed can be found; (3) Notices for all ex parte presentations must include the name of the person(s) who made the ex parte presentation as well as a list of all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the presentation was made; (4) Notices of ex parte presentations made outside the Sunshine period must be filed within two business days of the presentation; (5) The Sunshine period will begin on the day (including business days, weekends, and holidays) after issuance of the Sunshine notice, rather than when the Sunshine Agenda is issued (as the current rules provide); (6) If an ex parte presentation is made on the day the Sunshine notice is released, an ex parte notice must be submitted by the next business day, and any reply would be due by the following business day. If a permissible ex parte presentation is made during the Sunshine period (under an exception to the Sunshine period prohibition), the ex parte notice is due by the end of the same day on which the presentation was made, and any reply would need to be filed by the next business day. Any reply must be in writing and limited to the issues raised in the ex parte notice to which the reply is directed; (7) Commissioners and agency staff may continue to request ex parte presentations during the Sunshine period, but these presentations should be limited to the specific information required by the Commission; (8) Ex parte notices must be submitted electronically in machine-readable format. PDF images created by scanning a paper document may not be submitted, except in cases in which a word-processing version of the document is not available. Confidential information may continue to be submitted by paper filing, but a redacted version must be filed electronically at the same time the paper filing is submitted. An exception to the electronic filing requirement will be made in cases in which the filing party claims hardship. The basis for the hardship claim must be substantiated in the ex parte filing; (9) To facilitate stricter enforcement of the ex parte rules, the Enforcement Bureau is authorized to levy forfeitures for ex parte rule violations; (10) Copies of electronically filed ex parte notices must also be sent electronically to all staff and Commissioners present at the ex parte meeting so as to enable them to review the notices for accuracy and completeness. Filers may be asked to submit corrections or further information as necessary for compliance with the rules. Where staff believes there are instances of substantial or repeated violations of the ex parte rules, staff should report such to the General Counsel; and (11) Minor conforming and clarifying rule changes proposed in the Notice are adopted. The only change entailing increased information collection is the requirement that parties making permissible ex parte presentations in restricted proceedings must file an ex parte notice.

The information is used by parties to permit-but-disclose proceedings, including interested members of the public, to respond to the arguments made and data offered in the presentations. The responses may then be used by the Commission in its decision-making. The availability of the ex parte materials ensures that the Commission's decisional processes are fair, impartial, and comport with the concept of due process in that all interested parties can know of and respond to the arguments made to the decision-making officials.

Currently, persons making ex parte presentations have no obligation to disclose whether the person making the presentation represents a real party-in-interest whose identity has not been disclosed. In this FNPRM, the Commission proposed to require the disclosure of the identity of real parties-in-interest, which would further the goal of openness and transparency in the Commission decision making process.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( VRS FNPRM ), document FCC 11-54, adopted April 5, 2011, and released April 6, 2011, in CG Docket No. 10-51, seeking comment on proposed modifications to its certification process for all Internet-based relay providers. Simultaneously with the VRS FNPRM, the Commission issued a Report and Order in CG Docket No. 10-51. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules to detect and prevent fraud and abuse in the provision of video relay service. The full text of FCC 11-54 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. FCC 11-54 and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com , or by calling 1-800-378-3160. FCC 11-54 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html#orders .

Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section of this document. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive discussion and questions raised in the VRS FNPRM. The Commission further directs all interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. The Commission strongly encourages that parties track the organization set forth in the VRS FNPRM in order to facilitate its internal review process. Comments and reply comments must otherwise comply with 47 CFR 1.48 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's rules.

Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200 et. seq., this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substances of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in 47 CFR 1.1206(b). To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Title of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

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

The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained in the document FCC 11-54, as required by the PRA, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due July 1, 2011. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

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 may “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”

OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.

Title: Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; CG Docket No. 10-51.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business and other for-profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 11 respondents and 49 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour to 75 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual, one-time, and on occasion reporting requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for these proposed information collections is found at section 225 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 225. The law was enacted on July 26, 1990, as Title IV of the ADA, Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 327, 366-69.

Total Annual Hourly Burden: 1,033 hours.

Total Annual Costs: None.

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: An assurance of confidentiality is not offered because this information collection does not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII) from individuals.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impacts.

Needs and Uses: In the VRS FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on a number of proposed modifications to the Commission's certification process for all Internet-based relay providers to ensure that all entities seeking certification in the future are fully qualified to provide service in compliance with the Commission's rules and orders. The VRS FNPRM contains potential information collection requirements with respect to the following four of its proposals, all of which could further the aims of the VRS FNPRM.

(A) Whether potential Internet-based relay providers should be required to provide full and detailed information in its application for certification that show its ability to comply with the Commission's rules. The VRS FNPRM specifically proposes that provider applicants provide documentary and other evidence demonstrating that the applicant owns and operates facilities associated with TRS call centers, and employs ASL interpreters, on a full or part-time basis, to staff such call centers at the date of the application.

(B) Whether Internet-based relay providers should be required to submit annual reports that include updates to the information to the application for certification.

(C) Whether each certified Internet-based relay provider should be required to seek prior Commission authorization of any voluntary interruption in the provision of Internet-based TRS.

(D) Whether each certified Internet-based relay provider should be required to submit a written notification to Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau within two business days of when an unforeseen service interruption first occurred with an explanation of how the provision of its service had been restored or will be restored imminently.

1. In document FCC 11-54, the Commission seeks comment on a number of proposed modifications to our certification process for all Internet-based relay providers, including VRS providers, to ensure that all entities seeking certification in the future—or currently certified entities seeking re-certification—are fully qualified to provide Internet-based relay service in compliance with the Commission's rules, including all of the new obligations adopted in the accompanying Report and Order to reduce waste, fraud and abuse, and improve oversight of the Commission's relay programs.

2. The Commission proposes to ensure that the certification process enables the Commission to identify providers that are qualified to provide Internet-based relay services in accordance with our rules.

3. First, the Commission proposes that all Internet-based relay providers be required to receive certification from the Commission, under the procedures and guidelines proposed herein, to be eligible to receive compensation from the TRS Fund. Under this proposal, certification by the Commission would be the sole method by which an Internet-based TRS provider could become eligible to receive compensation from the TRS Fund. An Internet-based relay provider would no longer be permitted to receive compensation from the TRS Fund merely: (1) by virtue of its contract with a certified state TRS program; (2) through its contract with an interstate common carrier; (3) because it is an interstate common carrier; or (4) because it is certified by a state. Eligibility through these methods has failed to ensure that providers are qualified to provide VRS or to provide the Commission with the requisite information to determine whether providers are complying with the Commission's TRS rules.

