Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-10-02 · Office of Personnel Management · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Notice of proposed rulemaking

22,173 words·~101 min read·/register/2007/10/02/07-4775

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 190 Tuesday, October 2, 2007 Proposed Rules OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 352 RIN 3206-AI19 Reemployment Rights AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management
(OPM)proposes to amend its regulations on the detail and transfer of Federal employees to international organizations. The proposed changes will make the regulation consistent with recent statutory changes on determining the rate of basic pay an employee is entitled to receive when reemployed after service with an international organization. The changes also modernize regulatory language. DATES: Submit comments on or before December 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by RIN number, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *E-mail: employ@opm.gov.* Include “RIN 3206-AI19” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:*
(202)606-2329. • *Mail:* Angela Bailey, Deputy Associate Director, Center for Talent and Capacity Policy, Division for Strategic Human Resources Policy, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Room 6551, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-9700. • *Hand Delivery/Courier:* OPM, Room 6500, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Galemore at
(202)606-0960, FAX at
(202)606-2329, TDD at
(202)418-3134, or e-mail at *pamela.galemore.@opm.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This regulation is being revised for consistency with section 3582(b) of title 5, United States Code. Section 2504 of Public Law 105-277 amended the statute by eliminating employee entitlement to be paid an “equalization allowance” upon return to Federal service. The equalization allowance was a payment equal to the difference between the pay, allowances, post differential, and other monetary benefits paid by the international organization and the pay, allowances, post differential, and other monetary benefits that would have been paid by the employing agency had the employee been detailed to the international organization. Because of this amendment, an employee who transferred, with the consent of the employing agency, to an international organization on or after October 21, 1998, is entitled, upon reemployment, only to the rate of basic pay the employee would have received had the employee remained in the civil service. We have removed section 352.310 of the current regulations to reflect this change. We have revised section § 352.309, to provide for easier understanding of agency responsibilities and employee entitlements, and explain action required to retain an employee's coverage under the retirement, health benefits, and group life insurance system when the employee transfers to an international organization. In addition, the revised regulation clarifies that the Department of State, rather than OPM, is delegated the authority for designating any organization as an international organization. This revision also modernizes regulatory language. Regulatory Flexibility Act I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulations pertain only to Federal employees and agencies. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Review This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866. List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 352 Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Reemployment rights. Office of Personnel Management. Linda M. Springer, Director. Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend part 352 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: PART 352—REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS Subpart C—Detail and Transfer of Federal Employees to International Organizations 1. The authority citation for part 352, subpart C, continues to read: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 3584, E.O. 11552, 3 CFR, 1966-1970 Comp., p. 954; Section 352.313 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 7701, *et seq.* § 352.303 [Removed and reserved] 2. Section 352.303 is removed and reserved. 3. Section 352.304 is revised to read as follows: § 352.304 International organizations covered.
(a)An agency may detail or transfer an employee under this subpart, without prior approval, to an organization which the Department of State has designated as an international organization.
(b)An agency may detail or transfer an employee under this subpart to any other public international organization or international organization preparatory commission only when the Department of State agrees that the organization concerned could be designated as an international organization covered by sections 3343 and 3581 of title 5, United States Code. 4. Section 352.305 is revised to read as follows: § 352.305 Eligibility for detail. An employee is eligible for detail to an international organization with the rights provided for in, and in accordance with, section 3343 of title 5, United States Code, and this subpart, except the following:
(a)A Presidential appointee (other than a postmaster, a Foreign Service officer, or a Foreign Service information officer), regardless of whether the appointment was made by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(b)A person serving in the executive branch in a confidential or policy-determining position excepted from the competitive service under Schedule C of part 213 of this chapter.
(c)A person serving under a non-career, limited emergency, or limited term appointment in the SES.
