The NRC requires high assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, the common defense and security, and the environment for the secure storage of SNF and HLW. The NRC meets this strategic goal by requiring Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation licensees to comply with security requirements specified in 10 CFR Part 73. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the NRC has continued to achieve this requisite high assurance for all facilities licensed to store SNF through a combination of these existing security regulations and the issuance of security orders to individual licensees.

Based on the Commission's direction presented in SRM-SECY-10-0114 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML103210025) and stakeholder requests from the NRC sponsored May 2, 2011, open and closed public meetings (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML111450161), the staff is hosting this meeting to enhance stakeholder understanding of the security assessments used to inform the draft regulatory basis and to enhance staff understanding of the comments received. The meeting will discuss classified national security information.

The NRC notes that the public, licensees, certificate holders, and other stakeholders will have a future opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking when that document is published in the FR.

The following table indicates the related documents that are available to the public and how they may be obtained.

You can access publicly available documents related to this notice using the following methods:

NRC's PDR: The public may examine and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's PDR, Public File Area O-1 G21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852-2738.

NRC's ADAMS: Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html . From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

Federal Rulemaking Site: Public comments and supporting materials related to this notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID: NRC-2009-0558.

Availability of Services:

The NRC provides reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in this meeting (e.g., sign language), or need this meeting notice or other information from the meeting in another format, please notify the NRC meeting contact, Dennis Andrukat at 301-415-3561 by July 5, 2011, so that arrangements can be made.

All expected attendees must register with the NRC meeting contact by close of business on July 12, 2011. Attendees must provide their full name, company/organization, last four of social security number, phone number, acknowledgement of current access to Classified Information (minimum “L” clearance), and basis for need-to-know in order to verify that attendees are cleared for access to the information.

No electronic devices will be allowed in the Commissioners' Conference Room during the meeting, this includes cell phones, laptops, pagers, PDAs, etc. No food or drink is allowed in the Commissioners' Conference Room.

All attendees are to use the One White Flint North temporary entrance located on Marinelli Street. The NRC is accessible to the White Flint Metro Station. Visitor parking near the NRC buildings is limited. Parking is available at the White Flint Metro Station using the Metro Smart Card.

The purpose of this ANPRM is to gather public input on how FCA might:

• Revise existing Farmer Mac RBCST regulations to replace data from credit rating agencies.

• Comprehensively address derivative counterparty exposure in the RBCST; and

• Revise operational and strategic business planning requirements to place greater emphasis on diversity and inclusion.

Farmer Mac is an institution of the Farm Credit System, regulated by FCA through the FCA Office of Secondary Market Oversight (OSMO). Farmer Mac was established and chartered by Congress to create a secondary market for agricultural real estate mortgage loans, rural housing mortgage loans, and rural utilities loans, and it is a stockholder-owned instrumentality of the United States. Title VIII of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, (Act) governs Farmer Mac. 1

On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) was enacted. 2 Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act requires Federal agencies to review all regulatory references to NRSRO credit ratings and replace those references with other appropriate standards for determining creditworthiness. The Dodd-Frank Act further provides that, to the extent feasible, agencies should adopt a uniform standard of creditworthiness for use in regulations, taking into account the entities regulated and the purposes for which such regulated entities would rely on the creditworthiness standard.

The FCA uses credit rating agency data in its RBCST regulations for Farmer Mac. Section 8.32 of the Act required FCA to establish a risk-based capital stress test for Farmer Mac's portfolio. 3 This stress test determines the level of regulatory capital necessary for Farmer Mac to maintain positive capital during a 10-year period where stressful credit and interest rate conditions occur. We first published regulations on the stress test, and other requirements related to section 8.32 of the Act, in the Federal Register at 66 FR 19048 (April 12, 2001). Since then, we revised the stress test several times, most recently to capture capital requirements for Farmer Mac's rural utilities authorities. The existing RBCST for Farmer Mac is contained in 12 CFR part 652, subpart B, and it currently relies, in part, on NRSRO credit ratings when calculating regulatory minimum capital requirements.

We have comprehensively reviewed our regulations that use or rely on credit ratings, including other sections in part 652 which govern Farmer Mac's non-program investments and liquidity reserve requirements. This ANPRM is one of several notices and proposed rules on which we will be seeking public input relating to use of credit ratings in our rules.

Under the Farmer Mac I program, FAMC guarantees prompt payment of principal and interest on securities representing interests in, or obligations backed by, mortgage loans secured by first liens on agricultural real estate or rural housing. It also purchases, or commits to purchase, qualified loans or securities backed by qualified loans directly from lenders. Under the Farmer Mac II program, FAMC purchases and securitizes portions of certain loans guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, including farm ownership and operating loans and rural business and community development loans. Farmer Mac also guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest on the securities created from these loans. In 2008, Congress granted Farmer Mac the authority to purchase and guarantee securities backed by loans to rural electric and telephone utility cooperatives as program business. 4 Farmer Mac also provides a secondary market for USDA-guaranteed farm program and rural development loans.

Under our rules, Farmer Mac's regulatory capital must be sufficient so that it would remain positive during the 10-year time horizon of the stress test. One component of the RBCST accounts for the risk of loss on specific types of program investments ( i.e., investments backed by agricultural real estate mortgage loans, rural housing loans, or rural utility cooperative loans) that include credit enhancement features. In this context, credit risk is adjusted downward based on the whole-letter credit rating of the counterparty on AgVantage and similarly structured assets. The adjustment is made to recognize the risk-reducing strength of the counterparty's general obligation backing of these securities. These securities are further backed by eligible loan collateral.

Another component of the RBCST estimates counterparty risk associated with non-program investments, e.g., corporate debt, asset-backed securities and mortgage-related securities. In this context, the RBCST reduces earnings at rates related to the cumulative historical default and recovery rates of corporate debt by whole-letter credit rating category as published by Moody's Investor Services. 5 The RBCST's calculations in each of these two components use five whole-letter rating categories. It then assigns counterparties into these categories by referencing ratings issued by an NRSRO for the counterparty. The regulations, in turn, specify the change in expected cash flows during the stress period to reflect the risk of default by a counterparty based in part on the assigned ratings category. The changes in cash flows decrease projected losses on program assets and decrease earnings on non-program investments, which then translate to changes in equity over the modeling horizon and affect the required minimum regulatory capital calculated by the stress test.

FCA initially chose to use NRSRO ratings in the RBCST as a source of objective and neutral third-party assessments of the credit risk for particular instruments and counterparties. We used ratings because they were readily and publicly available. The use of NRSRO ratings was also, at the time, believed to offer enhanced consistency in credit evaluation across different components of the RBCST. In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act addressed, in part, the structure of credit rating agencies, requiring revisions and imposing other requirements in an effort to resolve the conflicts of interest and other difficulties believed to be at the center of the 2008-2009 financial market crisis. The Dodd-Frank Act also questioned the value of these ratings when used as the primary data source in the assessment of the creditworthiness of a security or money market instrument. In connection with that, the Dodd-Frank Act requires every Federal agency to remove any reference to, or reliance on, credit rating agencies in its regulations and replace any such reference with an alternative standard of credit worthiness considered appropriate for the regulatory purpose. As a result, we are seeking suggestions on what alternative data sources would be most appropriate for the RBCST.

FCA believes that any new standard of creditworthiness should distinguish between different levels of credit risk, in an accurate and timely manner, and be transparent in its approach. We believe it should also be applied consistently across the multiple components of the RBCST and be reasonably simple, while not unduly burdensome to apply and not be easily subject to manipulation. FCA recognizes that any resulting system will likely involve trade-offs among these objectives, e.g., simple versus accurate and timely, accurate and timely versus not burdensome to apply.

To eliminate the use of NRSRO ratings in calculating risk-based capital requirements for Farmer Mac, we need to develop an alternative basis to assess counterparty risk. One approach may be to identify objective criteria that Farmer Mac could apply to categorize credit exposures into different risk classes and assess counterparty risk accordingly. The criteria may be broadly designated. For example, credit exposures could be divided into government and non-government, secured and unsecured, or other categories, such as maturity. Such a broad approach, however, may not be able to sufficiently and consistently account for difference in relative risk among exposures that fall into the same category. FCA may also consider adopting criteria that reference certain financial or other metrics related to the obligor or counterparty. To be meaningful, the criteria would need to account for or bear a reasonable correlation to the potential riskiness of default among different obligors or counterparties. Any criteria would also need to be readily obtainable for all relevant counterparties by FCA, Farmer Mac and the public or it might not be sufficiently transparent and objective. The standards would need to ensure that the investment or position is not speculative, and carries credit risk appropriate for Farmer Mac's risk profile and the authorized purposes for non-program investments. As any new counterparty risk evaluation approach is initiated, there is the potential for increased risk as the new system is implemented.

FCA might also consider an approach that builds on Farmer Mac's internal credit review process and allows it to assign risk ratings to various categories and assess risk based on qualitative and quantitative standards set by FCA regulations. For example, FCA could assign loss rate estimates based on Farmer Mac's internal ratings or some modification of such, as reviewed or approved by FCA—or simply review or approve Farmer Mac's mapping of its assigned risk ratings to estimated loss rates. This approach would be more subjective than the alternative discussed above but could allow FCA to leverage the data collection and analysis already performed by Farmer Mac. Under this approach, FCA would likely rely heavily on the supervisory process to make sure that Farmer Mac is strictly following its internal guidelines and not assuming high levels of credit risk.

Questions (1) through (11) of Section III of this ANPRM address this topic.

As part of our Dodd-Frank Act review and the increasing emphasis by the financial industry on ensuring appropriate prudential oversight of derivatives transactions, we are also considering whether the RBCST should include a more explicit and comprehensive capital charge for counterparty risk stemming from derivative transactions.

The RBCST produces a single comprehensive capital requirement for Farmer Mac by modeling changes in cash flows under a specific statutory stress scenario. We believe there may be opportunities to revise the RBCST to add a representation of counterparty default exposure on derivatives transactions by considering both net replacement cost as well as current exposure to individual cash flows based on an assessment of the counterparty's creditworthiness.

Questions (12) and (13) of Section III. of this ANPRM address this topic.

As part of this ANPRM, we are seeking input on how we might revise § 652.60(b) on operational and strategic business planning requirements to place greater emphasis on diversity and inclusion in both Farmer Mac's personnel as well as the borrowers and lenders who benefit from its secondary market activities.

We believe an integral part of promoting and achieving inclusion and diversity can be accomplished through an effective operational plan that includes strategies to seek out qualified loans from a diverse group of sources and provides rural lenders with financing products that serve a diverse array of borrowers, such as small, beginning, new, disabled, female, and minority farmers, ranchers, and rural homeowners, as well as cooperatives with diversity of ownership. We believe promotion of inclusion and diversity should also extend to non-traditional agricultural producers, such as local food systems, organic or specialty crop farmers, and community-supported agriculture.