4. The Commission proposes that all providers that are not already certified by the Commission, be required to apply to the Commission for certification to provide Internet-based TRS. The Commission further proposes that an applicant be certified or be permitted to renew its certification only upon a determination by the Commission that such applicant has adequately demonstrated its ability to comply with all of the Commission's rules, including those adopted in the accompanying Report and Order. The Commission proposes that mere attestations be inadequate to satisfy this standard. Instead, the Commission proposes requiring evidence of an applicant's ability to comply with the Commission's rules governing the qualifications of CAs, including speed of answer, facility redundancy to ensure continuance of the service, and other operational and technical standards designed to ensure provision of a service that is functionally equivalent to voice telephone service.

5. Specifically, the Commission proposes that applicants provide the following documentary and other evidence, as needed, demonstrating that the applicant owns and operates facilities associated with TRS call centers, and employs ASL interpreters, on a full or part-time basis, to staff such call centers at the date of the application:

• A copy of each deed or lease for each call center operated by the applicant;

• A list of individuals or entities that hold at least a 10 percent equity interest in the applicant, have the power to vote 10 percent or more of the securities of the applicant, or exercise de jure or de facto control over the applicant, a description of the applicant's organizational structure, including the names of its executives, officers, partners, and board of directors, as well as an attestation that no such individual has been convicted of a felony;

• A list of all of the names of applicant's full-time and part-time employees;

• Proofs of purchase or license agreements for use of all equipment and/or technologies, including hardware and software, used by the applicant for its call center functions, including but not limited to, ACD, routing, call setup, mapping, call features, billing for compensation from the TRS fund, and registration;

• Copies of employment agreements for all of the provider's executives and CAs;

• Copies of any subcontracting agreements for services not directly essential for the provision of Internet-based relay (such as maintenance and transportation services);

• A list of all financing arrangements pertaining to the provision of Internet-based relay service, including documentation on loans for equipment, inventory, property, promissory notes, and liens;

• Copies of all other agreements associated with the provision of Internet-based relay service; and

• A list of all sponsorship arrangements ( e.g., those providing financial support or in-kind interpreting or personnel service for social activities in exchange for brand marketing), including any associated agreements.

6. In addition, the Commission proposes that the certification process include, at the Commission's discretion, other measures, including on-site visits to the premises of applicants, to assess the merits of certification applications, and seeks comment on what those measures may be. The Commission further seeks input on what other types of documentation the Commission should require, including the level of detail it should require, to ensure that it is able to assess whether an applicant is fully qualified to provide Internet-based relay service in compliance with the Commission's rules and requirements.

7. In order to be entitled to compensation from the TRS Fund for providing Internet-based TRS, the TRS provider's facilities must have redundancy features in the event of call center or network outages, as well comply with the other minimum standards that apply to all TRS. At present, however, the Commission's rules do not explicitly address the obligations associated with a provider's decision to temporarily cease its operations. To avoid future interruptions in service that may hamper the ability of relay customers to place Internet-based TRS calls, the Commission proposes requiring that each certified provider seek prior Commission approval of any voluntary interruption in the provision of Internet-based TRS. In order to comply with this requirement, the Commission proposes that a provider be directed to submit a written request to the Commission's CGB at least 60 days prior to any planned interruption, with detailed information of (1) Its justification for such service interruption; (2) its plan to notify customers about the impending interruption; and (3) its plans for resuming service, so as to minimize the impact of such interruption on consumers through a smooth transition of temporary service to another provider, and restoration of its service at the completion of such interruption.

8. The Commission further proposes delegating authority to the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) to grant or deny such requests for service interruptions, and provide a timely response to the provider, in order to afford an adequate period of notification to consumers. The Commission also proposes taking enforcement action against certified providers, including, but not limited to the revocation of their certifications and/or suspension of payment in the event that the provider voluntarily interrupts its service without sufficient prior notification to the Commission, or in the event that the requested cessation proceeds notwithstanding CGB's denial of the provider's request.

9. In order to ensure the seamless delivery of Internet-based TRS during any transition period following the Commission's establishment of new eligibility requirements and certification procedures, the Commission proposes to allow any provider currently eligible to receive compensation from the TRS Fund via a means other than FCC certification, concurrently with the submission of its application for Commission certification, to seek a temporary waiver of any new requirements to obtain certification from the Commission prior to offering Internet-enabled TRS, while its application is pending. The Commission seeks comment on what an applicant seeking such a waiver should have to demonstrate in order to establish that a temporary waiver of the certification requirement would serve the public interest. Further, in the event that an applicant's request for temporary waiver and/or application for certification is denied, the Commission proposes that the applicant be given at least 30 days to discontinue its service in order to allow its affected consumers sufficient time for transition to another eligible provider's service.

10. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” to have the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

11. In document FCC 11-54, the Commission seeks further comment on a number of proposed modifications to our current eligibility requirements for Internet-based TRS providers, including VRS providers, that seek certification from the Commission to be eligible for compensation from the TRS Fund. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals to ensure that all entities seeking certification in the future—or currently certified entities seeking re-certification—are fully qualified to provide Internet-based relay service in compliance with our rules and requirements, including all of the revised obligations adopted in the accompanying Report and Order, to reduce waste, fraud and abuse, and improve oversight.

12. Specifically, the VRS FNPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should require that all Internet-based TRS providers be certified by the Commission to become eligible to receive compensation from the TRS Fund. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether new and renewing applicants should provide specific documentary evidence of their ability to comply with our TRS rules. The Commission seeks comment on whether the certification process should include, at the Commission's discretion, other measures, including on-site visits to the premises of applicants, to assess the merits of certification applications. The Commission also proposes to revise its annual report filing guidelines to require further documentation.

13. The Commission further proposes to require that providers seek approval from the Commission for voluntary interruption of service, and that providers notify the Commission of unforeseen service interruptions in the provision of Internet-based TRS. Finally, the Commission proposes to allow a provider that is currently eligible to receive compensation from the TRS Fund via a means other than FCC certification, to file an application for certification under the Commission's new rules. While such a provider's application is pending, the Commission proposes to permit the applicant to seek a temporary waiver of any new requirements to obtain certification from the Commission prior to offering Internet-enabled TRS, to enable the provider to continue to receive compensation from the Fund and to continue providing Internet-based TRS while such provider's application is pending.

