Proposed Rules. Proposed rule

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Action: Proposed rule
Citation: FR Doc. 06-8618 · Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2006-0685, FRL-8230-1 · 40 CFR 52

Summary

The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for New York's motor vehicle enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program which includes the adoption of a statewide On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) program. New York has made revisions to Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), Part 217, “Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements,” and Title 15 NYCRR Part 79, “Motor Vehicle Inspection Regulations,” to comply with EPA regulations and to improve performance of its I/M program. The intended effect of this action is to maintain consistency between the State-adopted rules and the federally approved SIP and to approve a control strategy that will result in emission reductions that will help achieve attainment of the national ambient air quality standard for ozone.

Dates

Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2006. Public comments on this action are requested and will be considered before taking final action.

Supplementary Information

Table of Contents I. Background A. What Are the Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M Programs? B. What Did New York Include in This Latest Submittal? C. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? D. What Are the OBD Requirements and How Does New York's I/M Program Address Them? E. What Are the Performance Standard Requirements and Does New York's I/M Program Satisfy Them? II. Summary of Conclusions and Proposed Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. What Are the Clean Air Act Requirements for I/M Programs? The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires certain states to implement an enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program to detect gasoline-fueled motor vehicles which exhibit excessive emissions of certain air pollutants. The enhanced I/M program is intended to help states meet federal health-based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and carbon monoxide by requiring vehicles with excess emissions to have their emissions control systems repaired. Section 182 of the CAA requires I/M programs in those areas of the nation that are most impacted by carbon monoxide and ozone pollution. Section 184 of the CAA also created an “Ozone Transport Region” (OTR) which geographically includes the 11 states from Maryland to Maine (including all of New York State) and the District of Columbia Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area. Depending on the severity of the nonattainment designation(s) and/or geographic location within the OTR, EPA's regulation under 40 CFR 51.350 outlines the appropriate motor vehicle I/M requirements. As a result of the 1-hr ozone nonattainment designations, New York State's 62 counties were divided into two separate I/M areas. The “downstate” 9-county New York Metropolitan Area (NYMA), which includes New York City (Bronx, Kings, New York, Richmond, and Queens Counties), Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk Counties), and Westchester and Rockland Counties, has been classified as a high enhanced I/M area. On January 1, 1998, New York began implementing a high enhanced I/M program (New York refers to this program as its NYTEST program) in the NYMA. By May 1999, this enhanced I/M program was fully functional for the entire NYMA. The remaining 53 “Upstate” counties of New York State were classified as a low enhanced I/M area. Since 1998, the Upstate I/M area featured annual anti-tampering visual inspections including a gas cap presence check. Since all of New York State is included within the OTR, additional I/M requirements are mandated in the more populated counties of Upstate New York pursuant to 40 CFR 51.350(a). Section 51.350(a)(1) provides that, “States or areas within an ozone transport region shall implement enhanced I/M programs in any metropolitan statistical area (MSA), or portion of an MSA, within the state or area with a 1990 population of 100,000 or more as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regardless of the area's attainment classification.” Further, § 51.350(b)(1) provides that, “[i]n an ozone transport region, the program shall entirely cover all counties within subject MSAs or subject portions of MSAs, as defined by OMB in 1990, except largely rural counties having a population density of less than 200 persons per square mile based on the 1990 Census can be excluded except that at least 50 percent of the MSA population must be included in the program * * .” In effect, 16 of the 53 counties located in Upstate New York are required to have low enhanced I/M. The 16 counties are Albany, Broome, Chautauqua, Dutchess, Erie, Monroe, Niagara, Oneida, Onondaga, Orange, Putnam, Rensselaer, Schenectady, Saratoga, Warren and Washington. On April 5, 2001, EPA published in the Federal Register “Amendments to Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements Incorporating the On-Board Diagnostics Check” (66 FR 18156). The revised I/M rule requires that electronic checks of the On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) system on model year 1996 and newer OBD-equipped motor vehicles be conducted as part of states' motor vehicle I/M programs. OBD is part of the sophisticated vehicle powertrain management system and is designed to detect engine and transmission problems that might cause vehicle emissions to exceed allowable limits. OBD is the subject of this proposed rulemaking action. The OBD system monitors the status of up to 11 emission control related subsystems by performing either continuous or periodic functional tests of specific components and vehicle conditions. The first three testing categories—misfire, fuel trim, and comprehensive components—are continuous, while the remaining eight only run after a certain set of conditions has been met. The algorithms for running these eight periodic monitors are unique to each manufacturer and involve such things as ambient temperature as well as driving conditions. Most vehicles will have at least five of the eight remaining monitors (catalyst, evaporative