(d)A person serving under a temporary appointment. 5. Section 352.306 is revised to read as follows: § 352.306 Length of details. A detail or series of details must not exceed 5 consecutive years, except that when the Secretary of State, on the recommendation of the head of the agency, determines it to be in the national interest, the 5-year detail may be extended for up to an additional 3 years. A detail or series of details or combination of details and transfers must not exceed 8 years in the aggregate throughout an employee's Federal career. 6. Section 352.308 is amended by revising paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 352.308 Effecting employment by transfer.
(d)*Recording requirement* . The agency must furnish the employee with a leave statement, showing the annual and sick leave balances at the time of transfer. In addition, the notification of personnel action effecting the employee's separation for transfer, must include:
(1)Identification of the international organization to which the employee is transferring,
(2)A clear statement of the period of consent, during which the employee has reemployment rights in the agency under section 3582 of title 5, United States Code, and this subpart, and
(3)The legal and regulatory conditions for reemployment. 7. Section 352.309 is revised to read as follows: § 352.309 Retirement, health benefits, and group life insurance.
(a)*Agency action* . An employee who is transferred to an international organization is entitled to retain coverage for retirement, health benefits, and group life insurance purposes if he or she so chooses. The period during which coverage, rights, and benefits are retained under this paragraph, during employment with the international organization, is deemed employment by the United States. At the time an employing Federal agency consents to the transfer of an employee, the agency must advise the employee in writing of the employee's right to continue retirement, health benefits, and group life insurance coverage, as applicable, for the duration of the assignment or transfer. The notice must explain the conditions for continued coverage and the employee's obligations and responsibilities with regard to continued coverage. The notice must also explain that, if the employee elects to retain coverage, the agency will continue to make the agency contributions to the funds, and the employee's coverage will continue as long as employee payments are currently deposited in the respective funds.
(b)*Employee Action* . The employee must acknowledge, in writing, receipt of the notice and state whether or not he or she wishes to retain coverage under the retirement, health benefits, and group life insurance systems or any of them by continuing the required employee payments. The employee must make a written election to retain benefits, as applicable, and make arrangements for the required employee payments. An employee who transfers to an international organization is not eligible to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan
(TSP)while employed by the international organization even if he or she elects to retain Federal retirement coverage. However, upon reemployment, an employee who elected to retain Federal retirement coverage while employed by the international organization and has made all deposits required for such coverage may make contributions to the TSP which he or she missed as a result of the service with an international organization, and receive make-up agency contributions and lost earnings on the agency contributions, as provided under § 352.311(e).
(c)*Agency responsibility.* For retirement and group life insurance purposes, the employing agency is responsible for determining the applicable rate of pay in accordance with the provisions of section 3583 of title 5, United States Code. The agency is also responsible for collecting, accounting for, and depositing in the respective funds all retirement, health benefits, and group life insurance employee payments required to be made for the purpose of protecting the rights of the employee so transferred; and for accounting for and depositing in the respective funds all agency contributions. The agency must furnish the employee with specific information as to how, when, and where the payments are to be submitted.
(d)*Coverage.* Employee payments are considered to be currently deposited if received by the agency before, during, or within 3 months after the end of the pay period covered by the deposit. If the contributions are not currently deposited, coverage terminates on the last day of the pay period for which the required contributions were currently deposited, subject to a 31-day extension of group life insurance and health benefits coverage as provided in parts 870 and 890 of this chapter and to the conversion benefits provided in parts 870 and 890 of this chapter. Coverage so terminated may not be re-established before the employee actually enters on duty, on the first day in a pay status in an agency. However, terminated retirement, health benefits, and group life insurance coverage must be reinstated retroactively when, in the judgment of OPM, the failure to make the required current deposit was due to circumstances beyond the employee's control and the required payments were deposited at the first opportunity. Coverage under a system other than the civil service retirement system must be reinstated retroactively if the agency which administers the retirement system determines that the failure to make the required current deposit was due to circumstances beyond the control of the employee and the required payments were deposited at the first opportunity. § 352.310 [Removed and reserved] 8. Section 352.310 is removed and reserved. 9. Sections 352.311 through 352.314 are revised to read as follows: § 352.311 Reemployment.