14. With regard to the economic impact of the VRS FNPRM, the Commission notes that all providers potentially affected by the proposed rules, including those deemed to be small entities under the SBA's standard, would be entitled to receive prompt reimbursement for their reasonable costs of compliance. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the VRS FNPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on any entities. In addition, even if there were an adverse economic impact, no more than five of the eleven providers impacted by the proposed rules meet the definition of a small entity. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.

15. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the proposals in the VRS FNPRM, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

16. The Commission will send a copy of the VRS FNPRM, including a copy of this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.

17. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), (j) and (o), 225, and 303(r), of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), (j) and (o), 225, and 303(r), document FCC 11-54 is adopted.

18. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 64 as follows:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ), document FCC 11-62, adopted April 14, 2011, and released April 15, 2011, in CG Docket Nos. 10-51 and 03-123, seeking comment on a proposal to extend the current VRS rates and further comment on VRS reform. The full text of FCC 11-62 and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. FCC 11-62 and copies of subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact the Commission's duplicating contractor at its Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com, or by calling 1-800-378-3160. FCC 11-62 can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/trs.html#orders.

Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section of this document. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive discussion and questions raised in the document FCC 11-62. The Commission further directs all interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. Comments and reply comments must otherwise comply with 47 CFR 1.48 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's rules.

Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq., this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substances of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclose proceedings are set forth in 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

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

Document FCC 11-62 seeks comment on a potential new or revised information collection requirement or may result in a new or revised information collection requirement. If the Commission adopts any new or revised information collection requirement, the Commission will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on the requirement, as mandated by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. See Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission will seek specific comment from the public on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, see Public Law 107-198; 47 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).”

1. In document FCC 11-62, the Commission seeks further comment on VRS market structure and compensation method proposals related to the structure and practices of the VRS program initially raised in Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, CG Docket No. 10-51, Notice of Inquiry, published at 75 FR 41863, July 19, 2010 ( 2010 VRS NOI ). For example, the Commission seeks comment on specific proposals for VRS accounting. The Commission also seeks comment on how to treat certain costs and expenses. Commenters should address whether the Commission should limit or exclude the expenses of raising capital from VRS rates in general, or whether individual providers should not receive some or all compensation for the costs incurred in various methods of raising capital. Similarly, the Commission invites comment on the proper regulatory treatment of various methods used by providers to raise capital, including appropriate disclosure and approval requirements that may be implemented.

2. In addition, in the event that the Commission is unable to finalize the compensation structure for VRS in time to calculate a new rate for the Fund year beginning July 1, 2011, the Commission tentatively concludes that extending the current interim rates and compensation structure for VRS to the 2011-12 Fund year would be appropriate. The current interim rates have resulted in significant savings for the Fund, demand for VRS has remained stable during the 2010-11 Fund year, and data submitted to the Fund administrator demonstrate that no VRS provider has failed to meet speed of answer requirements under the interim rates. The Commission also recognizes the certainty and stability that the current compensation structure can offer until final rules in the 2010 VRS NOI proceeding are implemented. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.

3. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an initial regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 601(6). In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632.

4. In document FCC 11-62, the Commission seeks comment on the rates and compensation for VRS for the 2011-12 Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS) Fund (Fund) year. Specifically, the Commission seeks further comment on VRS market structure and compensation method proposals initially raised in a 2010 VRS NOI related to the structure and practices of the VRS program. In addition, in the event the Commission is unable to fully resolve the issues raised in the 2010 VRS NOI prior to the beginning of the 2011-12 Fund year, the Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that extending the current interim rates and compensation structure provides the best means to ensure stability and certainty for VRS while the Commission continues to evaluate the issues and the substantial record developed in response to this proceeding.

5. The Commission's proposed action is to extend the current 2010-2011 rates for VRS for the upcoming 2011-2012 Fund year. The Commission concludes that this proposal will not impose a financial burden on entities, including small businesses, because these entities will continue to be promptly reimbursed from the Interstate TRS Fund at the same rate at which they are currently compensated.

6. Therefore, the Commission certifies that the proposal in document FCC 11-62 if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

The Commission will send a copy of document FCC 11-62, including a copy of this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.

7. Pursuant to sections 4(i)-(j), 225, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i)-(j), 225, and 303(r), document FCC 11-62 is adopted.

8. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of document FCC 11-62, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

The most recent management actions in the NE multispecies fishery (Amendment 16 and FW 44) were both implemented by final rules that published in the Federal Register on April 9, 2010 (75 FR 18262 and 75 FR 18356, respectively), and became effective on May 1, 2010. Amendment 16 and FW 44 implemented measures necessary to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks based on new or existing rebuilding programs and to comply with annual catch limit (ACL) and accountability measure (AM) requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Amendment 16 also substantially revised existing sector management measures and established new sectors. Amendment 16 superseded measures implemented by an emergency final rule (74 FR 17030, April 13, 2009) which was promulgated to immediately reduce overfishing on certain groundfish stocks managed by the FMP until long-term measures could be implemented by the Amendment 16 final rule.

The final rules implementing Amendment 16 and FW 44, as well as other previous actions, contained several inadvertent errors, omissions, and items inconsistent with the intent of these actions, as identified below. This action proposes to correct these errors, and clarify or modify the current regulations to ensure consistency with their original intent. Also, changes are made to some of the regulations to provide additional flexibility for some of the administrative requirements, such as allowing sector managers more time to complete their weekly reports or exempting vessels from sending a vessel trip report (VTR) on a set-only trip. NMFS proposes this action under section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act which provides that the Secretary of Commerce may, on its own, promulgate regulations necessary to ensure that an FMP or its amendments are carried out in accordance with the provisions of this Act. The following proposed corrections are listed in the order in which they appear in the regulations; the last section of proposed corrections is found throughout the regulations.

The current VTR regulations require that a VTR be submitted by a vessel operator upon entering port with fish. This suggests that vessels that may have conducted fishing activity, but that did not catch any fish, do not have to submit a VTR for that trip. This is inconsistent with VTR instructions provided to vessels by NMFS, with industry practice, and the purpose of VTRs. Information for trips on which fishing occurred, but no fish were caught, provides important and necessary fishing data necessary to help evaluate the status of stocks and provides fishing effort information used for future management decisions. To ensure that vessels submit a VTR for all trips that conduct fishing activity, this action proposes to revise the VTR submission regulations to remove the language that states that only trips that land fish must submit a VTR, with an exception for vessels on a set-only trip.