system, oxygen sensor, heated oxygen sensor, and exhaust gas recirculation or EGR system) while the remaining three (air conditioning, secondary air, and heated catalyst) are not necessarily applicable to all vehicles. When a vehicle is scanned at an OBD-I/M test site, these monitors can appear as either “ready” (meaning the monitor in question has been evaluated), “not ready” (meaning the monitor has not yet been evaluated), or “not applicable” (meaning the vehicle is not equipped with the component monitor in question). The OBD system is also designed to fully evaluate the vehicle emissions control system. If the OBD system detects a problem that may cause vehicle emissions to exceed 1.5 times the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) standards, then the Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) is illuminated. By turning on the MIL, the OBD system notifies the vehicle operator that an emission-related fault has been detected, and the vehicle should be repaired as soon as possible thus reducing the harmful emissions contributed by that vehicle. EPA's revised OBD I/M rule applies to only those areas that are required to implement I/M programs under the CAA, which include the NYMA and certain counties in Upstate New York. This rule established a deadline of January 1, 2002 for states to begin performing OBD checks on 1996 and newer model OBD-equipped vehicles and to require repairs to be performed on those vehicles with malfunctions identified by the OBD check. EPA's revised I/M rule also provided several options to states to delay implementation of OBD testing, under certain circumstances. An extension of the deadline for states to begin conducting mandatory OBD checks is permissible provided the state making the request can show just cause to EPA for a delay and that the revised implementation date represents “the best the state can reasonably do” (66 FR 18159). EPA's final rule identifies factors that may serve as a possible justification for states considering making a request to the EPA to delay implementation of OBD I/M program checks beyond the January 2002 deadline. Potential factors justifying such a delay include contractual impediments, hardware or software deficiencies, data management software deficiencies, the need for additional training for the testing and repair industries, and the need for public education or outreach. On May 7, 2001 (66 FR 22922), EPA fully approved New York's enhanced I/M program as it applies to NYMA and included the State's performance standard modeling as meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA. However, the OBD component of that program was not being implemented at that time and therefore was not approved by EPA as satisfying a fully operational OBD program. Additional information on EPA's final approval of New York's enhanced I/M program can be found in EPA's May 7, 2001 final approval notice. B. What Did New York Include in This Latest Submittal? On April 4, 2002, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) requested a formal extension of the OBD I/M test deadline, per EPA's I/M requirement rule. New York's request lists contractual impediments, hardware and software deficiencies and data management deficiencies as the factors for its request for an extension of the OBD testing deadline. Based upon the reasons listed by New York, EPA believed that the State's delayed implementation was justified. On February 27, 2006, NYSDEC submitted to EPA a revision to its SIP which incorporates OBD system requirements in the NYMA and the 53 counties located in Upstate New York. New York's SIP revision includes revisions to the NYSDEC regulation found at Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), Part 217, “Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements,” and the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (NYSDMV) regulation found at Title 15 NYCRR Part 79, “Motor Vehicle Inspection Regulations,” and a performance standard modeling demonstration. C. What Action Is EPA Taking Today? The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the New York SIP pertaining to New York's enhanced I/M program which incorporates OBD testing requirements and procedures in the NYMA and the 53 counties located in Upstate New York (New York refers to this program as the New York Vehicle Inspection Program (NYVIP)). D. What Are the OBD Requirements and How Does New York's I/M Program Address Them? . The OBD program requires scan tool equipment to read the vehicle's built-in computer sensors in model year 1996 and newer vehicles. The OBD-I/M check consists of two types of examination: a visual check of the dashboard display function and status and an electronic examination of the OBD computer itself. The failure criteria for OBD testing is any Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC) or combination of DTCs that results in the Malfunction Indicator Light (MIL) to be commanded on. A DTC is a code that indicates an emission control system or component which may cause emissions to increase to 1.5 times the limit due to malfunction. New York has incorporated this OBD component into its NYVIP program. If the OBD scan reveals DTCs that have not commanded the MIL on, the motorist should be advised of the issue, but the vehicle should not be failed unless other non-DTC-based failure criteria have been met. Vehicles may fail inspection if the vehicle connector is missing, tampered with or otherwise inoperable, if the MIL is commanded on and is not visually illuminated, and if the MIL is commanded on for 1 or more DTCs as defined in Society of Automotive Engineering (SAE) J2012 guidance document. Vehicles are rejected from testing if the scan of the OBD system reveals a “not ready” code for any OBD component. EPA guidance allows states the flexibility to permit model year 1996 to 2000 vehicles with 2 or fewer unset readiness codes, and model year 2001 and newer with 1 unset readiness code to complete OBD-I/M inspection without being rejected. Vehicles would still fail if the MIL was commanded on or if other failure criteria were met, or be rejected if 3 or more unset readiness codes were encountered. If the MIL is not commanded to be illuminated the vehicle would pass the OBD inspection even if DTCs are present. New York's NYVIP