(a)An employee who transferred to an international organization with the consent of the employing agency is entitled to be reemployed in his or her former position, or one of like seniority, status, and pay within 30 days of applying for reemployment if the employee:
(1)Is separated, either voluntarily or involuntarily, without cause, within the term of employment with an international organization; and
(2)Applies for reemployment with the employing agency or its successor no later than 90 days after separation from the international organization.
(b)Pay upon reemployment will be set at that to which the employee would have been entitled had the employee remained with the employing agency.
(c)When an employee's reemployment right is to a position in the SES, reemployment may be to any position in the SES for which the employee is qualified. The employee must be returned at not less than the SES rate of basic pay as determined under 5 CFR part 534, subpart D, at which the employee was being paid immediately before transfer to the international organization, or if pay has been adjusted under § 352.314(c), at not less than the adjusted pay level.
(d)The period of separation caused by the employment of the employee with the international organization and the period necessary to effect reemployment are creditable service for all appropriate civil service employment purposes.
(e)An employee who elected to retain Federal retirement coverage while employed by the international organization and has made all deposits required for such coverage may make contributions to the TSP which he or she missed as a result of the service with the international organization, and receive make-up agency contributions and lost earnings on the agency contributions, consistent with applicable TSP requirements. § 352.312 When to apply. An employee may apply for reemployment, in writing, either before or after separation from the international organization. If the employee applies before separation, the 30-day period prescribed in § 352.311 begins either with the date of the application or 30 days before the employee's date of separation from the international organization, whichever is later. If the employee applies for reemployment after separation, the application must be received by the employing agency no later than 90 days after separation from the international organization. § 352.313 Failure to reemploy and right of appeal.
(a)When an agency fails to reemploy an employee within 30 days of receiving the employee's application, it must notify the employee, in writing, of the reasons and of the employee's right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board under the provisions of the Board's regulations. The agency must comply with the provisions of § 1201.21 of this title.
(b)If the agency fails to reach and issue a decision to the employee within 30 days from the date of the application for reemployment, the employee is entitled to appeal the agency's failure to issue a decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board under the provisions of the Board's regulations.
(c)An employee may submit an appeal, alleging that the agency has failed to comply with any of the other provisions of sections 3343 and 3581-3584 of title 5, United States Code, or of this part, to the Merit Systems Protection Board under the provisions of the Board's regulations. § 352.314 Consideration for promotion and pay increases.
(a)The employing agency must consider an employee who is detailed or transferred to an international organization for all promotions for which the employee would be considered if not absent. A promotion based on this consideration is effective on the date it would have been effective if the employee were not absent.
(b)When the position of an employee who is absent on detail or transfer to an international organization is upgraded during the employee's absence, the employing agency must place the employee in the upgraded position.