Additionally, we are considering whether Farmer Mac's operational and strategic plans should include strategies and actions to achieve diversity and inclusion within FAMC's workforce, management, and governance structure, as well as an assessment of the progress FAMC has made in this area. We are also contemplating whether the plans should describe FAMC's succession programs.

Questions (14) and (15) of Section III. of this ANPRM address this topic.

FCA regulations governing the Farmer Mac RBCST contain specific references to credit ratings issued by NRSROs for purposes of calculating regulatory minimum capital requirements. FCA is issuing this ANPRM to identify standards that may be appropriate replacements for credit ratings issued by NRSROs, which maintain compliance with statutory design requirements for the RBCST. Other regulatory agencies have also issued ANPRMs as part of their process to address references to credit ratings in their capital regulations and prudential standards. 6 We encourage any interested person(s) to submit comments on the following questions and ask that you support your comments with relevant data or examples. We remind commenters that comments and data submitted in support of a comment are available to the public through our rulemaking files.

1. What core principles would be most important in FCA's development of new standards of creditworthiness?

2. What qualitative and quantitative standards would FCA need to set to implement an approach that relied on the Farmer Mac to generate internal estimates of counterparty risk exposures? What are the strengths and weaknesses of such an approach?

3. Is it important that FCA's approach to replacing its reliance on credit rating agency data be consistent with that of other financial regulators or with those of other Farm Credit System institutions? If so, how important and why?

4. What specific creditworthiness or investment criteria should FCA use in its RBCST regulation?

5. What types of objective criteria should be used to differentiate credit exposures and apply meaningful counterparty risk estimates in the RBCST?

6. Should different criteria be used for different broad classes of investments or exposures? If so, what perverse incentives or other unintended consequences could that lead to? For example, could criteria that are perceived to be more flexible or subjective for a given asset class incent the regulated entity to accept a proportion of exposure to that asset class relative to its entire program (or non-program) portfolio that it might deem excessive without that incentive?

7. What approach would estimate a meaningful and consistent level of counterparty risk for a variety of exposures by employing publicly available qualitative and quantitative metrics, such as individual obligor credit spreads and/or financial ratio analysis to estimate probability of default and recovery rates?

8. Alternatively, could such estimates be reasonably made at the level of the market ( e.g., identifying an index of industry sector spreads and stratifying spreads into certain ranges) and mapped to loss rates set by FCA?

9. How might a set of loss rates be developed for each spread stratum?

10. Are there any existing objective tools or approaches that could readily replace references to ratings issued by NRSROs in the RBCST?

11. What other approaches or methodologies not discussed above should FCA consider?

12. What methodologies or approaches should FCA consider to more explicitly incorporate a derivatives counterparty exposure charge into the RBCST?

13. What is the best manner of evaluating minimum capital requirements on derivative counterparty exposures in the RBCST and should a pre-processing model be constructed ( i.e., a sub-model used to derive inputs into the RBCST) to represent this risk—both in terms of missed individual contractual cash flows as well the replacement cost on defaulted derivatives? If so, how should replacement costs be estimated?

14. Should Farmer Mac be required to include strategies in its marketing plans that address how its secondary market programs and products will be offered to all qualified borrowers, including:

(a) Minorities, the disabled, and women;

(b) Young, beginning, small, and family farms and cooperatives; or

(c) Non-traditional agricultural producers, such as local food systems, organic or specialty crop farmers and the lenders who serve them? Why or why not?

15. Should Farmer Mac's marketing plans set quantitative goals to increase purchases of, or commitments to purchase, loans to young, beginning, small, and family farms, and those owned or operated by minorities, the disabled, and women? If so, what would be the best method to apply such goals to rural utility cooperatives ( e.g., minority-managed cooperatives or cooperatives that serve predominantly minority residential customers or minority-owned commercial customers)?

16. To what extent should FCA regulations require Farmer Mac to develop a human capital plan as part of its strategic and operational business plan to foster diversity in its workforce and succession planning?

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1714(b) and (c), VA may provide to veterans enrolled under 38 U.S.C. 1705 guide dogs trained for the aid of people who are blind and service dogs trained for the aid of the hearing impaired or persons with a spinal cord injury or dysfunction or other chronic impairment that substantially limits mobility. Under section 1714(d), VA is also authorized to provide certain travel expenses related to the provision of such dogs.

In 1961, VA promulgated 38 CFR 17.118(a) (recodified as current 38 CFR 17.154(a) in 1996) restating the statutory language, which at that time limited VA's authority to the provision of guide dogs for blind veterans. Under both the statutory and regulatory language VA may provide or furnish a guide dog to a veteran but is not required to do so. VA interpreted “provide” in section 1714 and “furnished” in § 17.154(a) to mean that VA need not actually purchase or acquire dogs for eligible veterans if there is an appropriate alternative. (We also note that nothing in 38 U.S.C. 1714 requires VA to provide a dog to a disabled veteran—the statutory authority is that we “may” do so). Accordingly, it has long been VA's policy to apply current § 17.154(a) by recognizing guide dogs that are obtained by the veteran from private (usually non-profit) organizations dedicated to training guide dogs. In this manner, we can rely on the professional expertise of these organizations without having to house the animals and hire trainers. Currently, VA regulations recognize only guide dogs and not service dogs. To assist the veteran, VA provides financial assistance for veterinary care, and provides hardware required by the dog at no cost to the veteran. The provision of travel benefits is authorized by current § 17.154(a), and the provision of hardware is authorized by current § 17.154(b). This proposed rule would authorize VA to provide benefits for eligible veterans in need of service dogs, and clearly define the benefit.

In 2001, Congress amended section 1714 to provide that VA may also provide service dogs for veterans with other disabilities. See Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001, Public Law 107-135 (2001). This rulemaking would implement that statutory amendment and would establish a single regulation relating to the provision of assistive dogs by VA. In so doing, we would remove current § 17.154(a) and establish the criteria proposed in § 17.148 so that the proposed rule would be the only regulatory authority for benefits related to service dogs. As explained below, the proposed rule would offer the same travel benefit offered under current § 17.154(a). The proposed rule would also clarify that VA interprets section 1714 as authorizing the provision of veterinary-care benefits and would establish a clear procedure for awarding such benefits.

Proposed paragraph (a) would define service dogs as “guide or service dogs prescribed for a disabled veteran under this section.” This rule would provide the same benefit to all eligible veterans, so it is unnecessary to distinguish dogs by the services that they provide. For example, we do not use the term “guide dogs”, which appears under current 38 CFR 17.154, because for the purposes of this rulemaking, veterans who are eligible due to blindness would receive the same benefit.

Proposed paragraph (b) would establish the clinical requirements to obtain service-dog benefits. First, we would authorize benefits only if the veteran is diagnosed as having a visual, hearing, or substantial mobility impairment. These requirements incorporate the eligibility criteria in section 1714. Second, we would require a clinical determination by a VA clinician, which would be based upon the clinician's medical judgment that “it is optimal for the veteran to manage such impairment and live independently through the assistance of a trained service dog.” By this, we intend to exclude situations in which a VA clinician's medical judgment indicates that there are means other than a dog, such as technological devices or rehabilitative techniques, which would enable and encourage the veteran to live independently. To emphasize this point, we would note that “[i]f other means (such as technological devices or rehabilitative therapy) will provide the same level of independence, then VA will not authorize benefits under this section.” VA does not intend to allow cost or any other factors to discourage the use of new technologies and equipment to maximize the independence of veterans. We believe that providing VA with discretion to choose between a service dog or assistive technology based on medical judgment rather than cost-effectiveness would ensure that VA's patients receive the highest quality of care that the VA-system can provide.

Third, for the purposes of this section, we would define substantial mobility impairment as a spinal cord injury or dysfunction or other chronic impairment that substantially limits mobility. In providing guide-dog benefits, Congress intended to assist a group of veterans whose visual impairment prevents them from physically moving about in society. In providing service-dog benefits for veterans with hearing or spinal cord injuries or other chronic impairment that substantially limits mobility, Congress intended to help veterans with physical limitations. Both of these benefits increase a veteran's overall ability to move independently and safely in his or her home, community, or both. However, the statute is silent as to a veteran who can see and who does not have an injury that prevents full range of motion but who nevertheless cannot move independently and safely in his or her home, community, or both. Therefore, we would interpret chronic impairment that substantially limits mobility to include, but not be limited to, disabilities such as a traumatic brain injury that compromises the ability to make appropriate decisions based on environmental cues such as traffic lights or a seizure disorder that renders a veteran immobile during and after a seizure event.

In 2009, Congress authorized VA to provide service dogs for the aid of persons with mental illnesses by amending section 1714. Although VA welcomes the possibility that trained dogs may provide valuable services to veterans diagnosed with certain mental illness, at this time we do not have any scientific data to determine, from a purely clinical standpoint, whether or when service dogs are most appropriately provided to veterans with mental illness, including post-traumatic stress disorder. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Pub. L. 111-84 (2009), Congress mandated a 3-year study on the effectiveness of dogs for mental health purposes. The results of this study will help us learn more about the services that trained dogs can provide for veterans diagnosed with mental health conditions. Upon the completion of the study and analysis of its results, VA may revise its regulations in order to provide this service to our veterans.

Proposed paragraph (c) would establish criteria for obtaining a service dog recognized under this section for purposes of obtaining benefits. Under paragraphs (c)(1) and (2), we would recognize service dogs obtained through an organization that is accredited by Assistance Dogs International (ADI) or the International Guide Dog Federation (IGDF). Proof of completion would be established by a certificate from the organization. ADI is an international coalition of nonprofit organizations that train and place service dogs. ADI has established an accreditation procedure for service dog organizations, setting minimum standards for safety and cleanliness of the training facility, fair and ethical treatment of clients, proper health care for the dogs, humane training methods, screening the suitability of dogs and clients, matching dogs and clients, and compliance with all relevant laws. ADI does not accredit organizations that provide guide dogs—ADI only does so for service-dog organizations that train dogs to perform services for individuals with conditions other than blindness. Accreditation of guide-dog programs is done by IGDF, with whom ADI has a joint protocol. ADI will only accredit guide-dog programs if they are also involved in training service dogs, and even then ADI accredits only that portion of the training related to service dogs—IGDF accredits the guide-dog portion. IGDF does not accredit any non-guide dog programs. IGDF is an international coalition of member organizations. IGDF is committed to improving the guide dog industry throughout the world and has published standards that cover a wide range of activities conducted by guide dog organizations, such as organizational structure, fundraising, recordkeeping, technical matters relating to dog health and welfare, dog and client training, and school facilities.