program is consistent with the EPA recommended readiness failure criteria. There are several reasons why a vehicle may arrive at a testing facility without the required readiness codes set. These reasons include the following: (1) Failure to operate the vehicle under the conditions necessary to evaluate the monitors in question; (2) a recent resetting of the OBD system due to battery disconnection or replacement, or routine maintenance immediately prior to testing; (3) a unique, vehicle-specific OBD system failure; (4) an as-of-yet undefined system design anomaly; or (5) a fraudulent attempt to avoid I/M program requirements by clearing OBD codes just prior to OBD-I/M testing. New York's NYVIP program provides for a 10-day time extension under limited conditions. This time extension is necessary to allow motorists (or technicians) the ability to drive a vehicle following an OBD readiness criteria failure and to comply with DMV regulations. Without the time extension provision, a motorist with an expired sticker would not be able to legally drive the vehicle in an effort to re-set monitors. For these reasons, NYVIP will authorize a 10-day time extension (once per inspection cycle) under the following conditions: (1) The vehicle's inspection sticker has expired and was removed by the inspector per state regulation; (2) the vehicle fails only the OBD inspection and for only the readiness criteria; and (3) the vehicle passes all other inspection requirements (safety, emission control device checks, gas cap check). Once the cause for rejection has been corrected, the vehicle must return for reinspection. The EPA believes that for an OBD-I/M test program to be most effective, it should be designed to allow for: (1) Real-time data link connections to a centralized testing database; (2) quality-controlled input of vehicle and owner identification information; and (3) automated generation of test reports. New York has incorporated these OBD program elements into its NYVIP program. New York outlines the procedure for its OBD inspection program in Title 6 NYCRR Subpart 217-1 of the NYSDEC regulations and in conjunction with Title 15 NYCRR 79.24 of the NYSDMV regulations. The State requires certain procedures to implement its OBD program that are in accordance with the procedures set forth by EPA. For this reason, and as detailed above, EPA is proposing that New York's NYVIP program meets federal requirements and is approvable. New York has gone through the phase-in period of Beta testing, and all the systems have been updated with the appropriate software and hardware. Certified inspectors at licensed inspection facilities must pass an on-line exam before they are allowed to complete OBD inspections. New York has also taken steps to limit potential inspection fraud, human error, tampering and/or abuse of equipment. A motor vehicle emission inspector license may be suspended or revoked if any fraudulent vehicle emission inspection is conducted. E. What Are the Performance Standard Requirements and Does New York's I/M Program Satisfy Them? Revisions to EPA's I/M regulations (40 CFR part 51) were published in the Federal Register on September 18, 1995 (60 FR 48029) and July 25, 1996 (61 FR 39032). These changes to EPA's Part 51 outlined two new enhanced performance standards: The Alternate Low Enhanced Performance Standard, under § 51.351(g), and the OTR Low-Enhanced Performance Standard, under § 51.351(h). The pertinent modeling requirement is noted under § 51.351(h), where an I/M jurisdiction may select the OTR low-enhanced I/M performance standard in lieu of either the more stringent high enhanced or alternate low enhanced performance standards as long as the difference in emission reductions between the alternate low enhanced standard and OTR low-enhanced standard are achieved through other measures. As stated previously, 16 of the 53 counties located in Upstate New York are required to have low enhanced I/M. Because New York implements its NYVIP program in all 53 counties located in Upstate New York, the 37 counties that were not required to implement any form of enhanced I/M are used as an offsetting measure. Included in New York's February 27, 2006 submittal is the appropriate MOBILE 6 Vehicle Emission Modeling Software modeling demonstration considering the required performance standards and the actual NYVIP program as it applies to the 53 counties located in Upstate New York. The modeling runs considered summer and winter evaluations with a 2009 compliance date. To complete the modeling demonstration, three Mobile 6 modeling runs were performed by New York. The first run reflects the pre-existing Upstate I/M program prior to the roll-out of the OBD program in the Upstate areas. This program included expanded anti-tampering visual checks and a gas cap presence check that began in 1998. This modeling run establishes the Upstate I/M baselines from which the reductions of the other two runs were calculated. The second run is EPA's Alternate Low Enhanced I/M Performance Standard, § 51.351(g), modeled in the required 16 Upstate counties. The difference between this run and the first run represents the required reductions. The third run is the actual OBD program (NYVIP) as it applies in all 53 Upstate counties. The difference between this run and the baseline represents the estimated Upstate OBD program reductions. New York has demonstrated that the actual reductions from its OBD based I/M program being implemented in the 53 counties located in Upstate New York (NYVIP) achieves greater emission reduction credits than that of an alternate low enhanced I/M program required in the 16 counties of Upstate New York. EPA is therefore proposing to approve New York's performance standard modeling demonstration for its 53 county Upstate I/M program (NYVIP). As noted previously, on May 7, 2001 (66 FR 22922), EPA fully approved New York's enhanced I/M program, which included the State's performance standard modeling as it applies to NYMA, as meeting the applicable requirements of the CAA. II. Summary of Conclusions and Proposed Action EPA's review of the materials submitted indicates that New York has revised its I/M program in accordance with the requirements of the CAA, 40 CFR part 51 and all of EPA's technical requirements for an approvable OBD program. EPA is proposing to approve the revisions to the NYSDEC regulation Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), Part 217, “Motor Vehicle Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program Requirements,” effective on October 30, 2002, and the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (NYSDMV) regulation Title 15 NYCRR Part 79 “Motor Vehicle Inspection Regulations,” effective on May 4, 2005, which incorporate the State's OBD motor vehicle inspection program requirements. The CAA gives states the discretion in program planning to implement programs of the state's choosing as long as necessary emission reductions are met. EPA is also proposing to approve New York's performance standard modeling demonstration, which reflects the State's I/M program as it is currently implemented in the 53 counties located in Upstate New York (NYVIP), as meeting the required EPA alternate low enhanced I/M performance standards. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. ). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: September 28, 2006. Alan J. Steinberg, Regional Administrator, Region 2. [FR Doc. E6-16931 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 80 [WT Docket No. 04-344; FCC 06-108] Maritime Communications AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) requests additional comment on issues pertaining to maritime Automatic Identification Systems (AIS). AIS is an important tool for enhancing maritime safety and homeland security. Having determined in the Report and Order in this proceeding that VHF maritime Channels 87B and 88B should be allocated for exclusive AIS use, in keeping with the international allocation of those channels for AIS, the Commission now seeks comment on whether the designation of those channels for ASIS should be effective throughout the Nation or, as the Commission initially proposed, only in the nine maritime VHF public coast (VPC) service areas (VPCSAs). The Commission asks commenters to consider, in this regard, the United States Coast Guard's plans to develop satellite AIS tracking capabilities. Second, the Commission requests comment on equipment standards and other issues pertaining to AIS base stations. Finally, the Commission requests comment on a proposed standard for authorizing Class B AIS devices. DATES: Submit comments on or before November 13, 2006, and reply comments are due on or before November 27, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 04-344; FCC 06-108, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: * http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc. ) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Tobias, Jeff.Tobias@FCC.gov, Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0680, or TTY (202) 418-7233. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal Communications Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in WT Docket No. 04-344, FCC 06-108, adopted on July 20, 2006, and released on July 24, 2006. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text 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. Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). 1. The Commission tentatively concluded in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding ( AIS NPRM ) that Channel 87B should be designated for exclusive AIS use only in the nine maritime VPCSAs. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and other commenters disagree, arguing that the designation of Channel 87B for AIS should apply throughout the Nation, including the inland VPCSAs as well as the maritime VPCSAs. Although the proponents of a nationwide designation offer several considerations in support of their position, NTIA and ORBCOMM, Inc. have emphasized that satellite AIS capabilities may be developed, and that the effectiveness of satellite AIS depends to a great deal on the establishment of a truly nationwide AIS channel designation. The possibility of satellite AIS was not discussed in the AIS NPRM, however, and was not introduced into the record of this proceeding until NTIA filed comments, and ORBCOMM, Inc. reply comments, addressing the issue. The Commission therefore believes that it would be beneficial to obtain further information regarding satellite AIS before deciding this important and complex issue. The Commission requests, in particular, that interested parties provide technical and operational information regarding satellite AIS, including its susceptibility to interference from terrestrial stations, and discuss the public interest costs and benefits of satellite AIS. Commenters should also address whether satellite AIS can function adequately without a nationwide designation of Channel 87B for AIS. 2. In addition to providing information specifically with respect to satellite AIS, interested parties are again invited to address the larger issue of whether the designation of Channel 87B for AIS should be limited to the maritime VPCSAs or should cover the entire Nation, whether or not satellite AIS proves feasible. The Commission would especially welcome input on this issue from licensees of inland VPCSAs. In addition, the Commission requests further comment on the potential benefits of terrestrial AIS in inland areas. The Commission also requests that commenters provide more information on the extent to which vessels on navigable waterways in the inland VPCSAs may benefit from AIS on the one hand, and VPC services, including maritime public correspondence services, on the other. 3. As the Commission noted in the AIS NPRM, two duplex channels in each inland VPCSA are set aside for public safety use. These channels are designated for interoperability operations in the inland VPCSAs. The Commission's Universal Licensing System database indicates that only two public safety entities are licensed for these channels. The Commission has designated other spectrum in the VHF and other bands, for interoperability operations. The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether, in the event it designates Channel 87B for exclusive AIS use nationwide, it would be appropriate to redesignate any of these set-aside channels for VPC use in order to avoid a negative impact on inland VPCSA licensees. 