Set-only trips would be defined as a fishing trip on which a federally permitted vessel deploys gear with the intention of retrieving it on a separate trip and does not haul-back or retrieve any gear capable of catching fish on that trip. While set-only trips fall under the definition of fishing in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, VTRs from trips that only set gear and do not intend to land fish, do not contain information pertinent to management decisions and should therefore not be required in this instance. Since these trips would have zero catch and there are limited resources for dockside and at-sea monitoring (DSM and ASM, respectively) coverage requirements implemented by Amendment 16, prioritization of coverage is necessary to ensure trips intending to possess or land fish receive DSM and ASM coverage. Because exempting set-only trips from VTR, DSM, and ASM requirements could create an incentive for a vessel operator to participate in fishing after declaring a set-only trip, and avoid the VTR, DSM, and ASM requirements, as well as avoid any financial costs associated with these programs, this action proposes to include regulations in § 648.14 that would prohibit vessels on a set-only trip from possessing or landing any fish species on that trip. Based on an industry request, NMFS has recently made accommodations for vessels that leave port exclusively to set fixed gear by exempting them from submitting a VTR for such trips, to reduce unnecessary reporting and monitoring requirements when no fish are landed.

Current regulations at § 648.14(k)(3)(i) are not explicit as to whether they apply to the importation of foreign-caught NE multispecies. Amendment 16 added Atlantic wolffish to the FMP, and included it as a zero-retention species, along with Southern New England (SNE)/Mid-Atlantic (MA) winter flounder, ocean pout, and windowpane flounder. The current dealer provisions in this section could allow the importation of the zero-retention species specified in Amendment 16 that would otherwise be prohibited. This creates an unnecessary enforcement burden for NMFS in cases where a dealer lawfully may be in possession of prohibited species that were obtained from sources other than U.S. fishing vessels. In addition, the regulations do not currently prohibit the export of these zero-retention species. This action proposes to revise the regulatory text to read that it is unlawful for any dealer or person acting in the capacity of a dealer to “possess, import, export, transfer, land, or receive as a dealer, regulated species pursuant to §§ 648.82, 648.85, 648.86, or 648.87” for the purposes of eliminating any uncertainty whether zero-retention species can be imported or exported.

The regulations at § 648.80(a)(3)(vi) state that a vessel may not fish in either the Gulf of Maine (GOM) or Georges Bank (GB) Exemption Area unless fishing under certain restrictions, including the provisions of an exempted fishery. This paragraph references some, but inadvertently, not all of the exempted fisheries, specifically the exempted fisheries outlined at § 648.80(a)(15), (a)(16), and (a)(18). Therefore, this action would revise the regulations at § 648.80(a)(3)(vi) to reference all applicable exempted fisheries through § 648.80(a)(18) and update other references within § 648.80 to be more consistent with current regulations.

Amendment 16 adopted RGAs that require a common pool vessel, fishing any part of a trip within a RGA under a NE multispecies day-at-sea (DAS), to use selective gear ( i.e., a haddock separator trawl, a Ruhle trawl, a rope separator trawl, hook gear, or flatfish or roundfish gillnets with mesh size greater than or equal to 10 inches (25.4 cm)) to reduce the catch of species requiring substantial reductions in fishing mortality. The current regulations implementing this provision at § 648.81(n) require that these gear restrictions apply to all NE multispecies limited access vessels fishing any part of a trip within a RGA. This proposed rule would revise this paragraph to clarify that the RGAs only apply to vessels fishing under a NE multispecies DAS, to maintain consistency with the original intent of Amendment 16.

The Amendment 7 final rule, published May 31, 1996 (61 FR 27709), exempted vessels with a NE multispecies Small Vessel category permit from using NE multispecies DAS when fishing for groundfish. In addition, Amendment 7 exempted the Small Vessel category from specific trip limits for specific species. Regulations at § 648.82(b)(5)(i) specify that a vessel electing to fish under the Small Vessel category may retain up to 300 lb (136.1 kg) of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder, combined, and one Atlantic halibut per trip, without being subject to DAS restrictions, provided the vessel does not exceed the yellowtail flounder trip limit restrictions specified under § 648.86(g). Additionally, this paragraph currently states that vessels with a Small Vessel category permit are not subject to trip limits for other NE multispecies. Since that time, Amendment 16 prohibited the possession of four species in any fishery (windowpane flounder, ocean pout, Atlantic wolffish, and SNE/MA winter flounder). The current Small Vessel category regulations could be interpreted to mean that Small Vessel category permits may possess these prohibited species, which would undermine the purpose of the prohibition on possessing these species. Therefore, this proposed rule would change the reference to “§ 648.86(g)” in § 648.82(b)(5)(i) to read “§ 648.86,” and remove the sentence “Such vessel is not subject to a possession limit for other NE multispecies” to more accurately reflect the trip limits revised by Amendment 16 and FW 44.

The recent reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act required fishery management councils to establish a mechanism to specify ACLs for each managed stock such that overfishing does not occur in the fishery, and AMs that would prevent these ACLs from being exceeded in the future and to address any overages of these ACLs that may occur. Amendment 16 was developed to affect these changes in the NE Multispecies FMP. The Amendment 16 final rule established a process to specify and distribute ACLs among various segments of the fishery that catch NE multispecies stocks, along with AMs that apply only to a subset of these segments of the fishery, specifically the directed commercial and recreational NE multispecies fisheries, and the Atlantic herring fishery. To ensure that overfishing does not occur on each NE multispecies stock as a whole due to excessive catch by fisheries not subject to AMs, Section 4.2.1.3 of the Amendment 16 document states that “controls on the portion of the fishery that is subject to AMs must be sufficient to prevent overfishing on the stock as a whole,” consistent with the National Standard 1 Guidelines (January 16, 2009; 74 FR 3178).

The Amendment 16 final rule indicated that the groundfish fishery would be responsible for any excessive catch of regulated NE multispecies and ocean pout stocks by vessels that are not subject to AMs and fishing outside of the FMP as specified under § 648.90(a)(5)(ii). This includes vessels fishing for regulated NE multispecies and ocean pout in state waters outside the FMP, catching regulated NE multispecies and ocean pout as part of an exempted fishery, or catching yellowtail flounder when participating in the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. Because Amendment 16 did not provide a specific allocation of Atlantic halibut, SNE/MA winter flounder, ocean pout, windowpane flounder, and Atlantic wolffish to sectors, these stocks are not subject to any sector-specific AMs. Therefore, the ACL available to the commercial NE multispecies fishery for each of these stocks is allocated entirely to common pool vessels, and the only AMs established for these stocks are those specified for common pool vessels. Thus, to maintain consistency with Amendment 16, the common pool AMs must consider the catch of these stocks by all vessels, including common pool vessels, sector vessels, and vessels fishing outside of the NE multispecies fishery.