VA has reviewed ADI's and IGDF's standards thoroughly, and we believe that they represent appropriate criteria for training and placing guide and service dogs. We are also unaware of any other organizations that similarly scrutinize the process of training and placing guide or service dogs. We note that there are no Federal regulations governing the training of guide or service dogs, and VA does not have the expertise, experience, or resources to develop independent criteria. Therefore, we would rely on ADI and IGDF accreditation to conclude that a dog is qualified and capable of performing the tasks that are clinically required by the medical determination prescribed under proposed paragraph (b)(2), i.e., that the dog will benefit the veteran in a way that other assistive means cannot.

For dogs acquired before the effective date of this rule, we would require the veteran to provide a certificate showing that the veteran and dog have completed a training course offered by a guide or service dog organization in existence before such date. We would limit this authority to organizations that existed before the effective date of the regulation. The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that veterans who obtained dogs prior to the publication of this regulation, but not through ADI or IGDF accredited organizations, would be eligible for the benefits prescribed by this regulation. We would allow veterans who obtained dogs through such non-accredited organizations up to 1 year after the effective date of this rule to obtain the required certification. Alternatively, the veteran and dog could obtain the certification from ADI or IGDF described under proposed paragraph (c)(1).

Proposed paragraph (d) would outline the benefits provided by VA under this section. As required by section 1714(a) and (b), benefits would be based on the veteran being enrolled under 38 U.S.C. 1705.

Although Congress has authorized VA to provide service dogs and has expressly authorized the payment of certain travel and incidental expenses related to a veteran's adjustment to the dog, Congress did not address certain important aspects of the program. Veterans who have been furnished a dog must also maintain the health of the dog, and most will also need to purchase and maintain hardware related to the use of the dog. Without financial assistance, some veterans may not be able to afford such veterinary care and hardware. We believe that providing service dogs under the statute necessarily includes providing veterinary treatment and hardware, and repairs to such hardware, required by the dog to perform in service to the veteran. Consistent with this interpretation of our statutory authority, we propose to authorize payments for the care of service dogs that will help maintain the dogs' ability to perform as service dogs. However, we would not provide assistance for additional expenses such as license tags, non-prescription food, grooming, insurance for personal injury, non-sedated dental cleanings, nail trimming, boarding, pet sitting or dog walking services, over-the-counter medications, or other goods and services not expressly prescribed by regulation. This limitation would help ensure that VA's service dog program is able to continue to provide critical assistance to a larger number of veterans and would ensure that the financial assistance provided by VA would not be used to provide services that are not directly related to the dogs' ability to provide assistive service. We believe that limiting benefits for service dogs to necessary veterinary care, hardware, repairs to hardware, and travel expenses associated with obtaining a dog is similarly within the scope of the benefit authorized by Congress.

Under proposed paragraph (d)(1), we would provide, as the mechanism for providing payment for veterinary care, an insurance policy to every eligible veteran. Because VA does not employ veterinarians, we lack the expertise to directly provide veterinary care, or to determine whether care is medically appropriate. We also lack the resources to review whether a veterinarian is appropriately licensed or charges appropriate fees for veterinary care. Thus, we have determined that an insurance policy is the most efficient way to provide appropriate veterinary care under this section, and we would pay any premiums, copayments, or deductibles associated with the insurance policy.

Under proposed paragraph (d)(1)(i), we would require that VA, and not the veteran will be billed for any premiums, copayments, or deductibles associated with the policy. This is to ensure that the veteran is not overburdened when obtaining care under this section. However, we would note that the policies could be subject to an annual cap, depending upon what policies are actually negotiated when this rule become effective. If an annual cap were in place, care that exceeds the maximum authorized by the policy would be the responsibility of the veteran. Annual caps are a common limitation on insurance policies for service dogs, and we intend to rely on the reasonable cost-control methodologies calculated by experts in the field of veterinary insurance. When determining which companies to form relationships with, of course, VA will carefully review the maximum amounts authorized for particular procedures, as well as any annual caps on expenditures, to ensure that our veterans are getting the best insurance plan possible. To further protect veterans, we would require that the policy ensure advance notice whenever reasonably possible that a particular treatment may exceed the policy's limits. Obviously, it may not be possible to provide advance notice when an animal requires emergency care; however, where a veterinarian prescribes a future treatment event or an ongoing course of treatment, the insurer should be expected to notify the veteran that he or she may have some financial responsibility. Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(ii) would require that the policy guarantee coverage for all treatment, subject to any annual caps that may be in place under the policy, including euthanasia, so long as it is determined to be medically necessary by a veterinarian recognized by the insurance carrier. This is to ensure that the policy does not exclude medically necessary treatment. Proposed paragraph (d)(1)(iii) would bar policies from excluding dogs with preexisting conditions that do not prevent the dog from being a service dog.

Under proposed paragraph (d)(2), VA would provide any and all hardware clinically determined to be needed by the dog to perform its task. Such hardware would include standard equipment such as harnesses for service dogs. Often, service dogs will require certain hardware in order to perform specific tasks for the unique needs of each veteran, and VA would ensure that every veteran receives the equipment that fulfills his or her clinical needs. VA would also provide necessary repairs or replacements for such hardware. This is consistent with current practice. In order to obtain hardware and/or repairs, veterans would call the Prosthetics Office at their local VA Medical Center and specify the hardware needed or repairs to be made. The Office will then provide the necessary hardware or repairs.

Under paragraph (d)(3), we propose to implement 38 U.S.C. 1714(d), which allows VA to pay travel expenses “under the terms and conditions set forth in [38 U.S.C. 111]” for a veteran who is provided a service dog. We propose to implement this provision by considering such veterans as eligible beneficiaries under 38 CFR Part 70. This will facilitate administration of the benefit and will allow VA to avoid any additional expenses associated with establishing a “new” travel benefit. We believe that the language of 38 U.S.C. 1714(d) can be read to interpret obtaining a dog as “examination, treatment, or care” under 38 U.S.C. 111. In addition, 38 U.S.C. 111 limits eligibility to certain veterans. Most (if not all) veterans who would be eligible for a service dog will meet the eligibility requirements of 38 U.S.C. 111. For example, most will have a service-connected disability rated at 30 percent or more under 38 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(B). However, we would explicitly state in the regulation that the limitations on eligibility found in section 111 (as well as in VA's implementing regulations in 38 CFR Part 70) will not limit eligibility for veterans seeking to obtain a dog. Again, we interpret section 1714(d) as authorizing payment of travel expenses associated with obtaining a service dog. Proposed paragraph (d)(4) would clarify the limitation of the benefits provided. We would exclude payment for any expenses that are not clinically prescribed by a veterinarian or otherwise authorized by the proposed rule. Our policy would be, in essence, to treat the dog as a surrogate for an assistive device, requiring that the veteran use the device responsibly and provide general care and maintenance. We would also clarify that VA will not take possession of, or responsibility for, the dog under any circumstances.

Finally, under proposed paragraph (e), we would require that the dog maintain its ability to function as a service dog in order for benefits to be provided under this section. We would provide that, when VA learns from any source that the dog is unable to maintain its assistive role, or VA determines that the veteran no longer requires the dog from a clinical perspective, VA will provide the veteran at least 30 days notice before benefits are terminated. The determination of such continued ability will generally be made by either a veterinarian (if the issue involves the animal's health) or by a VA clinician (if the issue is whether the veteran still meets the clinical prerequisite for eligibility under paragraph (b)(2)). The veteran may, but is not required to, notify VA or the insurer that the dog is medically unable to maintain its role as a service dog. However, we note that VA will not provide the benefit for two dogs simultaneously, which is discussed in the introductory text of proposed paragraph (d), so VA must first terminate the coverage for the dog that is no longer performing its duties before it would cover the training of a new dog to perform such services for the veteran. Since the veteran may often be the first person to know whether the dog can no longer perform its duties, we would encourage the veteran to notify VA so that we may expedite the transfer of benefits to a new dog, and make any other clinically appropriate arrangements for the veteran as the new dog is trained.

Current § 17.154(a) provides that VA may furnish a guide dog for blind veterans as well as travel expenses incurred by the veteran as a result of adjustment to the guide dog. Current § 17.154(b) provides that VA may supply mechanical and/or electronic equipment to beneficiaries to help overcome the handicap of blindness. In accordance with the proposed changes discussed above, we propose to revise § 17.154 by removing paragraph (a) and removing the designation of paragraph (b), and by making technical revisions to the title and language to accord with the removal of paragraph (a). It will continue to authorize VA to provide equipment to blind veterans.

We would rescind certain sections of the following VHA Handbooks, which contain conflicting provisions. We would rescind “Aids for the Blind and Visually Impaired,” 1173.05, paragraph 12, concerning issuance of guide dogs; “Eligibility,” 1173.1, paragraph 7(b)(1), referencing “veterinary treatment for guide dogs;” and “Furnishing Prosthetic Appliances and Services,” 1173.2, paragraph 4(a)(4), referencing “veterinary treatment for guide dogs.” Additionally, we would rescind the reference to “dog guide” in “Furnishing Prosthetic Appliances and Services,” 1173.2, paragraph 4(c)(a)(2)(b), which limits the Prosthetics Service Card amount to $100. Finally, we propose to amend the citations to current 38 CFR 17.154 to proposed § 17.148 and § 17.154 in “Benefits Overview,” 1601A.04, A-1(6) and A-7(22).

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on state, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

This proposed rule includes provisions constituting collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Accordingly, under section 3507(d) of the Act, VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking to OMB for review. OMB assigns a control number for each collection of information it approves. Except for emergency approvals under 44 U.S.C. 3507(j), VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Proposed § 17.148(c)(1) and (d)(2) contain collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). If OMB does not approve the collections of information as requested, VA will immediately remove the provisions containing a collection of information or take such other action as is directed by OMB.

Comments on the collections of information contained in this proposed rule should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies sent by mail or hand delivery to: Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202) 273-9026; or through http://www.Regulations.gov . Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AN51, Service Dogs.”

OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register . Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for the public to comment on the proposed rule.

VA considers comments by the public on proposed collections of information in—

• Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of VA, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluating the accuracy of VA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimizing the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

The proposed amendments to title 38, CFR Chapter 17 contain collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act for which we are requesting approval by OMB. These collections of information are described immediately following this paragraph, under their respective titles.

Title: Service Dogs.

Summary of collection of information: The proposed rule at § 17.148(c) requires the veteran to either (1) provide a certificate of completion from an ADI or IGDF-certified organization if the service dog is acquired by the veteran after the publication of the final rule; or (2) provide a certificate of completion from any then-existing guide or service dog organization if the dog is acquired prior to publication of the final rule.