(c)The employing agency must consider an employee who is detailed or transferred to an international organization from an ungraded pay system for all pay increases for which the employee would be considered if not absent. An increase is effective on the date it would have been effective if the employee were not absent. [FR Doc. E7-19447 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-39-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary 32 CFR Part 212 [DoD-2006-OS-0041; 0790-AB04] Procedures and Support for Non-Federal Entities Authorized To Operate on Department of Defense
(DoD)Installations AGENCY: Department of Defense. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: This rule proposed to update responsibilities and procedures to define and reestablish a framework for non-Federal entities
(NFEs)(previously called private organizations) authorized to operate on DoD installations. Requires heads of DoD Components to conduct periodic reviews of facilities, programs, services, and membership provisions of NFEs operating on DoD installations and authorizes installation commanders or higher authority to determine if an NFE detracts from DoD programs and to eliminate duplication. Identifies those NFEs having statutory authorization for particular support and restates DoD policy on sponsorship of NFEs by DoD personnel acting in an official capacity, specifically as it applies to chartering Boy Scout organizations authorized to operate on DoD installations. DATES: Comments must be received by December 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number and or RIN number and title, by any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Federal Docket Management System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number
(RIN)for this **Federal Register** document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at *http://regulations.gov* as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Crespi, 703-602-5004. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” It has been determined that 32 CFR part 123 is not a significant regulatory action. The rule does not:
(1)Have an annual effect to the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a section 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 this Executive Order. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (Sec. 202, Pub. L. 104-4) It has been certified that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Public Law 96-354, “Regulatory Flexibility Act” (5 U.S.C. 601) It has been certified that this rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601) because it would not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule makes some changes in the regulation and updates some references but taken cumulatively, those changes would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Public Law 96-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) It has been certified that this rule does impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements have been submitted to OMB for review. Executive Order 13132, “Federalism” It has been certified that this rule does not have federalism implications, as set forth in Executive Order 13132. This rule does not have substantial direct effects on:
(1)The States;
(2)The relationship between the National Government and the States; or
(3)The distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 212 Armed forces, Foreign relations, Statistics, Taxes. Accordingly, 32 CFR part 212 is proposed to be revised to read as follows: PART 212—PROCEDURES AND SUPPORT FOR NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
(DOD)INSTALLATIONS Sec. 212.1 Purpose. 212.2 Applicability. 212.3 Definitions. 212.4 Policy. 212.5 Responsibilities. 212.6 Procedures. Appendix A to Part 212-Non-Federal Entities Having Statutory Authorization for Particular Support § 212.1 Purpose. This part updates responsibilities and procedures to define and reestablish a framework for non-Federal entities authorized to operate on DoD installations. § 212.2 Applicability.
(a)This part applies to:
(1)The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, the DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”).
(2)Non-Federal entities authorized to operate on DoD installations.
(b)This part shall not apply to:
(1)Military relief societies.
(2)Banks or credit unions according to DoD Directive 1000.11. 1 1 Copies may be obtained at *http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/.*
(3)Support provided under Innovative Readiness Training according to DoD Directive 1100.20. 2 2 See footnote 1 to § 212.2(b)(2). § 212.3 Definitions.
(a)*Non-Federal Entities.* A non-Federal entity is generally a self-sustaining, non-Federal organization, incorporated or unincorporated. This Instruction addresses only those entities that operate on DoD installations with the express consent of the installation commander or higher authority. Membership of these organizations consists of individuals acting exclusively outside the scope of any official capacity as officers, employees, or agents of the Federal Government. Non-Federal entities may include elements of State, interstate, Indian tribal, and local governments as well as private organizations.
(b)*United States.* As used in this part, the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Island, Nassau Island, Palmyra Island, Wake Island, and any other territory or possession of the United States, and associated navigable waters, including the territorial seas.
(c)*DoD Installation.* A location, facility, or activity owned, leased, assigned to, controlled, or occupied by a DoD Component. § 212.4 Policy. It is DoD policy that procedures be established for the operation of non-Federal entities on DoD installations to prevent official sanction, endorsement, or support by the DoD Components except as authorized in DoD 5500.7-R 3 and applicable law. Non-Federal entities are not entitled to sovereign immunity and privileges accorded to Federal entities and instrumentalities. The DoD Components shall take action to preclude unauthorized expenditures of appropriated funds, commissary surcharge, or nonappropriated funds
(NAF)in support of these organizations. 3 See footnote 1 to § 212.2(b)(2). § 212.5 Responsibilities.
(a)The Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, under the authority and guidance of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, shall be responsible for implementing policy and oversight of non-Federal entities on DoD installations.
(b)The Heads of the DoD Components shall:
(1)Implement this part.
(2)Be aware of all non-Federal entities operating under their jurisdiction.
(3)Conduct reviews to ensure installation commanders periodically review facilities, programs, and services provided by non-Federal entities operating on DoD installations. Also, installation commanders will review membership provisions and the original purpose for which each organization was originally approved. Substantial changes to those original conditions shall necessitate further review, documentation, and approval for continued permission to operate on the installation. § 212.6 Procedures.