The regulation at § 648.90(a)(4) implemented by the Amendment 16 final rule indicated that common pool AMs would be triggered by excessive catch of vessels fishing outside of the NE Multispecies FMP, it did not specifically incorporate reference to excessive catch of stocks not allocated to sectors, as described above. Further, although the common pool differential DAS counting AM applies to all regulated NE multispecies and ocean pout stocks caught during fishing years (FYs) 2010 and 2011, the hard total allowable catch (TAC) AM specified to begin in FY 2012 for common pool vessels does not provide effective AMs for several of these stocks, including ocean pout, windowpane flounder, and Atlantic halibut. However, the final rule implementing Amendment 16 did not specifically address these deficiencies.

This proposed rule would revise the common pool differential DAS counting AM regulations at § 648.82(n)(1), the ACL distribution regulations at § 648.90(a)(4)(iii)(E)( 2 ), and the overall AM regulations at § 648.90(a)(5) to clarify that sector vessel catch of stocks not allocated to sectors (i.e., Atlantic halibut, SNE/MA winter flounder, ocean pout, windowpane flounder, and Atlantic wolffish) during FYs 2010 and 2011 will be added to the catch of such stocks by common pool vessels during those FYs to determine if the common pool differential DAS counting AM will be triggered. This would ensure that the regulations implementing Amendment 16 correctly reflect the Council's intent and NMFS's understanding that the AMs applicable to the NE multispecies fishery must be sufficient to prevent overfishing on the stock as a whole for FYs 2010 and 2011. However, because the Council adopted specific measures as part of the FY 2012 common pool hard-TAC AM that explicitly do not apply to all stocks, NMFS does not have the authority to revise the regulations in a correction rule to ensure that AMs are sufficient to prevent overfishing of the stock as a whole beginning in FY 2012. NMFS has communicated this deficiency to the Council in a letter dated January 21, 2010. Measures to address deficient AMs for these stocks are currently being developed by the Council and are expected to be implemented in a separate action by the start of FY 2012 on May 1, 2012.

On August 10, 2007, a temporary emergency rule (72 FR 44979) reduced the haddock minimum size. That action suspended paragraph § 648.83(a)(1), and inserted paragraph § 648.83(a)(3). The rule was extended through August 10, 2008, by a temporary emergency rule (72 FR 64000) that published on November 14, 2007 and became effective on February 10, 2008. When this latter action expired, paragraph § 648.83(a)(1) was once again effective, but inadvertently, paragraph § 648(a)(3) remained in the regulations. As a result, the current regulations at § 648.83(a) now include two lists specifying minimum fish sizes. This rule proposes to correct this by removing paragraph § 684.83(a)(3) in its entirety. This proposed rule will have no effect on legal fish sizes apart from what is in the current regulations and analyzed in Amendment 16.

On March 1, 1994, Amendment 5 (59 FR 9872) created an exemption to allow crew members aboard a vessel issued a commercial NE multispecies permit to possess up to 25 lb (11.3 kg) of fillets that measure less than the minimum size, if such fillets are from legal-sized fish and were not sold, bartered or traded. At the time, DAS was the only effort control for the FMP, and the associated regulations applied this provision only to those vessels issued a limited access NE multispecies permit and fishing under a NE multispecies DAS. Amendment 16 substantially revised sector measures to exempt sector vessels from DAS measures, provided they comply with hard quotas and area closures based on an allocation of most stocks managed by the FMP; however, it did not extend the 25-lb (11.3-kg) fillet exemption to vessels fishing under the sector provisions. NMFS believes that this exemption was meant to apply to all limited access NE multispecies DAS vessels, whether or not a vessel elects to fish under a DAS or sector provisions in a given FY. Therefore, this action would expand the existing fillet exemption to all vessels issued a limited access NE multispecies DAS permit, including those that are fishing in a sector and exempt from fishing under a DAS. Consistent with the intent of Amendment 16 and the associated regulation at § 648.87(b)(1)(v), all catch by a sector vessel, including fillets retained by crew for personal use, count against the applicable annual catch entitlement (ACE) for the sector in which that vessel participates.

Currently, fillets and parts of fish as referenced at § 648.83(b) are counted at a rate of 3:1 solely for compliance purposes with DAS possession limits. That is, law enforcement multiplies the weight of fillets or parts of fish by 3 and adds that to the weight of whole fish on board. The total weight of whole fish and fillets combined, must comply with trip limits. When landing such fillets for personal consumption, the amount of fish taken home must be recorded in a vessel's VTR for that trip, under the code “999998” for “home consumption.” Because the current system does not accurately account for the disposition of fish landed under the “home consumption” field in VTRs, these fish are not currently counted against the common pool sub-ACL. Replacing the current 1:1 counting method with 3:1 counting for quota monitoring purposes would ensure that all fish being retained would be accounted for. This proposed correction would be consistent with the intentions of the FMP that all catch by common pool and sector vessels be accounted for, and would prevent a sector from unknowingly fishing over its respective ACE. Accordingly, fish retained for at-home consumption would be counted at the 3:1 rate.

Regulations at § 648.85(a)(2)(ii) provide that any overages of GB cod and GB haddock TACs specified for either the common pool or an individual sector, and any overage of GB yellowtail flounder TAC specified for the common pool, an individual sector, or the scallop fishery in a given FY will be subtracted from the respective TAC in the following FY. However, Amendment 16 incorrectly states that the catch of stocks of yellowtail flounder by the scallop fishery will be treated as an “other sub-component” of the ACL until AMs for the catch of yellowtail flounder in the scallop fishery can be developed in an amendment to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP (i.e., Amendment 15). Therefore, this rule would remove the regulatory reference to the scallop fishery in § 648.85(a)(2)(ii) and replace it with a reference to the overall groundfish AM provisions in § 648.90(a)(5)(ii). Since it is likely that the final rule implementing Scallop Amendment 15, if approved, will not be published by the start of the NE multispecies 2011 FY on May 1, 2011, this correction is necessary to ensure that any overage of the overall GB yellowtail flounder ACL caused by another fishery would be divided between the common pool and sector sub-components to determine if the respective AMs will be triggered.