4. NTIA observes that the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) is in the process of developing AIS base station equipment standards, and says that the Commission should address issues concerning the authorization, coordination, and operation of AIS base stations. The Commission agrees, and does not believe it necessary to defer requesting comment on these questions until the IEC completes its work. Requesting comment at this stage will permit the Commission to more expeditiously amend its rules following the development of the IEC standards, either to incorporate the IEC standards, promulgate different standards, or take other appropriate action. In addition, it may be possible to crystallize some of the relevant issues even before the IEC publishes its AIS base station standards. The Commission accordingly requests comment on standards and procedures for authorizing AIS base station equipment. The Commission also requests comment on what, if any, rules it should adopt for the licensing and use of AIS base stations, including, for example, license eligibility criteria, an appropriate license term, and whether AIS base station licenses should be assignable. With respect to operational issues, commenters should address, for example, limits on permissible communications, and whether AIS base stations should be permitted to operate on a for-profit basis. 5. NTIA notes that low-cost, Class B AIS devices are being developed for vessels not covered by a mandatory carriage requirement under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. Class B AIS devices are intended to provide a less expensive alternative to Class A AIS equipment, while still providing vessel information critical to maritime safety and security. In standardizing AIS, the ITU Radiocommunications Sector Recommendation 1371-1, “Technical characteristics for a universal shipborne Automatic Identification System (AIS) using SOTDMA (Self-Organizing Time Division).” 6. “Multiple Access in the VHF maritime mobile band,” provides for a Class B AIS device. The Commission notes, moreover, that the IEC recently adopted and published an international standard, IEC 62287-1, that sets forth requirements and test procedures for Class B AIS equipment. During the development of this Class B AIS standard, concerns arose regarding the potential impact on the operation of the AIS network from widespread deployment of Class B AIS devices that are not compatible with the Class A devices used on SOLAS ships, AIS base stations, and AIS-equipped Aids to Navigation. To resolve these concerns, a network access technology was developed that allows large numbers of Class B-fitted vessels to coexist with Class A-fitted vessels with negligible detrimental effect on the AIS network. This new technology, known as Carrier Sense TDMA (CS or CSTDMA), requires that the Class B CS AIS device “listen” to the AIS network, and then determine that the network is free of competing traffic before transmitting. This “polite” operation of Class B CS AIS devices minimizes the probability of their causing interference to Class A devices and other AIS network operations. 7. The Commission believes that accommodating Class B devices under its rules will advance the goal of ensuring that AIS is deployed widely, quickly, reliably, cost-effectively, and in a manner that will maximize its capabilities. Class B AIS devices can significantly enhance the overall effectiveness of AIS at a low cost. In addition, the IEC 62287-1 international standard appears to adequately protect the overall AIS network. The Commission tentatively concludes, therefore, that it should amend its part 80 rules to incorporate by reference the IEC 62287-1 standard and provide for the certification of Class B AIS equipment that complies with that standard. The Commission believes this action will promote the domestic public interest by facilitating the sale, installation and use of internationally interoperable Class B AIS devices in the United States. It invites comment on this proposal generally, and, more specifically, on the merits of proposed new § 80.231. 8. In addition, the Commission requests comment on the measures, if any, that it might take to ensure the accuracy of AIS data transmitted via Class B AIS devices. Class B AIS devices broadcast such user-programmed information as Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) number, vessel name, vessel type, call sign and dimension of the ship and reference point for reported position. They also broadcast such dynamic information as true heading, speed over ground and course over ground. Ships, vessel traffic systems and others often make navigation decisions based upon the accuracy of the information received. The Commission seeks comments regarding means which could be employed to ensure that user-programmed as well as dynamic data on AIS units used on non-compulsory ships is accurate. I. Procedural Matters A. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding 9. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. B. Comment Dates 10. 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 November 13, 2006 and reply comments on or before November 27, 2006. All filings related to this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making should refer to WT Docket No. 04-344. 11. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). 12. 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. 13. 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. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers 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. 14. 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. 15. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. 16. The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. 17. 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. 18. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554. 19. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 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 . 20. Availability of documents. The public may view the documents filed in this proceeding during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and on the Commission's Internet Home Page: http://www.fcc.gov. Copies of comments and reply comments are also available through the Commission's duplicating contractor: Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160, or via e-mail at the following e-mail address: http://www.bcpiweb.com. 