Description of the need for information and proposed use of information: This information is needed for VA to determine that the dog is suitable for the clinical needs of the veteran that it would be required to fulfill and is able to behave appropriately in public.

Description of likely respondents: Veterans.

Estimated number of respondents per year: Approximately 600 veterans will need to provide certification for existing service dogs, and approximately 100 veterans will obtain service dogs each year; therefore 700 submissions in year one and 100 submissions annually.

Estimated frequency of responses per year: Veterans will submit certification for approximately 600 existing service dogs and 100 new service dogs each year; 700 submissions in year one and 100 submissions each year thereafter.

Estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden: It is expected that this burden will take less than 5 minutes per veteran, per dog. The estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden is 3500 minutes in year one and 500 minutes each year thereafter.

Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) unless OMB waives such review, as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under the Executive Order.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. We believe that most service-dog providers that provide dogs to veterans are already accredited in accordance with the proposed rule. We do not believe that gaining accreditation should result in a significant financial burden, as the standards for approval by ADI and IGDF are reasonable thresholds that are generally expected and accepted within the industry. The approximate cost to be an accredited organization by IGDF is a one-time fee of $795, with an annual fee of $318 and a per unit fee of $39.45. The approximate cost to be an accredited organization by ADI is $1,000 every 5 years with annual fees of approximately $50. The vast majority of accredited programs do not provide dogs to veterans. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles are 64.009 Veterans Medical Care Benefits, 64.010 Veterans Nursing Home Care and 64.011 Veterans Dental Care.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on May 11, 2011, for publication.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 17 as follows:

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

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On June 8, 2010, EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4601 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

We finalized a limited approval/limited disapproval on an earlier version of Rule 4601 into the SIP on 1/2/04 (69 FR 34). No versions were adopted since then besides the 12/17/09 version.

VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 4601 limits VOC emissions during architectural coating, storage and clean-up operations. EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), but Rule 4601 does not regulate major sources, so Rule 4601 need not fulfill RACT.

Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and other requirements consistently include the following:

1. “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).

2. “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

3. Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources, Volume I: Control Methods for Surface Coating Operations (EPA-450/2-76-028, 11/76, NTIS PB-260-386).

4. National VOC Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings (40 CFR 59 Subpart D, 9/11/98).

5. Technical Review Group's Proposed Architectural Coatings SCM (CARB, 1989).

6. Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings (CARB, 2000).

We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

The TSD describes one additional rule revision that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rule but is not currently the basis for rule disapproval.

Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally enforceable SIP.

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 approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Request for Comments

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2004-17455), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov ) or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “submit a comment” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Select Document Type” drop down menu select “Proposed Rule” and insert “USCG-2004-17455” in the “Enter Keyword or ID” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

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

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Enter Keyword or ID” box insert “USCG-2004-17455” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

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

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before July 6, 2011 using one of the four methods specified under ADDRESSES . Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact Mr. Gerald Miante, Maritime Personnel Qualifications Division, Coast Guard; at the telephone number or e-mail address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

On January 13, 2006, the Coast Guard published in the Federal Register (71 FR 2154) an interim rule with request for comments. The interim rule described maritime personnel licensing rules to include new security requirements when mariners apply for original, renewal, and raise-of-grade licenses and certificates of registry. However, subsequent rulemakings have addressed the majority of the interim rule provisions. As a result, the Coast Guard intends to finalize the single remaining section that has not been addressed in subsequent rulemakings.

The most recent significant rulemaking documents for rulemakings addressing the interim rule provisions are as follows:  1 (1) Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Implementation in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a Commercial Driver's License (74 FR 13114); (2) Seafarer's Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code (STCW Code) (75 FR 13715); (3) Maritime Identification Credentials (74 FR 2865); (4) Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Qualification Credentials (74 FR 11196); (5) Training and Service Requirements for Merchant Marine Officers (73 FR 52789); (6) Large Passenger Vessel Crew Requirements (74 FR 47729); and (7) Crewmember Identification Documents (74 FR 19135).

The one section of the January 13, 2006 interim rule that has remained unfinalized is 46 CFR 10.107(b): Definitions in subchapter B, specifically, the definition of “Dangerous drug” defined as “a narcotic drug, a controlled substance, or a controlled-substance analogue (as defined in section 102 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 802)).” This definition was originally published in the January 13, 2006 interim rule as 46 CFR 10.103. The subsequent rulemaking, Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Credentials, redesignated Definitions in subchapter B, to 46 CFR 10.107(b) (74 FR 11216). Our intent is to finalize this one remaining section of the interim rule in its current designation, 46 CFR 10.107(b), and we are asking for comment on this section only. You may submit a comment to the docket using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES .

As a result of our request for comments in the interim rule published on January 13, 2006 in the Federal Register (71 FR 2154), the Coast Guard heard from 364 respondents representing mariners and the industry. The respondents submitted numerous comments addressing a wide range of issues related to the interim rule. A discussion of the comments follows.

One hundred and eighty commenters noted that the interim rule requirements resulted in lost work time, long travel times, and excessive expenses to visit one of only 17 Regional Exam Centers (RECs) for fingerprinting and identification checks. The commenters felt this was extremely burdensome and created a hardship for most mariners who work or reside a long distance from the nearest REC. In addition, the commenters felt long wait times at the RECs increased this burden. This proposal, the commenters believed, would not make the industry any safer and would cost excessive time and money, plus make more work for the Coast Guard. The commenters also felt that the cost of maintaining one's credential may have been a deterrent for new entrants into the merchant marine.

One hundred and fifty four commenters suggested that instead of requiring visits to one of only 17 RECs, the Coast Guard should have allowed mariners to visit local law enforcement, Department of Motor Vehicles/Motor Vehicle Administrations, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Coast Guard Marine Safety Units, and other field offices both temporary and permanent. Locations such as post offices can take secure fingerprints for purposes such as passports, so the commenters felt the Coast Guard should allow mariners more options. The commenters suggested that the Coast Guard could also send traveling teams of examiners to places where a large number of applicants might require fingerprints and identification checks, and that the Coast Guard could notify mariners, shipping companies, and unions (through the local media), as to when and where these teams would be at any given time.

Fifteen commenters asked the Coast Guard to rescind the interim rule and work with industry to come up with a better system for fingerprint and identification checks. The commenters encouraged the Coast Guard to explore less burdensome and expensive ways to accomplish this goal while providing a way to ensure all licensed mariners are identified and properly screened.

Thirteen commenters expressed fear that the RECs may not have the manpower to provide fingerprinting and ID verification service and that the system will be overwhelmed. The commenters suggested that a traveling Coast Guard team also visit maritime schools, where there was a large concentration of mariners wishing to renew or upgrade their credentials.

These problems have been overcome by other Coast Guard rulemakings, including the Transportation Workers Identification Card (TWIC) rulemaking, which requires certain mariners who hold Coast Guard credentials to also hold a TWIC, and the Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Qualification Credentials rulemaking, which removed the requirement to appear at an REC for those mariners who must enroll for a TWIC. Moreover, the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) has set up more than 150 enrollment centers around the country at which cards may be applied for and distributed. Those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process.

Six commenters said the interim rule should not apply to operators of uninspected passenger vessels. Also, the commenter noted, some of those mariners work on inland lakes and rivers where there are no Maritime Transportation Security Act-regulated facilities and many work on small passenger vessels or family-owned offshore supply vessels where risk of a security incident is minimal.

The Coast Guard publishes regulations that implement laws passed by Congress. Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, as codified in Title 46 U.S. Code (46 U.S.C.) section 70105(b)(2), required that every Coast Guard-credentialed mariner, and other specific mariners, obtain a TWIC. As noted above, TSA maintains more than 150 enrollment centers. However, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 modified the TWIC requirement for mariners by limiting it to only those mariners who need unescorted access to secure spaces on vessels required to have a security plan under 46 U.S.C. chapter 701. However, those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo a vetting process.

Ten commenters stated that a Coast Guard license was not an identity document, and since a license was not an identity document, and was not intended to be one, a license heist was not a likely terrorist consideration.

The commenters are correct that a Coast Guard license is not an identity document. The fact that identity checks and fingerprinting are required to obtain a license does not in itself mean that the Coast Guard considers the license to be an identity document. At the time the interim rule was published, the Merchant Mariner Document (MMD) was the primary identity document for a mariner. Currently, the TWIC serves as the primary identity document. A license or a Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) is a professional qualification document. The Coast Guard is concerned that any vessel master not required to hold an MMD could be in a position to cause serious damage to terminals, bridges, and vessels along inland routes. Therefore, license-only holders must go through the fingerprinting and identification-check process.

Five commenters suggested that the Coast Guard work with the TSA for fingerprinting and identification verification.

The TWIC rulemaking has addressed this issue. Those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process.

Fourteen commenters argued that fingerprints should only be necessary on the first issuance of an MMC because fingerprints do not change over time. Also, the commenters believed that renewal applicants already had their fingerprints on file, making it easy to detect if someone were to try to renew an existing license fraudulently.

To apply for an MMC, a mariner must have a valid TWIC, which requires a full set of fingerprints at each 5-year renewal. Those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process, which also requires the submission of fingerprints in order to perform an updated background check. Fingerprints can change somewhat with age and especially after working with hand-abrasives, chemicals, etc. Additionally, fingerprints kept on file for long periods of time can also degrade, making them unsuitable for matching purposes.

One commenter asked if a mariner renewing his or her license for continuity would be required to give fingerprints and undergo an ID check.

No. Renewals for continuity credentials do not require fingerprints.

Three commenters objected to using convictions in foreign courts against any mariner wishing to renew their credentials.

The TSA has jurisdiction over this matter. For additional information on disqualifying crimes, please see the TWIC final rule revising 49 CFR 1572.103: Disqualifying Criminal Offenses (72 FR 3492). Those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process.

One commenter stated that the licensing procedure should not be halted while the Coast Guard produces a final rule on the issue.

An interim rule was necessary from an enforcement perspective until the TWIC process became operable. Licensing was not suspended during this period.

One commenter said it is unnecessary for a credential holder to give fingerprints and submit to an ID check in order to renew a credential because that credential did not enable access to security facilities or information.

Fingerprinting and ID checks are needed to perform the background check required by Coast Guard regulations.

Seven commenters stated that the Coast Guard should have allowed for public meetings in several locations around the nation before publication of the interim rule.

Given the urgency at the time, the Coast Guard decided to issue an interim rule to make the regulations effective as soon as possible. Due to subsequent rulemakings that provided an opportunity for public comment (see the “Basis and Purpose” section of the preamble), the Coast Guard, at this time, is only finalizing one remaining section of the interim rule that has remained unfinalized: § 10.107(b): Definitions in subchapter B, specifically, the definition of “Dangerous Drug”. We have determined that a public meeting is not necessary, but those wishing to request one should follow the procedures outlined above under “Public meeting”.