Amendment 16 revised the existing closure provisions for the Eastern U.S./Canada Area when 100 percent of the TAC is reached for GB cod. Amendment 16 revised the regulation at § 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(A)( 2 ) to require that when 100 percent of the TAC is reached for GB cod, the Eastern U.S./Canada Area will be closed to all NE multispecies DAS vessels. This regulation maintains outdated language that fails to recognize the specific allocation of a portion of the Eastern U.S./Canada TACs for this stock to sectors. To maintain consistency with Amendment 16 and ensure that NMFS has the authority to close the Eastern U.S./Canada Area to each component of the NE multispecies commercial fishery that exceeded its allocation of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area GB cod TAC, this proposed rule would clarify the regulations at § 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(A)( 2 ) by closing the area to all limited access NE multispecies vessels subject to a particular TAC allocation, once that segment's allocation of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area GB cod TAC is projected to be caught.

The current regulations at § 648.85(b)(3)(x)(A) restrict the gear that may be used in the Closed Area II Yellowtail Flounder/Haddock Special Access Program (SAP) to only trawl gear when the SAP is open to targeting yellowtail flounder. This is not consistent with the measure originally implemented in the Amendment 13 final rule (69 FR 22906, April 27, 2004). This action would revise these regulations to clarify that vessels also may use hook gear or gillnet gear in this SAP when it is open to the targeting of yellowtail flounder by revising the text to state that NE multispecies vessels “fishing with trawl gear” must use a haddock separator trawl, flounder net, or Ruhle trawl.

The FW 40A final rule, published November 14, 2004 (69 FR 67780), adopted the Regular B DAS Program. The program allows any eligible common pool vessel to harvest certain healthy groundfish stocks when fishing under a NE multispecies Regular B DAS, while minimizing bycatch of less healthy NE multispecies stocks through the use of selective gear types. Amendment 16 further revised the program, with updated stock status information, to focus the effort of the program on three stocks, including GB haddock. Amendment 16 required vessels fishing under the Regular B DAS Program in the GB cod stock area with trawl gear to use a haddock separator trawl, a Ruhle trawl, or other approved trawl gear with a codend composed of at least 6-inch (15.24-cm) diamond or square mesh. However, the regulations implementing Amendment 16 did not specify an area where the 6-inch (15.24-cm) mesh codends could be used. Therefore, this proposed rule would clarify the regulations at § 648.85(b)(6)(iv)(J)( 4 ) by specifying that the use of a 6-inch (15.24-cm) codend is only permitted within the GB cod stock area.

In 2005, FW 41 revised the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP measures affecting common pool vessels to address concerns identified by NMFS in the original submission of this SAP as part of FW 40-A. The final rule implementing FW 41 inadvertently did not include a provision restricting the bait that may be used by common pool vessels. The final rule implementing Amendment 16 rectified this oversight, but inadvertently, imposed the bait requirements on sector vessels. This action would revise the bait restrictions for this SAP specified at § 648.85(b)(7)(iv)(E) and (vi) to only apply to common pool vessels.

Current landing limit regulations at § 648.86(m) prohibit NE multispecies permitted vessels from landing regulated NE multispecies or ocean pout more than once in any 24-hr period. These regulations provide an example that indicates that this period of time begins when a vessel departs port, rather than when the vessel returns to port and lands groundfish. Amendment 16 states that the intent was to be based upon time of landing. Therefore, this proposed rule would change the regulations at § 648.86(m) by modifying the example to reflect the current regulations, which are correctly based upon time of landing. Additionally, the intent of Amendment 16 is to restrict NE multispecies permitted vessels from landing NE multispecies or ocean pout more than once in any 24-hr period, rather than all fish species.

The current regulations at § 648.87(b)(1)(ii) state that a sector may only fish in a particular stock area if it has been allocated or acquires ACE for all stocks caught in that stock area. As written, this text could be interpreted to mean that a sector would have to be allocated or acquire ACE for a stock that sectors are not allocated, such as SNE/MA winter flounder, to be able to fish, for example, in the SNE/MA yellowtail flounder stock area. To clarify that sectors have the ability to fish in a particular stock area for a stock allocated to sectors, the text at § 648.87(b)(1)(ii) would be revised to state that sectors may fish in each stock area provided it has been allocated or acquires ACE for those stocks “allocated” to sectors that are caught within that stock area.

As part of a DSM program, a sector is required to contract with an independent third-party DSM service provider to observe offloads by sector vessels to verify that landings are accurately reported. The DSM program requires all NE multispecies sector vessels on a sector trip in which the NE multispecies catch applies against the sector ACE to submit a trip-start hail (TSH) report to the DSM provider, which provides the information necessary to facilitate the deployment of a DSM. If the vessel operator does not receive a confirmation that the TSH report has been received within 10 min of sending the report, the current regulations at § 648.87(b)(5)(i)(A)( 1 ) require the vessel operator to contact the DSM service provider to confirm the receipt of the TSH report via a back-up system specified by the DSM service provider. While the regulations do not specify by what means a TSH must be transmitted, many sectors are using their existing VMS to transmit such reports. The delivery of such reports via VMS are often taking more than 10 min because the 10-min response requirement has proven to be impractical. Therefore, this action proposes to eliminate the 10-min requirement currently specified in § 648.87(b)(5)(i)(A)( 1 ), but still require the vessel operator to contact the DSM service provider via a back-up system, after a time determined by the DSM provider, to confirm the receipt of the TSH report.

The DSM provisions require that, for a trip that is selected to be monitored, all offload events must be monitored, including offloads occurring at more than one location, offloads to a truck, and offloads at remote locations. The regulations at § 648.87(b)(5)(ii)(B)( 2 ) specify that the roving monitor (RM) must “record all offloaded catch by species and market class” for offloads to a truck. Based upon input from the fishing industry, NMFS has determined that the regulation requiring that species be sorted by market class is impractical, as sorting does not generally occur at offloads to trucks and in remote locations. Additionally, NMFS has determined that this information is unnecessary to accurately monitor landings data, as catch is monitored at the species/stock level and not at the level of market class. This proposed rule would change the data collection requirement for offloads to a truck by a RM to not require the species be sorted by market class, by removing the language “and market class” from regulations at § 648.87(b)(5)(ii)(B)( 2 ).