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). C. Paperwork Reduction Act 21. The action contained herein has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and found to impose no new or modified reporting or recordkeeping requirements or burdens to the public, including businesses with fewer than 25 employees. 22. Specifically, in the FNPRM, the Commission proposes to establish requirements for the certification of Class B AIS devices. If adopted, the proposed rule would require, among other things, that applicants for certification submit specified information, including copies of test reports and test data, to the United States Coast Guard prior to filing their applications with the Commission, and that they include with their applications to the Commission copies of letters from the United States Coast Guard stating that the device in question satisfies all of the requirements of the pertinent international standard, IEC 62287-1, “Maritime navigation and radio communication equipment and systems—Class B shipborne equipment of the automatic identification system—Part 1: Carrier-sense time division multiple access (CSTDMA) techniques,” 2006 (IEC 62287-1). The Commission does not believe that the requirement to submit this information would impose a significant increased administrative burden on businesses with fewer than 25 employees, primarily because such businesses would need to submit the same or similar information in order to obtain certification for Class B AIS devices under international requirements. By incorporating the international standard into the Commission's rules, rather than establishing a different standard, the Commission's proposed rule would avoid subjecting businesses to disparate equipment certification requirements for Class B AIS devices. In addition, whatever burden the Commission's proposed rule might impose on businesses with fewer than 25 employees is more than justified by the underlying purpose of the rule, which to ensure that Class B devices operate effectively and safely, and are interoperable with other AIS devices. Given the important role AIS is to play in promoting homeland security and maritime safety, the public interest in establishing rules for the certification of Class B AIS devices outweighs the minimal burden it might impose on businesses with fewer than 25 employees. II. Supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended, the Commission has prepared this present supplemental Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in WT Docket No. 04-344 ( FNPRM ). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM as provided in paragraph 74 of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register . Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 24. In the FNPRM, the Commission contemplates rules changes involving three issues. First, with the objective of ensuring that AIS operations are implemented in an effective and efficient manner without imposing unnecessary restrictions on a VPC operations, the Commission requests comment as to whether there is a need to revisit the issue of the appropriate geographic scope of the AIS set-aside, i.e. , whether it should be nationwide or limited to the nine maritime VPCSAs. The Commission seeks comment, in particular, on whether and how the potential development of satellite AIS should weigh in that decision. Second, with the objective of ensuring that AIS base stations operate in a manner consonant with the overall goals and purposes of AIS, the Commission requests comment on equipment certification, licensing, and other issues pertaining to AIS base stations. The Commission notes, in this regard, that AIS base stations are a critical component of the AIS network, and that there is an apparent need for some regulation of AIS base stations just as there is a need for some regulation of AIS ship stations. Finally, with the objective of accommodating Class B as well as Class A AIS devices, the Commission requests comment on the Commission's proposal to incorporate by reference IEC 62287-1, “Maritime navigation and radio communication equipment and systems—Class B shipborne equipment of the automatic identification system—Part 1: Carrier-sense time division multiple access (CSTDMA) techniques,” 2006 (IEC 62287-1), as the standard for certifying Class B AIS devices under part 80 of the Commission's rules. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules 25. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 4(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 154(i), 302, 303(f) and (r), and 332. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 26. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 27. Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency (VHF) marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,” which is 1,500 or fewer employees. Between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast (VPC) licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a “small” business as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed fifteen million dollars. In addition, a “very small” business is one that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed three million dollars. There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as “small” businesses under the above special small business size standards. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 28. There are no projected reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 29. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, 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.” 30. In the FNPRM , the Commission asks that interested parties, and in particular inland VPCSA licensees, provide information on the potential impact on inland VPCSA licensees of designating Channel 87B for AIS use exclusively throughout the Nation. To the extent that commenters foresee such an impact, they are invited to suggest alternatives that would minimize or eliminate any adverse effect on small entities. For example, commenters may suggest that inland VPCSA licensees be accorded treatment similar to that which we are providing to site-based incumbent licensees, permitting them to continue to operate on Channel 87B on a shared basis with AIS for the remainder of their current license terms, but with no opportunity for renewal of the licenses. Commenters may also address the possibility of migrating such licensees to different channels if such were available. 