(a)To prevent the appearance of official sanction or support by the Department of Defense:
(1)Non-Federal entities may not use the seals, logos, or insignia of the Department of Defense or any DoD Component, DoD organizational unit, or DoD installation on organization letterhead, correspondence, titles, or in association with organization programs, locations, or activities.
(2)Non-Federal entities operating on DoD installations may use the name or abbreviation of the Department of Defense, a DoD Component, organizational unit, or installation in its name provided that its status as a non-Federal entity is apparent and unambiguous and there is no appearance of official sanction or support by the Department of Defense. The following applies:
(i)The non-Federal entity must have approval from the head of the appropriate DoD organization before using the name or abbreviation.
(ii)Any use of the name or abbreviation of a DoD Component, organizational unit, or installation must not mislead members of the public to assume a non-Federal entity is an organizational unit of the Department of Defense.
(iii)A non-Federal entity must prominently display the following disclaimer on all print and electronic media mentioning the entity's name confirming that the entity is not a part of the Department of Defense: “THIS IS A NON-FEDERAL ENTITY. IT IS NOT A PART OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OR ANY OF ITS COMPONENTS AND IT HAS NO GOVERNMENTAL STATUS.” This disclaimer must also be provided in appropriate oral communications and public announcements when the name of the entity is used.
(b)Activities of non-Federal entities covered by this Instruction shall not in any way prejudice or discredit the DoD Components or other Federal Government Agencies.
(c)Installation commanders shall approve written agreements that indicate permission to operate on the installation and any logistical support that will be provided. DoD personnel acting in an official capacity will not execute any charter that will serve as the legal basis for the non-Federal entity. The nature, function, and objectives of a non-Federal entity covered by this Instruction shall be delineated in a written constitution, by-laws, charter, articles of agreement, or other authorization documents before receiving approval from the installation commander to operate on the installation. That documentation shall also include:
(1)Description of eligible membership in the non-Federal entity.
(i)No person because of race, color, creed, sex, age, disability, or national origin shall be unlawfully denied membership, unlawfully excluded from participation, or otherwise subjected to unlawful discrimination by any non-Federal entity or other private organization covered by this part.
(ii)Installation commanders will distribute information on procedures for individuals to follow when they suspect unlawful discrimination by the organization.
(2)Designation of management responsibilities, including the accountability for assets, satisfaction of liabilities, disposition of any residual assets on dissolution, and other documentation that shows responsible financial management.
(3)A certification indicating that members understand they are personally liable if the assets of the non-Federal entity are insufficient to discharge all liabilities.
(4)Guidance relating to professional scouting organizations operating at U.S. military installations located overseas can be found in DoD Instruction 1015.9. 4 4 See footnote 1 to § 212.2(b)(2).
(i)In accordance with DoD 5500.7-R, DoD personnel acting in an official capacity shall not execute charters that serve as the legal basis for the creation of Boy Scouts organizations (including Boy Scouts, Cub Scout Packs, or Venturer Crews).
(ii)While such chartering is not allowed, nothing in this part is intended to preclude DoD support to Boy Scouts authorized by other DoD Instructions, to preclude Boy Scouts activities on DoD installations, or to preclude DoD personnel in their personal capacity from sponsoring Boy Scouts organizations. Existing charters executed by DoD personnel in their official capacity shall be terminated, or amended to substitute sponsorship by an appropriate individual, volunteer, groups or organization, consistent with DoD policy. 5 5 Paragraph mandated by “Partial Settlement Agreement Between Plaintiffs and Secretary Rumsfield”, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No. 1999 CV 02424 ( *Eugene Winkler, et al.,* v. *Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees, et al.* )
(d)A non-Federal entity covered by this part shall not offer programs or services on DoD installations that compete with appropriated or NAF activities, but may, when specifically authorized, supplement those activities.
(1)Installation commanders, or higher authorities, will determine if the services of a non-Federal entity conflict with or detract from local DoD programs. The cognizant commander has discretionary authority over the operations of non-Federal entities on DoD installations. Commanders are authorized to eliminate duplication of services, particularly when these services compete with the installation's revenue-generating activities.