Two commenters suggested that the renewal process for credentials take place at local Coast Guard stations.

According to Coast Guard regulations, renewal applications are submitted to the National Maritime Center (NMC), through an REC, for evaluation and processing. The U.S. Coast Guard's NMC has recently completed restructuring and centralizing the Mariner Licensing and Documentation (MLD) program in order to reduce credential processing time, improve customer service, and ensure the consistency and quality of U.S. credentials issued to more than 210,000 mariners. The major components of this project include: Centralizing many MLD functions that had historically been performed at 17 RECs at the NMC, which is now located in Martinsburg, WV; streamlining credential production processes at the NMC; aligning the organization of the RECs so that they report directly to the NMC; and relocating the MLD program policy functions to U.S. Coast Guard headquarters.

One commenter noted that mariners are required to give fingerprints and undergo ID checks every 5 years (and have to travel longer distances to do so) while aliens are required to renew their Green Cards every 10 years.

The Coast Guard's 5-year renewal process is mandated by law (Title 46 U.S.C. 7106).

One commenter said that the results of the fingerprinting and background checks required every 5 years should not change past determinations and findings on individuals under the guise of security.

The 5-year renewal process is in place to ensure the mariner's record is current. As discussed above, fingerprints can change somewhat with age and fingerprints kept on file for long periods of time can also degrade, making them unsuitable for matching purposes. Additionally, the Coast Guard must ensure background checks contain current information. Without this, there is a break in the chain of trust that could present a lapse of security.

Two commenters stated that the requirement to give fingerprints at an REC each time a mariner wishes to renew or upgrade his or her credentials was arrogant and inconsiderate of the burden it places on the industry. The commenters believed it did little to enhance national security and asked why it was necessary to continually submit fingerprints at an REC while military personnel can submit fingerprints at their stations.

Beginning April 15, 2009, TSA collects fingerprints and proof of identity and forwards that information to the NMC to perform a background check. The Coast Guard will also be able to obtain certain information from the record TSA created when the mariner enrolled for his or her TWIC. Therefore, mariners will not have to appear at an REC. Those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process.

One commenter said it is unnecessary for mariners to submit identity verification for a duplicate credential if a credential is lost, stolen, or burned.

The Coast Guard disagrees. When a duplicate credential is issued, the Coast Guard needs to re-verify the identity of the mariner. Without this, there is a break in the chain of trust that presents a lapse of security.

One commenter said that arrest records need not be revealed, referenced, or discussed in any matter during the credentialing process when the outcome is in question. The commenter also suggested removing misdemeanor convictions altogether from being a criterion by which a mariner or applicant is judged for certification and licensure.

Although arrest records are not clear evidence of guilt, and therefore denial of credentialing is based on a court determination, the arrest serves as part of the record and is needed for full determination as required by 46 CFR 10.211. The Coast Guard acknowledges the commenter's concern. However, these issues have been resolved in the TWIC rulemaking. Those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process.

Mariners who feel they were unfairly denied a credential, can appeal under the process available from TSA (49 CFR 1515) and/or the Coast Guard (46 CFR 1.03). Those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process.

One commenter asked if the Coast Guard thought the state of Montana was a legitimate terrorist target and asked what a terrorist attack in the state would accomplish.

A terrorist attack could happen anywhere in the United States, and the Coast Guard will require vetting of every merchant mariner seeking a credential. Please note that credentials are a Federal document and allow the holder to operate anywhere inland in the U.S., coastwise, or in foreign waters subject only to the restrictions on the credentials' face.

One commenter expressed concern over the allowance of birth certificates and foreign passports as allowable identification. Another commenter took issue with the specific types of IDs accepted for verification.

The Coast Guard understands the commenters' concerns. However, this requirement is moot as identification required for MMLs is addressed by the TWIC final rule which requires all mariners who hold Coast Guard credentials to also hold a TWIC. Those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process. See 49 CFR 1572.17, see also 46 CFR 10.221.

One commenter asked the Coast Guard if fingerprinting/ID checks were so critical, why the Coast Guard mails the credential to an address at which someone other than the intended recipient might be waiting to intercept it.

The Coast Guard acknowledges the commenter's concern. However, this concern has been addressed for mariners requiring a TWIC, which must be activated in person to complete the “chain of trust”. Those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process.

One commenter called into question centralizing Marine Licensing and Documentation with the NMC and moving it to Martinsburg, WV. By doing this, the commenter said, all records could be wiped out with one calamity. The commenter was afraid that reducing facilities to one location would have the opposite effect on the backlog. Also, the commenter asked what happens when the system is down or has no power.

This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. However, current system performance has the average credential being processed in approximately 17 days of net processing time with greater than 80 percent being under 30 days. This is significantly less than the system performance while business was conducted at 17 disparate RECs. Performance at RECs varied significantly for many reasons. Among other benefits, centralization brings consistency across the program. Records were and are archived from the RECs to Federal Records Centers just as they are from the centralized NMC. Electronic records are backed up routinely. Records at any location are subject to loss from natural or man induced reasons. The NMC still continues to deal with cases of records lost due to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. The centralized location of the NMC has less potential natural perils than most of the coastally located RECs. When the RECs were doing evaluations, they were still accessing the same electronic system that they and the centralized NMC access today. There are redundant systems and backups to mitigate any lost time due to equipment and power failure.

One commenter noted a conflict in 46 CFR 10.209 regarding the requirements of identity documents.

New regulations are in place regarding identity verification. Therefore, this comment is now moot.

One commenter was in favor of the changes in the interim rule because new security requirements make sense in today's world.

The Coast Guard thanks the commenter and agrees.

One commenter, who held a commercial pilot's license, asked why a mariner seeking a master's license must jump through so many hoops, including the $145 fee required for the license itself and the requirement to renew every 5 years.

Under statutory mandate, a mariner's license is valid for 5 years and may be renewed, with the required background checks, for additional 5-year periods. 46 U.S.C. 7106. The Coast Guard has statutory authority to set fees for mariner services or things of value. 46 U.S.C. 2110. The fee is determined by the actual time and motion costs to the Coast Guard for the required evaluation, exam (if any), and issuance of the license.

One commenter disagreed with reducing the number of “service centers” to 17 RECs and believed the user fees added a substantial financial burden to mariners.

The interim rule did not reduce the number of “service centers” or RECs. The current number of 17 RECs has been in place since 1982. As stated in the response to the previous commenter, the Coast Guard has statutory authority to set fees for mariner services or things of value. 46 U.S.C. 2110.

One commenter noted that more than half of the personnel at Washington Island Ferry Line Inc., were not required to be licensed.

Mariners who require no license or MMC were not expected to follow the procedures in the interim rule. However, mariners are encouraged to check with local authorities to see if a TWIC is necessary in a given port area.

One commenter expressed concern about raising the standards defining “conviction”, which could disqualify some mariners from consideration when trying to obtain a credential. The commenter noted that there were situations where persons who have made mistakes, paid their debt to society and were living as responsible citizens, and they should be given a better opportunity to obtain a credential.

The Coast Guard agrees with this commenter, that persons who have been convicted in the past may in fact qualify for work as a mariner. Not all crimes serve as permanent disqualifiers, and there are procedures in place to allow for waivers or review of certain convictions when the individual can show that they are not a security or safety risk. Please see TSA appeal and waiver procedures for security threat assessments for individuals at 49 CFR Part 1515, see also Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Credential, criminal record review at 46 CFR 10.211.

Two commenters said credential renewals and upgrades needed to only establish that the candidate was the same person who received the original license and suggest the Coast Guard authorize employers to certify the identification of candidates. The commenters noted that employers were trusted to certify sea service and presence in a drug-testing pool.

Identification verification meets only half of the criteria for the process of obtaining a credential. Candidates must also give fingerprints so the authorities can conduct background checks. Also, TSA requires personal appearance at an enrollment center for fingerprinting and ID checks as part of the TWIC process. Please see the TWIC rulemaking for clarification.

One commenter wanted the Coast Guard to create an MMC that a mariner can carry in his or her pocket.

The NMC began issuing the MMC in early 2009 as a mariner's professional qualifications document. It incorporates the legacy license, MMD and/or Certificate of Registry as well as a mariner's STCW endorsements. The TWIC now serves as the mariner's identity document. Please see the TWIC rulemaking for clarification.

One commenter took issue with the Coast Guard issuing an interim rule without seeking comment from industry.

Due to the immediate needs for heightened security measures to be implemented, the publication of an interim rule with a request for comments allowed the Coast Guard to immediately implement regulations needed to protect national security. However, the interim rule did allow for the public to comment on the rule before it became final. Those comments are summarized above. Since publication of the interim rule, the Coast Guard, TSA, and the Department of Homeland Security have considered and addressed the public's concerns in the regulations listed above in the “Background” section of this document, as these same concerns were raised upon promulgation of those other rules.

The Coast Guard invites further comments related to this Notice of Intent to finalize the one section of the January 13, 2006 interim rule that has remained unfinalized, 46 CFR 10.107(b): Definitions in subchapter B, specifically, the definition of “Dangerous drug”. Written comments and responses related to finalizing this definition will be added to the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2004-17455). Upon close of the comment period, the Coast Guard will consider all comments received. We anticipate that we will be able to finalize 46 CFR 10.107(b) soon thereafter.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2003-14500), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov ) or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online via http:// www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “submit a comment” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Select Document Type” drop down menu select “Proposed Rule” and insert “USCG-2003-14500” in the “Enter Keyword or ID” box. Click “Search” then click on the balloon shape in the “Actions” column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

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

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the “read comments” box, which will then become highlighted in blue. In the “Enter Keyword or ID” box insert “USCG-2003-14500” and click “Search.” Click the “Open Docket Folder” in the “Actions” column. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

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

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one on or before July 6, 2011 using one of the four methods specified under ADDRESSES . Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register .

For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting, contact Mr. Gerald Miante, Maritime Personnel Qualifications Division, Coast Guard; at the telephone number or e-mail address indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

On January 6, 2004, the Coast Guard published in the Federal Register (69 FR 526) an interim rule with request for comments. The interim rule described enhancements to the application procedures for the Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation program, which were necessary to improve maritime safety and promote the national security interest of the United States. However, subsequent rulemakings have addressed the majority of the interim rule provisions. As a result, the Coast Guard intends to finalize the single remaining section that has not been addressed in subsequent rulemakings.