The regulations at § 648.87(b)(5)(ii)(B)( 2 ) also require offloads to trucks to specify the number of totes of each species offloaded, the weight of fish in each tote, and that each tote is properly labeled with information that identifies the trip to which the tote is associated. The tote-tagging requirement is intended to ensure that all catch offloaded from a vessel to a truck can be tracked from the offload site to the dealer, where it will be accurately weighed and reported. Based on information provided by sector participants, some offloads to trucks occur within sight of a dealer due to limited capacity of a vessel to land directly to a dealer. To minimize the burden on RMs and the cost associated with such monitoring activities, this proposed rule would exempt the tote-tagging requirement only if the following three conditions are met: (1) The RM that observed the offload at the dock will also serve as the DSM when the truck is offloaded at the dealer; (2) the RM will follow the truck, in line of sight, from the remote offload location to the dealer where the actual weighing of the fish occurs; and (3) the truck is loaded with only the catch from the one trip being monitored.

Amendment 16 implemented a number of sector reporting requirements, including weekly catch reports to be submitted to NMFS by each sector. The regulations at § 648.87(b)(1)(vi)(B) specify that each sector must submit a weekly catch report by 2359 hr on Thursday of the week following the reporting week. Such reports contain detailed information, including: Week ending date, species, stock area, gear, number of trips, reported landings, discards, total catch, status of the sector's ACE, whether this is a new or updated record of sector catch for each NE multispecies stock allocated to that particular sector, sector enforcement issues, any discrepancies noted by dockside/roving monitors between dealers and offloads, summary of offloads witnessed by dockside/roving monitors for that reporting week, and a list of vessels landing for that reporting week. Dealer reports for the same reporting period are utilized by sectors to accurately complete the weekly sector catch reports and for apportionment purposes. However, dealer data are not available until Wednesday. Based on sector manager input, one day has not been a sufficient amount of time to accurately complete the weekly sector catch reports. This proposed rule would provide additional flexibility § 648.87(b)(1)(vi)(B) by extending the sector deadline submission for the weekly catch report from 2359 hr on Thursday, to 0700 hr on the second Monday for the same reporting week in question.

The April 24, 2000, final rule implementing measures approved under FW 33 (65 CFR 21658) created an exemption to allow NE multispecies charter/party permitted vessels to fish in the GOM Closed Areas provided such vessels obtained a letter of authorization (LOA) from NMFS. The regulations at § 648.89(e)(3)(iv) implementing this provision state that a vessel may not use any NE multispecies DAS during the period of participation to ensure that vessels operating under the charter/party provisions cannot fish commercially within these closed areas. However, not all commercial NE multispecies vessels fish under a DAS. For example, vessels fishing under NE multispecies Small Vessel, Handgear A, and Handgear B categories are not required to use NE multispecies DAS to fish commercially. The Council's intent when developing this exemption was to provide the greatest flexibility for limited access vessels to engage in both party/charter and commercial fishing on a seasonal basis, while restricting limited access vessels carrying passengers for hire from selling their catch when fishing as a charter/party vessel within closed areas. This action would clarify the regulations by including language that states that vessels possessing an LOA to fish as a charter/party vessel in the GOM Closed Areas cannot fish on a sector trip, under a NE multispecies DAS, or under the provisions of the Small Vessel, Handgear A, and Handgear B categories during the period of participation.

The regulations at § 648.89(d) would also be corrected to state that charter/party vessels could not sell, barter, trade, or otherwise transfer for a commercial purpose, or attempt to sell, barter, trade, or otherwise transfer for a commercial purpose, NE multispecies caught or landed while fishing in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) unless they are fishing under a NE multispecies “sector trip,” or fishing under a NE multispecies Handgear A, Handgear B, or Small Vessel Category C permit.

While Amendment 16 clearly lists windowpane flounder and ocean pout as zero-retention species for all commercial NE multispecies vessels, it is less clear in defining whether vessels in other fisheries could possess such species. Section 4.3.2.1 of Amendment 16 indicates that possession of these stocks is prohibited by all fisheries. However, this section is specific to the effort control measures adopted for NE multispecies common pool vessels. Therefore, the final rule implementing Amendment 16 measures did not prohibit recreational and charter/party vessels or vessels fishing in other fisheries from possessing ocean pout and windowpane flounder. Based on further consultation with Council staff, it was determined that the intent of Amendment 16 was to prohibit the retention of these species by all vessels. Therefore, this action proposes to restrict the possession of windowpane flounder and ocean pout in all fisheries, including catch by recreational anglers, charter/party vessels, and other fisheries such as the scallop fishery. The possession of Atlantic wolfish and SNE winter flounder is already correctly prohibited by recreational anglers and charter/party vessels as specified at § 648.89(c)(6) and (7) respectively.

The regulations at § 648.92(b)(1)(iii) allow a vessel fishing in the NE multispecies fishery to change its fishing activity declaration after leaving port to reflect the vessel operator's intention to also fish in the monkfish fishery on the same trip. These regulations were first implemented as part of FW 4 to the Monkfish FMP on September 21, 2007 (72 FR 53942), and pre-dated the development of Amendment 16. The applicability of the monkfish option is for a vessel fishing under a NE multispecies Category A DAS, which was the universal effort control in the NE multispecies fishing prior to the implementation of substantial revisions to sector measures under Amendment 16. However, NMFS believes that the Council's intent in Amendment 16 was not to exclude vessels from this option when fishing on a sector trip. Therefore, this action proposes to insert reference to vessels fishing on a NE multispecies sector trip to enable such vessels to also take advantage of the monkfish option.

In addition to the changes specified above, the following changes to the regulations are proposed to correct inaccurate references and to further clarify the intent of the Council.

In § 648.10(k)(3)(ii), N. latitude, Point G9 would be corrected to read “The intersection of the Cape Cod, MA, coastline and 70°00″ W. long.” This current point incorrectly references the “South-facing shoreline of Cape Cod, MA.”

Section § 648.14(k)(6)(ii)(B) would be corrected to reference the special management programs at “§ 648.85(b)(7)(iv)(E)” to replace the current inaccurate reference to “§ 648.85(b)(7)(iv)(F).”

In § 648.80(a)(2)(ii) and (a)(17)(ii), the “Approximate loran C bearings” portion of the table would be removed. The U.S. Coast Guard ceased operations of Loran-C, on February 10, 2010, which renders these coordinates useless. This will have minimum impact, as the same information is displayed in the regulations using latitude and longitude coordinates.

In § 648.80(a)(3)(v), a reference to “§ 648.87(c)” would be added to the beginning of the section, to include sector vessels.