(2)Background checks are required for employees and volunteers of non-Federal entities who have contact with children under the age of 18 in DoD operated, contracted, or community-based programs, which are used to supplement or expand child care or youth services, according to DoD Instruction 1402.5. 6 6 See footnote 1 to § 212.2(b)(2).
(e)Non-Federal entities covered by this part shall be self-sustaining, primarily through dues, contributions, service charges, fees, or special assessment of members. There shall be no financial assistance to such an entity from a NAF Instrumentality
(NAFI)in the form of contributions, repairs, services, dividends, or other donations of money or other assets. Fundraising and membership drives are governed by DoD 5500.7-R.
(f)Non-Federal entities are not entitled to DoD support. However, support may be provided when it is consistent with the military mission of the DoD Component concerned. Such support may be provided only when it can be offered within the capability of the installation commander without detriment to the commander's ability to fulfill the military mission and when it is permitted under applicable Status of Forces Agreements. The DoD Components may provide logistical support to non-Federal entities with appropriated funds according to DoD 5500.7-R and applicable law. NAFI funds or assets shall not be directly or indirectly transferred to non-Federal entities according to DoD Instruction 1015.14 7 (Reference (h)). 7 See footnote 1 to § 212.2(b)(1).
(g)Personal and professional participation in non-Federal entities by DoD employees is governed by DoD 5500.7-R. DoD personnel acting in an official capacity will not execute charters that serve as the legal basis for any non-Federal entity or other private organization.
(h)Neither appropriated fund activities nor NAFIs may assert any claim to the assets, or incur or assume any obligation, of any non-Federal entity covered by this Instruction, except as may arise out of contractual relationships. Property shall not be abandoned on the installation by a non-Federal entity and may only be acquired by the DoD installation by purchase or through donation.
(i)The non-Federal entity shall have adequate insurance, as defined by the DoD Component concerned, to protect against liability and property damage claims or other legal actions that may arise due to its activities, its acting members, or the operation of its equipment or devices. The DoD Components will not assume liability (through insurance or other means) for any activities or assets of non-Federal entities.
(j)Non-Federal entities shall comply with applicable fire and safety regulations, environmental laws, local, State, and Federal tax codes; and any other applicable statutes or regulations.
(k)Income shall not accrue to individual members of a non-Federal entity except through wages and salaries as employees of the non-Federal entity or as award recognition for services rendered to the non-Federal entity or military community. This prohibition is not meant to preclude operation of investment clubs, in which the investment of members' personal funds result in a return on investment directly and solely to the individual members.
(l)Employees of non-Federal entities are not employees of the United States or of an instrumentality of the United States. Applicable laws on labor standards for employment shall be observed, including worker's compensation insurance. Employees of non-Federal entities shall not participate in NAF employee benefit programs based upon their affiliation with the non-Federal entity.
(m)Non-Federal entities that have statutory authorization for particular support are listed at Appendix A to this part.