The most recent significant rulemaking documents for rulemakings addressing the interim rule provisions are as follows  1 : (1) Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Implementation in the Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a Commercial Driver's License (74 FR 13114); (2) Seafarer's Training, Certification and Watchkeeping Code (STCW Code) (75 FR 13715); (3) Maritime Identification Credentials (74 FR 2865); (4) Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Qualification Credentials (74 FR 11196); (5) Training and Service Requirements for Merchant Marine Officers (73 FR 52789); (6) Large Passenger Vessel Crew Requirements (74 FR 47729); and (7) Crewmember Identification Documents (74 FR 19135).

The one section of the January 6, 2004 interim rule that has remained unfinalized is 46 CFR 12.01-1(a)(1): Purpose of rules in this part, which states the rules are to provide a “comprehensive and adequate means of determining and verifying the identity, citizenship, nationality, and professional qualifications an applicant must possess to be eligible for certification to serve on merchant vessels of the United States”. Our intent is to finalize this one remaining section of the interim rule, and we are asking for comment on this section only. You may submit a comment to the docket using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES .

As a result of our request for comments in the interim rule published on January 6, 2004 in the Federal Register , (69 FR 526), the Coast Guard heard from eight respondents representing mariners and the industry. The respondents submitted numerous comments addressing a wide range of issues related to the interim rule. A discussion of the comments follows.

One commenter requested a public hearing in order to “develop a complete and accurate record regarding the provisions and consequences of the interim rule.”

The Coast Guard believes a public hearing is unnecessary. This rulemaking qualifies as an informal rulemaking under Sec. 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and as such does not require formal hearing procedures. The Coast Guard believes that the commenter's desire for a complete and accurate record of rulemaking actions related to this interim rule is available in the public docket USCG-2003-14500, available online by going to http://regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2003-14500 in the “Keyword” box, and then clicking “Search.”

One commenter looked favorably on the removal of the term “shipping commissioner” and the removal of social security numbers from the Merchant Mariners Documents (MMDs).

At each revision, the Coast Guard attempts to update terminology in its regulations. In this rulemaking specifically, we removed social security numbers from MMDs to safeguard mariners' personally identifiable information. We believe that changes such as these better serve the mariners.

One commenter said that the Coast Guard does not understand and fails to communicate with lower-level mariners.

The Coast Guard disagrees. The Coast Guard communicates with all branches of the maritime community through publications, Web sites, responses to inquiries, and other personal and mass media efforts. In fact, the Merchant Marine Personnel Advisory Committee has several “limited-service” mariners as members while several other members represent companies that employ these mariners. MERPAC periodically studies and discusses issues pertinent to limited-service mariner employment and advancement, such as Able Seamen Qualifications and ratings attaining Officer in Charge of a Navigational Watch and Officer in Charge of an Engineering Watch coming up through the hawsepipe.

One commenter warned that “adding extra and vague requirements to the already burdensome ones” will only serve to drive more people away from the maritime industry.

The Coast Guard agrees that excessive regulatory burdens must be avoided. However, extra security measures are a reality for all transportation sectors. Making ports, facilities, and vessels more secure is a part of doing business in today's world that cannot be avoided. New security measures take extra effort from all parties—government, industry, and the individual mariner—and we believe these measures are not excessive.

The Coast Guard also agrees with the commenter that “vague requirements” should be avoided. To make our requirements more clear, we have provided definitions of “safe and suitable person”, “criminal record check”, and “National Driver Register (NDR)” with specific language in 46 CFR 10.107. Mariners who feel they were unfairly denied a credential can appeal under the process available from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (49 CFR 1515) and/or the Coast Guard (46 CFR 1.03). Those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process.

Five commenters stated that, in addition to the current 17 Regional Examination Centers (RECs), additional locations were needed for mariners to show proof of identity and be fingerprinted.

This comment has been overcome by events with the establishment of the TWIC rulemaking. Those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process, which requires a showing of proof of identity and provision of fingerprints. The Coast Guard agrees that maximizing the number of locations where this may be accomplished is best, and is evaluating the options available for how to best meet mariners' identification needs. However, this is beyond the scope of this rulemaking finalizing one remaining section: 46 CFR 12.01-1(a)(1): Purpose of rules in this part.

One commenter said the RECs are unable to provide adequate services to mariners while performing current duties and that the RECs' attempt “to accomplish even more with fewer resources is the basis of the current problem with the RECs.”

One commenter predicted that the RECs will be unable to provide timely identification and fingerprinting services.

These comments have been overcome by events with the establishment of the TWIC rulemaking. Those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process.

One of these commenters also stated that evaluators should be trained, temporary licenses and documents should be issued, a hotline should be set up to receive credential-related inquiries, and that the licensing procedures should be simplified.

These subjects are not directly related to this rulemaking but were considered during subsequent revisions of the entire subchapter, 46 CFR subchapter B.

As part of documentation centralization at the National Maritime Center (NMC) in West Virginia, evaluators are being trained, and extra evaluators may be applied to any surges that might occur.

One commenter stated that 5-year renewals of MMDs and licenses should be good for 5 full years with renewal dates falling on the mariner's birthday, and that current documents should be extended as necessary to implement this change.

Title 46 U.S.C. 7302(f) currently states that an MMD is valid for 5 years and may be renewed for an additional 5-year period. To help alleviate the problem created by the 5-year validity period, the NMC is issuing credentials that have a delayed start-date to coincide with the expiration date of the previous credential.

One commenter pointed out that the interim rule is unrealistic because it focuses on only one aspect of security without addressing other areas where enhanced security is necessary.

Two commenters expressed concern that mariners on deep-draft U.S. flag vessels pose the least risk to national security and that threats to national security lie in exceptions to documentation requirements for mariners on inland waters and/or those serving on vessels of less than 100 gross tons (GRT). The commenters recommended that persons on all types of vessels be required to undergo a security screening.

These comments have been overcome by events with the establishment of the TWIC rulemaking. In addition, there are approved courses available for company, facility, and vessel security officer training as well as security familiarization for other crewmembers.

One commenter pointed out that the Coast Guard should require criminal record disclosure in applications for mariner credentials, but should not continuously require repeated documentation of previously disclosed information.

The Coast Guard agrees that the application process should be updated and simplified. As one major step, the Coast Guard has centralized all mariners' credential records at the NMC. This new process may, in the future, negate the need for repeated collection of established reporting.

Two commenters called for a clear and workable appeals process in the event that a mariner is denied a credential. One of these commenters stated the Coast Guard can withhold any explanation of the reason for disproving an MMD.

The Coast Guard agrees with the commenters and has comprehensively revised the regulation. The Coast Guard has developed an appeals process for mariners who believe they were wrongly denied a credential. The appeal process is available from the TSA (See 49 CFR 1515) and/or the Coast Guard (See 46 CFR 1.03). Those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process.

We received many comments relating to our estimates of costs in the interim final rule. Three commenters stated that applicant visits to an REC for the purposes of showing identification and fingerprinting could not be accomplished in 1 hour, and that the 1-hour approximation was underestimated.

Two commenters stated that 1-day round-trip travel does not constitute close proximity to an REC, and that the 100-mile average was unreasonable for 1-day round-trip travel to an REC.

Three commenters disagreed with the Coast Guard's travel cost estimate that most mariners live within 1-day round trip travel of an REC.

One commenter stated that several mariners in the Great Lakes Basin did not live in close proximity to an REC.

Another commenter stated that the assumptions used by the Coast Guard in calculating travel costs for applicants did not adequately reflect real travel costs in the Great Lakes.

One commenter stated that the cost in the interim rule looked at the cost on a 5-year basis, but in the long term, there was an enormous cost impact for all mariners given the multiple renews required during the course of a career.

One commenter stated that the Coast Guard's analysis was not correct to say, “not all mariners will incur costs from this rule.” The commenter further stated that every mariner seeking a new or reissue MMD was going to incur costs.

One commenter stated that the hours spent traveling should be acknowledged as the opportunity cost of the individual's wages.

Five commenters said the costs to mariners and the total cost of this rulemaking were underestimated.

One commenter wanted clarification on the application of convictions for misdemeanors and was concerned about its effect on recruitment and retention.

One commenter suggested that anyone who was denied a credential because of a safety and security check should be advised in writing as to the reason without exception.

One commenter said that an administrative law judge should make final decisions on appeals.

One commenter argued that the definition of the term “safety and security check” should include a statement on the extent of the check that may be performed.

These comments have been overcome by events with the establishment of the TWIC rulemaking. Those mariners who are not required to obtain a TWIC must still undergo another vetting process. However, we note that the regulatory evaluations which accompanied the TWIC rulemaking considered many of the comments regarding cost estimation we received here.

One commenter believed that regulations in effect prior to the interim rule create a presumption of adequacy, and that further safety and security checks were unnecessary.

The Coast Guard does not agree. As part of the Coast Guard's goal of increasing security in all aspects of the maritime domain, all mariners who then held an MMD were screened to determine if they presented a potential security risk to our nation. As a result, the Coast Guard found instances where an applicant had been issued a credential and was later found to pose a threat to security. The prior regulations did not require mariners to have their fingerprints taken at the RECs, and it allowed a candidate to submit a fingerprint card from an uncontrolled location. Similarly, the prior regulations allowed renewal of documents by mail and an applicant's identity could not be verified. The new regulations require a candidate's presence before the Coast Guard or its authorized agent to be certain that the person applying for the document can validate his or her identity and the fingerprints are indeed those of the applicant.

Three commenters believed that the regulation concerning a “safe and suitable person” and one's “character and habits of life” was vague, lacked criteria for making this determination, and did not provide adequate safeguards to the mariner. Additionally, one of these commenters added that the “character and habits of life” standard would infringe on the mariners' First Amendment rights and ignored the Supreme Court's limiting construction.

The Coast Guard agrees and changes to the terms were made with the Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Qualification Credentials final rule. 74 FR 11196.

One commenter believed that the requirement in 46 CFR 12.02-4(a) was too harsh.

One commenter wanted clarification regarding 46 CFR 12.02-4(c) as it related to applicants who have been arrested but not convicted.

One commenter suggested revising 46 CFR 12.02-9(a), which read, “The Coast Guard may refuse to process an incomplete MMC application.” by replacing the word “process” with the words “issue a credential based upon”.

One commenter asked for a definition for the word “incomplete” in 46 CFR 12.02-9(a).

These subjects are not directly related to this rulemaking but were addressed with the Consolidation of Merchant Mariner Qualification Credentials final rule, which removed and reserved 46 CFR 12.02-4 and 12.02-9. (74 FR 11196). Application regulations for all endorsements are now contained in 46 CFR 10.209.

The Coast Guard invites further comments related to this Notice of Intent to finalize the one section of the January 6, 2004 interim rule that has remained unfinalized, 46 CFR 12.01-1(a)(1): Purpose of rules in this part. Written comments and responses related to finalizing 46 CFR 12.01-1(a)(1) will be added to the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2003-14500). Upon close of the comment period, the Coast Guard will consider all comments received. We anticipate that we will be able to finalize 46 CFR 12.01-1(a)(1) soon thereafter.