31. In the FNPRM , the Commission also invites comment on rules to govern AIS base stations, including certification standards for AIS base station equipment. In the absence of specific proposals, we invite interested parties to consider generally whether any special measures should be adopted in the AIS base station rules to prevent a significant adverse impact on small entities. Parties providing such comments should also address the extent to which they believe small entities may seek to become AIS base station licensees. 32. Finally, the Commission requests comment in the FNPRM on its proposal to incorporate by reference IEC 62287-1, “Maritime navigation and radio communication equipment and systems—Class B shipborne equipment of the automatic identification system—Part 1: Carrier-sense time division multiple access (CSTDMA) techniques,” 2006 (IEC 62287-1), as the standard for certifying Class B AIS devices under part 80 of the Commission's rules. The Commission believes that incorporating by reference the international standard for Class B AIS devices will reduce costs to manufacturers by eliminating the possible need to design devices to two potentially conflicting standards, and will reduce costs to users of the devices both from a pass-through of manufacturers' cost savings and by eliminating the possible need to fit their vessels with more than one Class B AIS device if they travel outside U.S. territorial waters, i.e. , removing the need to carry one Class B AIS device to function within U.S. territorial waters, and another Class B AIS device to function in international waters or other nations' territorial waters. The Commission notes, in addition, that Class B AIS devices are intended generally for use on vessels that are not required by law to carry AIS devices. Since carriage of Class B AIS devices is voluntary, the establishment of standards for certifying such devices should not impose a new compliance burden on vessel operators. However, to the extent that any commenters believe that he establishment of equipment certification standards for Class B AIS devices may impose a significant new compliance burden on any small entities, the Commission invites them to suggest alternative or complementary approaches that may reduce or eliminate that burden, including, but not limited to, the establishment of less rigorous standards, or the provision of exemptions or grandfathering protection for small entities. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules 33. None. III. Ordering Clauses 34. Pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and 403, this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is adopted. 35. It is further ordered that pursuant to the applicable procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before November 13, 2006 and reply comments on or before November 27, 2006. 36. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 80 Communications, Radio. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Proposed Rule Changes For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 80 as follows: PART 80—STATIONS IN THE MARITIME SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609; 3 UST 3450, 3 UST 4726, 12 UST 2377. 2. Section 80.231 is added to read as follows: § 80.231 Technical Requirements for Class B Automatic Identification System (AIS) equipment. (a) Class B Automatic Identification System (AIS) equipment must meet the technical requirements of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 62287-1 International Standard, “Maritime navigation and radio communication equipment and systems—Class B shipborne equipment of the Automatic Identification System—Part 1: Carrier -sense time division multiple access (CSTDMA) techniques,” 2006. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of these standards can be inspected at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC (Reference Information Center) or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or, go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html . IEC publications can be purchased from the International Electro-technical Commission, 3 Rue de Varembe, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, or from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036, telephone (212) 642-4900. (b) Prior to submitting a certification application for a Class B AIS device, the following information must be submitted in duplicate to the Commandant (G-PSE), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001: (1) The name of the manufacturer or grantee and the model number of the AIS device; (2) Copies of the test report and test data obtained from the test facility showing that the device complies with the environmental and operational requirements identified in IEC 62287-1. (c) After reviewing the information described in paragraph (b) of this section, the U.S. Coast Guard will issue a letter stating whether the AIS device satisfies all of the requirements specified in IEC 62287-1. (d) A certification application for an AIS device submitted to the Commission must contain a copy of the U.S. Coast Guard letter stating that the device satisfies all of the requirements specified in IEC 62287-1, a copy of the technical test data, and the instruction manual(s). 3. Section 80.275 is amended by revising the section heading and paragraph (a) introductory text to read as follows: § 80.275 Technical Requirements for Class A Automatic Identification System (AIS) equipment. (a) Prior to submitting a certification application for a Class A AIS device, the following information must be submitted in duplicate to the Commandant (G-MSE), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington DC 20593-0001: 4. Section 80.1101 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(12)(vi) to read as follows: § 80.1101 Performance standards. (c) * * * (12) * * * (vi) with respect to Class B AIS devices only, IEC 62287-1 International Standard, “Maritime navigation and radio communication equipment and systems—Class B shipborne equipment of the Automatic Identification System—Part 1: Carrier—sense time division multiple access (CSTDMA) techniques,” 2006. [FR Doc. E6-16832 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P 71 197 Thursday, October 12, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Meeting of the Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: The Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board will hold a meeting on Thursday, November 2, 2006. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.2. The meeting agenda includes the following: (1) Welcome/Introductions. (2) Environmental Education. (3) Promotions Effectiveness Study. (4) LBL Updates. (5) Board Discussion of Comments Received. The meeting is open to the public. Written comments are invited and may be mailed to: William P. Lisowsky, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211. Written comments must be received at Land Between The Lakes by October 26, 2006, in order for copies to be provided to the members at the meeting. Board members will review written comments received, and at their request, oral clarification may be requested at a future meeting. DATES: The meeting will be held on November 2, 2006, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., CST. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Kentucky Dam Village State Resort Park, Gilbertsville, Kentucky, and will be open to the public. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Byers, Advisory Board Liaison, Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211, 270-924-2002. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None. Dated: October 5, 2006. William P. Lisowsky, Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes. [FR Doc. E6-16879 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Public Forum on the European Union Metric Labeling Directive AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The European Union has developed legislation that could mandate that U.S. businesses only use metrics when manufacturing for sale in the EU. This forum will provide U.S. industries an opportunity to express their concerns and ask relevant questions about the legislation. DATES: The date of the meeting is October 12, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by any of the following methods: • E-mail: Ann_Ngo@ita.doc.gov . • Fax: 202-482-2897. • Mail: U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3513, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. • Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 3513, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Ngo, Room 3527, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-0010. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Beginning January 1, 2010, the European Union Council Directive of 20 December 1979 (80/181) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement and on the repeal of Directive 71/354/EEC, otherwise known as the Metric Directive, will allow the use of only metric units, and prohibit the use of any other measurements for most products sold in the European Union (EU). The Metric Directive will make the sole use of metric units obligatory in all aspects of life in the European Union, extending to areas such as product literature and advertising. The Department of Commerce cordially invites all interested stakeholders to attend a public forum on the European Union's Metric Directive. The meeting is an opportunity for interested parties to provide information and input to the U.S. government on key areas of metric-only labeling. The stakeholders' input will be considered in the development of U.S. government views and actions. Key government officials working directly on this issue from various agencies will be in attendance to make presentations and discuss this important legislation and what stakeholders can do to move this issue to a successful conclusion. Date: October 12, 2006. Time: 2:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Where: U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. To gain access to the Department of Commerce, please RSVP by noon on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 to Ann Ngo at (202) 482-0010 or Ann_Ngo@ita.doc.gov. The agenda will be provided at the meeting. Further information on the Metric Labeling directive can be found at: http://buyusainfo.net/docs_orig/x_3107558.doc and at http://www.nist.gov/metric. Dated: October 1, 2006. David DeFalco, Director, Office of European Union, Department of Commerce. [FR Doc. E6-16930 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DA-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Availability of Seats for the Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council AGENCY: National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce (DOC). ACTION: Notice and request for applications. SUMMARY: The Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary is seeking applicants for the following vacant seats on its Sanctuary Advisory Council (Council): Non Government Seat: Fishing/Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council member (voting). Applicants are chosen based upon their particular expertise and experience in relation to the seat for which they are applying; community and professional affiliations; philosophy regarding the protection and management of marine resources; and possibly the length of residence in the area affected by the Sanctuary. Applicants who are chosen as members should expect to serve 2-year terms, pursuant to the Council's Charter. DATES: Applications are due by October 23, 2006. ADDRESSES: Application kits may be obtained from Bill Kiene and Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary Program, P.O. Box 4318, Pago Pago, AS, 96799. Completed applications should be sent to the same address. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Kiene, P.O. Box 4318, Pago, Pago, AS 96799, (684) 633-7354, and William.kiene@noaa.gov. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431, et seq. (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog Number 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program). Dated: October 2, 2006. Daniel J. Basta, Director, National Marine Sanctuary Program, National Ocean Services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. [FR Doc. 06-8618 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am]