(n)Certain unofficial activities conducted on DoD installations do not need formal authorization because of the limited scope of their activities. Examples are office coffee funds, flower funds, and similar small, informal activities and funds. The DoD Components shall establish the basis upon which such informal activities and funds shall operate. Appendix A to Part 212—Non-Federal Entities Having Statutory Authorization for Particular Support Many non-Federal entities have statutory and/or Department authorization for particular support. Most are listed as follows: Non-federal entity Authority Certain banks and credit unions 12 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1770. United Service Organizations 36 U.S.C. 220101. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Labor organizations 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71. DoD 1400.25-M, 8 subchapter 711. Combined Federal Campaign E.O. 12353. 5 CFR 950. DoD Directive 5035.1. 9 DoD Instruction 5035.5. 10 American Registry of Pathology 10 U.S.C. 177. Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine 10 U.S.C. 178. American National Red Cross 10 U.S.C. 2552. 10 U.S.C. 2602. Secretary of the Army Memorandum. MOU. Boy Scouts Jamborees 11 10 U.S.C. 2554. Girl Scouts International Events (Transportation) 10 U.S.C. 2555. DoD Instruction 1015.14. Shelter for Homeless 10 U.S.C. 2556. National Military Associations; Assistance at National Conventions 10 U.S.C. 2558. DoD Directive 5410.18. 12 DoD Instruction 5410.19. 13 National Veterans' Organizations (Beds and Barracks) 10 U.S.C. 2551. United Seamen's Service Organization 10 U.S.C. 2604. MOU. Scouting: Cooperation and Assistance in Foreign Areas 10 U.S.C. 2606. DoD Instruction 1015.14. Civil Air Patrol 10 U.S.C. 9441. 10 U.S.C. 9442. 36 U.S.C. 40301. Assistance for certain youth and charitable organizations 32 U.S.C. 508. DoD Directive 1100.20. Presidential Inaugural Ceremonies 10 U.S.C. 2553 Specified Sporting Events (Olympics) 10 U.S.C. 2564. DoD Directive 2000.15. 14 Fire Protection Agreements 42 U.S.C. 1856. Armed Services Young Men's Christian Association 10 U.S.C. 2012. 10 U.S.C. 4744. 32 U.S.C. 508. MOU. The Military Department of each State and territory 32 U.S.C. 101 8 See footnote 1 to § 212.2(b)(2). 9 See footnote 1 to § 212.2(b)(2). 10 See footnote 1 to § 212.2(b)(2). 11 A Federal district judge has ruled that support to the Boy Scouts under 10 U.S.C. § 2554 is unconstitutional, and has enjoined DoD from providing future support under that statute. DoD has appealed that order. Unless the order is overturned on appeal, DoD cannot provide any support to the Boy Scouts using this statute. Contact your local legal office for further guidance. 12 See footnote 1 to § 212.2(b)(2). 13 See footnote 1 to § 212.2(b)(2). 14 See footnote 1 to § 212.2(b)(2). September 26, 2007. L.M. Bynum, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, DoD. [FR Doc. E7-19446 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. CGD08-07-023] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Milhomme Bayou, Stephensville, LA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulation governing the operation of the Stephensville Bridge across Milhomme Bayou, mile 12.2, at Stephensville, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. Currently the bridge opens on signal, but due to the minimal waterway traffic, the bridge owner requested this change. The proposed rule will require the draw of the bridge to open on signal if at least one hour of advance notice is given. During the advance notice period, the draw shall open on less than one hour notice for an emergency, and shall open on demand should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur. DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander (dpb), Eighth Coast Guard District, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3310. The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the Bridge Administration office between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bart Marcules, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone
(504)671-2128. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Request for Comments We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD08-07-023], indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8 1/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know they reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them. Public Meeting We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch at the address under ADDRESSES explaining why one 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** . Background and Purpose St. Martin Parish has requested that the operating regulation on the Stephensville Bridge be changed in order to operate the bridge more efficiently. The Stephensville Bridge locate on Milhomme Bayou at mile 12.2 in Stephensville, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana has a vertical clearance of 5.8 feet above mean high water, elevation 3.5 feet Mean Sea Level
(MSL)in the closed position and unlimited in the open position. The Stephensville Bridge opens on signal as required by 33 CFR 117.5, and this operating schedule has been in effect since 2002 when the current bridge replaced an existing bridge in the area. The previous bridge's operating schedule was, “shall open on signal; except that, from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at least two hours notice is given. During the advance notice period, the draw shall open on less than two hours notice for an emergency and shall open on demand should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur.” Since the completion of the current bridge, the waterway traffic has been minimal and during the past twelve months an average of 5 boats per day have requested an opening. Most of the boats requesting openings are commercial vessels consisting of tugboats with barges and shrimp trawlers that routinely transit this waterway and are able to give advance notice. Concurrent with the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Test Deviation [CGD08-07-022], has been issued to allow St. Martin Parish to test the proposed schedule and to obtain data and public comments. The test period will be in effect during the entire Notice of Proposed Rulemaking