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 11-90, FCC 11-79, adopted May 24, 2011 and released May 25, 2011. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov .

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using: (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/.

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.

Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

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

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

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

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).

1. In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), the Commission proposes to modify §§ 15.35 and 15.253 of its rules to enable enhanced vehicular radar technologies in the 76-77 GHz band to improve collision avoidance and driver safety. Vehicular radars can determine the exact distance and relative speed of objects in front of, beside, or behind a car to improve the driver's ability to perceive objects under bad visibility conditions or objects that are in blind spots. The Commission proposes to eliminate the existing requirement that vehicular radars decrease power when the vehicle on which the radar is mounted is stopped, or not in motion, and to expand the authorization for unlicensed 76-77 GHz band radars to allow their use in fixed infrastructure systems. These modifications to the rules will provide more efficient use of spectrum, and enable the automotive and fixed radar application industries to develop enhanced safety measures for drivers and the general public. This action is taken in response to petitions for rulemaking filed by Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) and Era Systems Corporation (Era).

2. The 76-77 GHz band offers advantages for vehicular and fixed radar systems, such as precise real-time monitoring of the position and speed of vehicles. The Commission's proposals are intended to foster the development of improved radar systems that offer significant safety benefits to the general public. The Commission also foresees economic benefits such as economies of scale and broader marketplace demand that may be attained if both the U.S. and other markets use the 76-77 GHz band for fixed and vehicular radar systems. Furthermore, the Commission believes that the changes in power levels and use suggested by TMC and Era will not result in any increased potential of interference to licensed services.

3. TMC filed a petition for rulemaking requesting that the emission limits be modified for vehicular radar systems operating within the 76-77 GHz band. Specifically, TMC requested that the Commission eliminate the “in-motion” and “not-in-motion” distinctions in the emission limits for vehicular radar systems and establish a single emission limit that applies in all directions from a vehicle.

4. The Commission believes there is merit to TMC's request to modify the emissions limits for vehicular radar systems, and to eliminate the “in-motion” and “not-in-motion” distinction in limits for millimeter wave vehicular radar systems. Therefore, the Commission proposes to modify its rules for vehicular radar systems operating in the 76-77 GHz band as TMC requests. The Commission proposes to modify § 15.253 of its rules to increase the average power density limit to 50 dBm (88 μW/cm 2 at 3 m) and decrease the peak power density limit to 55 dBm (279 μW/cm 2 at 3m) for vehicular radar systems regardless of the illumination direction of the vehicular radar system as reflected in the proposed rules set forth in Appendix A. The Commission seeks comments on this proposal. The proposed emission limits would extend to vehicular radar systems illuminating in any of the mentioned directions (forward, rear or side). This action would make the rules governing the vehicular radar emission limit in United States to be more comparable to those set forth outside the United States and therefore benefit the automotive industry in terms of new product development and cost reduction.

5. The existing separate in-motion and not-in-motion emission limits were adopted to prevent unnecessary and prolonged harmful human exposure to RF radiation. The motion status of the vehicle was given special consideration due the fact that vehicles that are not in motion could result in human exposure to radiation for longer time durations than a moving vehicle. However, because the proposed emission limit of 88 μW/cm 2 is below the current average threshold limit of 1 mW/cm 2 adopted for human exposure to RF radiation, the in-motion and not-in-motion criteria become unnecessary for safety purposes. The Commission therefore proposes emission limits independent of the motion status of the vehicle. The Commission seeks comments on these proposals.

6. In proposing the new emission limit, the Commission recognizes NRAO's concerns about possible interference, but note that the peak limit recommended by Toyota is lower than the current peak limit. This reduced limit will increase the level of interference protection afforded to RAS systems and other authorized users of the 76-77 GHz band. The Commission agrees with TMC's assessment that there is very little likelihood that vehicular radar systems operating at either the current or proposed limits would cause harmful interference to radio astronomy equipment. Accordingly, the Commission believes that there is no need to restrict vehicular radar systems based on coordination zones or to impose requirements for a GPS-aware automatic cut-off switch as proposed by NRAO. The Commission invites comment on this analysis.

7. The Commission also seeks comment on TMC's request to modify § 15.253 of its rules to specify a limit on peak EIRP instead of average power density as an alternative to, or in addition to, the limits currently specified in the rules. Furthermore, it proposes to modify § 15.35(b) of the Commission's rules to reflect the fact that the proposed peak emission limit is not 20 dB above the average emission limit.

8. In its petition, Era requests that the Commission amend § 15.253 of its rules to permit the use of 76-77 GHz unlicensed fixed radars at airports for monitoring terrestrial vehicle movements. Era contends that when the rules limiting operation to vehicle-mounted radars were adopted, there was no practical experience with vehicular radars in the 76-77 GHz band, and the rules were made very conservative to assure that such radars would not receive interference from other users of the band. Era contends that subsequent experience in other countries has shown that the requirement that radars operate only on moving vehicles is overly restrictive. It requests that the Commission relax this requirement and suggests several alternative approaches for modifying the rules to allow fixed radar use, primarily at airports. The suggested approaches are: (1) Limit fixed radars to airports and other applications that do not illuminate public roads; (2) require either compliance with the ETSI standard or strict compatibility testing for any system that illuminates public roads; or (3) mandate compliance with the ETSI standard for all 76 GHz radar systems. Era does not express a preference for which of these approaches it believes the Commission should adopt.

9. The Commission agrees with Era that the current rules should be relaxed to allow the operation of fixed radars in the 76-77 GHz band on an unlicensed basis. It therefore proposes to permit fixed radars to operate in the 76-77 GHz band in addition to vehicular radar systems, and to require that such fixed radar systems meet the proposed limits for vehicular radar systems as well as the maximum permissible RF exposure levels set forth in the rules. The Commission believes that, based on Era's representations, use of the fixed radar devices in this band will enhance public safety by enabling applications such as monitoring vehicles on the ground at airports. However, the Commission is not proposing to limit operation to monitoring vehicles or to specific locations such as airports or other place's where fixed radars would not illuminate public roads. The Commission believes that Era's suggested alternative approaches and proposals may be overly restrictive and could cause unnecessary burdens for the public if implemented. Implementation of certain elements of these approaches could require licensing and/or coordination that would be burdensome for both users of the devices and the Commission with no corresponding benefits in terms of reduction of interference potential to licensed services or improved co-existence between unlicensed devices. The Commission's proposal to permit fixed radar applications is less restrictive and could be more beneficial to public than the proposals requested by Era. The Commission believes that fixed radars operating at the same maximum power levels as vehicle-mounted radars will be less likely to interfere with the RAS and Radiolocation services than vehicle-mounted radars because the location where they are used would not change. The Commission also believes that fixed radars should be able to co-exist with vehicular radars because they would both operate with the same power level and because both would use antennas with narrow beamwidths, thus reducing the chances that the signal from one radar would be within the main lobe of the receive antenna of the other. In a worst case scenario where two radars are aimed directly at each other, fixed radar should have no more impact on a vehicular radar system than another vehicular system would.

10. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should allow unlicensed fixed radar applications to operate within the 76-77 GHz band, and on the appropriateness of the proposed power levels. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there is a need to limit fixed radar applications to specific locations such as airports and/or locations where they are not aimed at publicly accessible roads as suggested by Era, or if some alternative criteria would be more appropriate. Commenters recommended operational restrictions such as these should also address how they could be practically enforced for unlicensed devices. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether specific technical requirements are necessary to allow co-existence of fixed and vehicular radars in the 76-77 GHz band ( e.g., antenna height, operational frequency or power limits), and whether it should require fixed or vehicular radars to comply with a standard such as the ETSI EN 301 91 standard referenced by Era.

11. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 1 the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines specified in the NPRM for comments. The Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 2 In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register . 3

12. This NPRM responds to petitions for rulemaking filed by Toyota Motor Corporation (“TMC”) and Era Systems Corporation (“Era”) requesting modifications to § 15.253 of the Commission's rules for vehicular radar systems operating in the 76-77 GHz band. Vehicular radars can determine the exact distance and relative speed of objects in front of, beside, or behind a car to improve the driver's ability to perceive objects under bad visibility conditions or objects that are in blind spots. Some examples of vehicular radar systems include collision warning and mitigation systems, blind spot detection systems, lane change assist and parking aid systems. The NPRM proposes to eliminate the requirement that vehicular radars decrease power when the vehicle on which the radar is mounted is stopped, or not in motion, and to expand the use of unlicensed 76-77 GHz band radars to fixed infrastructure systems. These modifications to the rules will provide more efficient use of spectrum, and enable the automotive and fixed radar application industries to develop enhanced safety measures for drivers and the general public.

13. This action is authorized under sections 1, 4(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 4(i), 154(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), 332, 337.

14. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. 4 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 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 6 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). 7

15. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.”  8 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having 750 or fewer employees. 9 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. 10 Of this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999. 11 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

16. Radars operating in the 76-77 GHz band are required to be authorized under the Commission's certification procedure as a prerequisite to marketing and importation, and the NPRM proposes no change to that requirement. However, it proposes to eliminate the requirement that a radar must reduce power when a vehicle is not in motion and to establish a single emission limit that applies in all directions from a vehicle. The NPRM also proposes to permit fixed radars to operate in the 76-77 GHz band under the same limits proposed for vehicular radar systems.

17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 12

18. The proposals contained in this NPRM are deregulatory in nature, which we expect will simplify compliance requirements for all parties, particularly small entities, and permit the development of improved radar systems. Elimination of requirement for radars to reduce power when a vehicle is not in motion will simplify equipment design, and establishment of a single emission limit that applies in all directions from a vehicle would allow the development of omni-directional monitoring systems. Permitting fixed radar devices in the 76-77 GHz band would enable the development of applications such as monitoring the movement of vehicles on the ground at airports.

19. None.

20. Pursuant to §§ 1, 4, 301, 302(a), and 303(b), (c) and (f) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 302a(a), and 303(b), (c) and (f), the notice of proposed rulemaking is hereby adopted.

21. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

22. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 301, 302, and 303(f) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 301, 301, and 303(f), that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.

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

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 15 as follows:

This is a summary of a the Commission's document adopted and released by the FCC on June 7, 2011, in WT Docket No. 10-153. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at fcc@bcpiweb.com. The complete text is also available on the Commission's Web site at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1011A1.doc . Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or via e-mail to bmillin@fcc.gov.

1. On August 5, 2010, the Commission commenced a proceeding to remove regulatory barriers to the use of spectrum for wireless backhaul and other point-to-point and point-to-multipoint communications. The proceeding sought to increase efficient use of spectrum for backhaul, by updating regulatory classifications that may not have kept pace with the evolution of converged digital technologies.