In § 648.80(b)(3)(i), the phrase “unless otherwise restricted in § 648.86” would be added. This paragraph includes ocean pout as one of the list of species exemptions for the SNE RMA; however, Amendment 16 listed ocean pout as a zero-retention species. The Amendment 16 final rule inadvertently failed to cross-reference this prohibition in § 648.86.

In § 648.80(c)(2)(i), the reference to § 648.104(a) would be revised to read “shall be that specified by § 648.104(a).” This was the original regulatory text used to cite the regulations and was inadvertently changed in the final rule implementing Amendment 16.

In § 648.85(a)(1)(ii), this action would correct the Eastern U.S./Canada Area, N. latitude coordinates for Points USCA 7 and USCA 6 to 40° 50″ N. latitude, and Points USCA 5 and 4 to 40° 40″ N. latitude. Amendment 13 defined the Eastern U.S./Canada Area as being composed of statistical areas 561 and 562. The coordinates for statistical area 562 used to define the Eastern U.S./Canada Area were incorrectly transposed in the Amendment 13 final rule and would be rectified by this action.

Section § 648.87(b)(1)(ix) would be corrected to reference the prohibited species regulations at “§ 648.86(l),” instead of the inaccurate reference to “§ 648.87(1).” In addition, a reference to “§ 648.86(c)” would be inserted at § 648.87(b)(1)(ix) to clarify that sector vessels are held to the one-fish per trip possession limit of Atlantic halibut, as intended in Amendment 16.

In § 648.87(c)(2), a reference to “fishing regulations within the groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP)” would be inserted to clarify that a NE multispecies sector operations plan can only include exemptions from regulations within the groundfish FMP, as intended in Amendment 16.

In § 648.89(c)(2)(i), the reference to “private recreational vessel” would be corrected to read “charter/party vessel.”

In § 648.90(a)(4), the reference to “(a)(5)” would be corrected to read “(a)(6).”

Section 648.90(a)(4)(iii)(E) would be revised to include a reference to the recreational fishery. A reference to the recreational fishery was made in the title of this paragraph, but was not included in the regulations.

Pursuant to sections 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, I have determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the NE Multispecies FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows:

The Small Business Administration size standard for small commercial fishing entities is $4 million in gross sales, while the size standard for small charter/party operators is $7 million. Due to the nature of some of the measures proposed in this action, entities affected by the proposed action include those vessels that have currently been issued any Federal permit to fish any species within the Northeast. However, most of the entities affected by this proposed action are limited to vessels issued a limited access NE multispecies DAS permit (i.e., Category A, D, E, or F), a limited access NE multispecies Small Vessel or Handgear A permit (i.e., Category C or HA, respectively), an open access NE multispecies Category K or Handgear B (Category HB) permit, or an open access NE multispecies Charter/Party (Category I) permit. In addition, this proposed action would also affect any entity issued a Federal permit to purchase NE multispecies, a company providing dockside and roving monitoring services, and individuals acting in the capacity of a sector manager. All entities affected by this proposed rule would fall under the SBA size standard for small commercial fishing entities or charter/party operators, and therefore, there is no disproportionate impact between large and small entities and would not place small entities at a competitive disadvantage to large entities. A full description of the fishery, including the entities affected by the proposed action, is contained in Section 6.2 of the Amendment 16 FEIS.

The proposed allocation would correct/clarify the existing regulations to ensure that the current regulations accurately reflect measures adopted by the Council and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. This action would ensure that the economic benefits analyzed in previous actions would be realized, including preventing unnecessary and unintended costs associated with measures corrected by this action, and would only impose a negligible increase in the mailing and postage costs associated with compliance with VTR requirements that reflect current industry practices. For example, by revising the timing requirements of VMS declarations, this action would avoid $1,900 in unnecessary yearly VMS messaging costs that were not expected during the development of Amendment 16. In addition, this action would clarify that all trips must submit a VTR, regardless of whether fish are landed, with the exception of trips that only set fishing gear and do not fish on that trip, resulting in increasing yearly mailing costs of $5.88-$25.48 per vessel. Other measures corrected or clarified by this action would ensure that vessels are not subject to measures beyond those originally adopted in recent management actions. For example, this action would ensure that Category C and HA vessels would not be subject to RGAs and are not required to purchase selective gear to fish in particular areas, and that sector vessels are not subject to bait restrictions while fishing in the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP.

As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

This proposed rule contains reporting and recordkeeping requirements and associated information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which have been previously approved by OMB under control numbers 0648-0202, 0648-0212, and 0648-0229. Measures in this proposed rule include provisions that require revised collection-of-information requirements. Public reporting burden for these collections of information are estimated to average as follows:

1. VMS area and DAS declaration, OMB# 0648-0202, (5 min/response);

2. VMS trip-level catch reports, OMB# 0648-0212, (15 min/response);

3. Request for a LOA to fish in a NE multispecies RGA, OMB# 0648-0202, (5 min/response);

4. VMS declaration to fish in a NE multispecies RGA, OMB# 0648-0202, (5 min/response);

5. Pre-trip hail report to a dockside monitoring service provider, OMB# 0648-0202, (2 min/response);

6. Trip-end hail report to a dockside monitoring service provider, OMB# 0648-0202, (15 min/response);

7. Confirmation of dockside monitoring trip-end hail report, OMB# 0648-0202, (2 min/response);

8. Dockside/roving service provider data entry, OMB# 0648-0202, (3 min/response);

9. Daily VMS catch reports when fishing in the U.S./Canada Management Area and Closed Area II SAPs, OMB# 0648-0212, (15 min/response);

10. Daily VMS catch reports when fishing in the Closed Area I Hook Gear Haddock SAP, OMB# 0648-0212, (15 min/response);

11. Daily VMS catch reports when fishing in the Regular B DAS Program, OMB# 0648-0212, (15 min/response); and

12. Copy of the dealer weigh-out slip or dealer signature of the dockside monitor report, OMB# 0648-0212 (2 min/response).

13. Letter of authorization for charter/party vessels to access the Western GOM Closure Area and the GOM Rolling Closure Areas, OMB# 0648-0202, (5 min/response);

14. Declaration of the monkfish DAS option via VMS, OMB# 0648-0202, (5 min/response);

15. Sector weekly catch report, OMB# 0648-0212, (4 hr/response);

16. VTR requirement, OMB# 0648-0212, (5 min/response); and

17. Dealer report, OMB# 0648-0229, (4 min/response).

These estimates include the time required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS (see ADDRESSES ) and by e-mail to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov , or fax to (202) 395-7285.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

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