2. Feasibility of FS Sharing in BAS and CARS Bands: The Wireless Backhaul NPRM/NOI proposed to allow FS operations to share the 6875-7125 MHz (7 GHz Band) and 12700-13200 MHz (13 GHz band) bands currently used by the Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) and the Cable TV Relay Service (CARS). The Commission stated its intention to protect existing licensees, through use of existing frequency coordination procedures. There are currently both fixed and mobile BAS and CARS operations in the 7 and 13 GHz bands. Fixed BAS in those bands include television studio-to-transmitter links, television relay stations, and television translator relay stations. CARS stations are authorized to relay various types of signals intended for use by cable television systems or other eligible systems. Mobile BAS includes television pickup stations and CARS pickup stations (“TV pickup stations”), which are authorized to transmit program material, orders concerning such program material, and related communications from the scenes of events occurring in places other than a television studio to associated television stations. TV pickup stations in these bands are licensed either for a radius around a set of coordinates or in the vicinity of a given television market. In addition, there are a limited number of Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS) stations in the 7 and 13 GHz bands authorized pursuant to § 101.803(b) of the Commission's rules.

3. In the Wireless Backhaul NPRM/NOI, the Commission proposed to require frequency coordination for new FS, BAS, and CARS applications in the 7 and 13 GHz bands. Under the current rules, all FS and fixed BAS and CARS stations above 2110 MHz must use the prior coordination notice procedure described in § 101.103(d) of the Commission's rules. LTTS licenses in the 7 and 13 GHz bands contain special conditions that require use of the prior coordination notice procedure before they operate in any given area. TV pickup stations and temporary fixed facilities may coordinate using less formal procedures, including using local frequency coordination committees. The Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) conducts a local frequency coordination program for BAS and CARS spectra.

4. A majority of commenters express qualified support for the proposal to open the 7 and 13 GHz bands to part 101 FS operators, while several broadcasting-affiliated entities oppose the proposal. Both supporters and opponents of the proposal express concerns about how to protect existing electronic news-gathering operations using TV pickup stations from interference due to FS operations, and whether meaningful FS operation in the bands will be possible given the potential for such interference. In contrast, there appears to be little concern about the ability of FS to coexist with fixed BAS and CARS.

5. WTB staff has conducted additional analysis of the 7 and 13 GHz bands. The results are depicted in several maps, which are available on the Commission's Web site at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ attachmatch/DA-11-1011A2.doc , that show existing BAS and CARS operations in the 7 and 13 GHz bands. In light of this staff analysis, we seek additional comment to understand better the circumstances in which FS sharing of the 7 and 13 GHz bands with BAS and CARS might be practical. The analysis appears to indicate that, even if FS operations were totally excluded from the service areas of TV pickup stations and CARS facilities, there would be considerable areas where FS facilities could be licensed. For example, in the 7 GHz band in Minnesota, there is only one TV pickup station with a defined area of operation authorized in the entire state, and three additional stations authorized in adjacent states that have minimal overlapping area within the state of Minnesota. In comparison, the prevalence of fixed links in the adjacent 6525-6875 MHz bands shows much more extensive use of that band. It appears that opening the 7 and 13 GHz bands to FS operations could be of particular benefit in rural areas, where the spectrum is largely available. We also note that only one new BAS TV pickup license has been granted in the 7 GHz and 13 GHz bands in the last two years. Moreover, the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC) reports that BAS and CARS path and channel licensing, respectively, in the 13 GHz band have dropped sharply in the last decade.

6. We seek further input regarding whether imposing geographic restrictions on FS sharing in the 7 and 13 GHz bands would minimize interference potential between FS facilities and TV pickup stations. Specifically, the Commission could prohibit an FS station from locating its path within the service area of a co-channel TV pickup station. Additionally, the Commission could require FS operators to coordinate any new fixed links with TV pickup stations within the appropriate coordination zone of any new fixed link.

7. We also seek comment on whether limiting new FS links in the 7 and 13 GHz bands to those areas outside the service areas of TV pickup stations would address commenters' concerns regarding the potential for harmful interference. We invite comment on the staff analysis and the data reported by FWCC on 13 GHz utilization. Are there other factors the Commission should consider regarding bands' suitability for FS use in areas where TV pickup stations are not operating?

8. Reserving Spectrum for Nationwide BAS Use. The Wireless Backhaul NPRM/NOI sought comment on making the 7 and 13 GHz band available for FS use and whether FS use would be compatible with existing uses in those bands. We now inquire whether the Commission should continue to reserve a portion of these bands exclusively for BAS and CARS operations, in order to enhance the ability of BAS and CARS to coexist with FS and facilitate nationwide use of BAS and CARS services. There are some differences in the rules governing BAS and CARS and those governing FS that might warrant such a reservation. For example, the Commission's rules authorize broadcasters to operate broadcast auxiliary facilities on a short-term basis on a secondary basis without prior Commission authorization. This provision may permit broadcasters to cover breaking news events in areas outside those covered by their TV pickup stations authorization.

9. Consistent with the request for comment in the Wireless Backhaul NPRM/NOI on the ability of BAS and CARS to share with FS in the 7 and 13 GHz bands, we seek comment on whether the Commission should continue to exclude FS facilities from the 7075-7125 MHz and 13.15-13.2 GHz bands, and reserve two 25 megahertz channels for BAS and CARS use in each band. In the 7 GHz band, reserving 7075-7125 MHz for BAS would mean that FS sharing could occur in the 6875-7075 MHz frequency range, which is contiguous to the 6525-6875 MHz band where FS operations are already authorized. In the 13 GHz band, this proposal would maintain the status quo in the 13.15-13.2 GHz band, which is currently reserved for TV pickup stations inside a 50 kilometer basis of the top 100 television markets. We seek comment on whether this proposal will strike the appropriate balance between making FS spectrum available for backhaul and other uses and ensuring spectrum is available for critical newsgathering activities. We also seek comment on other alternatives for reserving capacity for BAS and CARS. We also seek comment on how alternative technologies for providing video coverage of live events may affect the need to exclude FS from a portion of these bands.

10. Channelization Plans: In the Wireless Backhaul NPRM/NOI, noting that existing operations in the 7 and 13 GHz band used 25 megahertz bandwidth channels, the Commission proposed to make a variety of channel bandwidths available for both FS and BAS use, and to list such channel bandwidths in our rules, consistent with our practice in other FS bands. The Commission also sought comment on alternative channelization schemes. Several commenters, including FWCC and EIBASS, express concern that allowing 10 and 30 megahertz channels would preclude operation on multiple 25 megahertz channels used by BAS and result in wasted spectrum. EIBASS argues that the Commission already allows broadcasters to request signal bandwidths that are less than the standard channel bandwidth, and that there is no need to clutter the Commission's rules with a large list of arbitrarily chosen channel segments. With respect to the 13 GHz band, FWCC proposes a channel plan based on 28 megahertz channels.

11. In light of the concerns raised by FWCC and EIBASS, we seek comment on whether the Commission should allow a maximum channel bandwidth of 25 megahertz for FS in the 7 and 13 GHz bands. We invite comment on whether a maximum 25 megahertz channel bandwidth would be useful to FS operators and whether equipment manufacturers would develop equipment for such a band plan.

12. For the 7 GHz band, we seek comment on the following band plan:

For the 13 GHz band, we seek comment on the following channel plan based on 25 megahertz channels:

We also seek comment on the alternative band plan offered by FWCC based on 28 megahertz bandwidth channels, which it explains comes from the International Telecommunications Union:

13. We also seek comment on EIBASS” suggestion that FS operators be allowed to specify a lesser channel bandwidth without identifying such lesser channel bandwidths in our rules. We also seek comment on whether we should allow 50 megahertz channels in the 13 GHz band for FS, BAS, and CARS in order to allow systems to use wider channels to obtain higher data rates.

14. Coordination Procedures: Several commenters express concern that permitting FS operations in the 7 and 13 GHz bands, subject to frequency coordination, will inhibit mobile electronic newsgathering and temporary fixed operation for video coverage of newsworthy events.

15. If the Commission were to permit FS operations in the 7 and 13 GHz bands only outside of the authorized service areas of TV pickup stations, as discussed in paragraphs 2-7 above, it could likewise maintain the existing requirements that FS and fixed BAS and CARS applicants coordinate using the more formal part 101 procedures. The Commission, however, could allow TV pickup stations and other temporary fixed operators to continue to use informal frequency coordination procedures within the authorized service areas of TV pickup stations. We seek comment on appropriate coordination procedures for FS with fixed BAS, CARS stations, and TV pickup stations in shared frequencies, especially in light of geographic restrictions the Commission may adopt.

16. Capacity and Loading Requirements: The Wireless Backhaul NPRM/NOI proposed to apply the Fixed Services minimum capacity and loading requirements to the 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13200 MHz bands. While several commenters support that proposal, SBE and EIBASS express concern. SBE states that BAS links in the 7 and 13 GHz bands are used for intercity relay backhaul from distant electronic news-gathering sites, and have no content and no modulation on them until a new live shot is tuned in and transmitting. SBE argues that such necessary usage would be prohibited by the proposed rule change. EIBASS echoes SBE's concern, and proposes certain exemptions to address the concern.

17. With respect to this issue, we note that the NPRM did not propose to apply the capacity and loading criteria to operations authorized under part 74 and part 78, such as TV studio-transmitter links and intercity relays, but rather only to the FS operations authorized under part 101. In addition, § 101.141(a)(5) of the rules exempts transmitters carrying digital video motion material from the capacity and loading requirements of §§ 101.141(a)(2) and (3), provided that at least 50 percent of the payload is digital video motion material and the minimum bit rate specified in § 101.141(a)(1) is met, i.e. , that the bit rate, in bits per second, is equal to or greater than the bandwidth measured in Hertz. We seek comment on the extent to which this existing exemption addresses the concerns expressed by SBE and EIBASS. In what ways, if any, should this exemption be modified before it can be applied to the 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13200 MHz bands?

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

19. The Wireless Backhaul NPRM/NOI included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential impact on small entities of the Commission's proposal. We invite parties to file comments on the IRFA in light of this additional notice.

20. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before June 27, 1011. 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://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Comments shall be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html . In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

• 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, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

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

• Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, or via e-mail to fcc@bcpiweb.com.

• 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).

• Availability of Documents: Documents in WT Docket No. 10-153 will be available for public inspection and copying during business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The documents may also be purchased from BCPI, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, (202) 488-5563 (fax), (202) 488-5562 (tty), or via to fcc@bcpiweb.com.

21. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to §§ 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.131, 0.331.