comment period. The Coast Guard will review the logs of the drawbridge and evaluate public comments from this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the above referenced Temporary Deviation to determine if a permanent special drawbridge operating regulation is warranted. The Test Deviation allows the draw of the Stephensville Bridge to open on signal if at least one hour of advance notice is given. During the advance notice period, the draw shall open on less than one hour notice for an emergency and shall open on demand should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur. Discussion of Proposed Rule The proposed rule change to 33 CFR part 117 would require that a one hour advance notice be given for St. Martin parish to open the Stephensville Bridge. Presently and historically the waterway has minimal waterway traffic and the bridge owner could use the tenders more efficiently if at least one hour notice is required. During emergencies, the bridge owner will open the bridge as soon as possible and open on demand when a surge in waterway traffic occurs. Regulatory Evaluation This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security. We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. A special regulation existed on the replaced bridge and the Coast Guard did not receive complaints regarding the drawbridge operating schedule during the many years that bridge was operated under a special regulation. The current and historical waterway traffic is very minimal with an average of 5 signals to open a day and most signals come from commercial vessels able to schedule an opening. The bridge is also only requiring a one hour advance notice, and will open as soon as possible for emergencies. Also the bridge will open on demand should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect a limited number of small entities. These entities include operators of tug boats and trawlers using the waterway. This proposed rule will have no impact on any small entities because they are able to give notice prior to transiting through this bridge and most vessel operators that require an opening are currently providing advance notice. If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES ) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Eighth Coast Guard District Bridge Administration Branch at the address above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Collection of Information This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. Taking of Private Property This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. Civil Justice Reform This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. Protection of Children We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children. Indian Tribal Governments This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Energy Effects We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. Technical Standards The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( *e.g.,* specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. Environment We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, (32)(e), of the Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), an “Environmental Analysis Check List” or “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is not required for this rule. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Section 117.481 is added to read as follows: § 117.481 Milhomme Bayou The draw of the Stephensville Bridge, mile 12.2 (Landside Route) at Stephensville, LA shall open on signal if at least one hour of advance notice is given. During the advance notice period, the draw shall open on less than one hour notice for an emergency, and shall open on demand should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur. Dated: September 21, 2007. Joel R. Whitehead, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. E7-19422 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 565 [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-27830] RIN 2127-AJ99 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: Based on concerns that the supply of unique available Vehicle Identification Numbers is diminishing, NHTSA is proposing to amend the agency's Vehicle Identification Number
(VIN)regulation. The amendment would ensure that there will be a sufficient number of unique manufacturer identifiers and VINs for the current 17-character VIN system to use for at least another 30 years. This NPRM also proposes other changes to the VIN requirements, such as proposing to require that certain vehicle characteristics of low speed vehicles
(LSVs)must be reflected in the VIN of LSVs. This rulemaking also responds to a petition for rulemaking from SAE International (SAE). DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than November 16, 2007. Proposed effective date of final rule: assuming that a final rule is issued, NHTSA proposes that the changes adopted by the rule would be mandatory beginning with model year 2010 and later model year vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the above DOT Docket Number by any of the following methods: If filing comments by September 27, 2007, please use: • *Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Department of Transportation Docket Management System electronic docket site. No electronic submissions will be accepted between September 28, 2007, and October 1, 2007. If filing comments on or after October 1, 2007, use: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, you can file comments using the following methods: • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. *Instructions:* For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.dms.dot.gov* or *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. *Privacy Act:* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78). *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* until September 27, 2007, or the street address listed above. The DOT docket may be offline at times between September 28 through September 30 to migrate to the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS). On October 1, 2007, the Internet access to the docket will be at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call Mr. Ken Hardie, Office of Rulemaking (Telephone: 202-366-6987) (Fax: 202-493-2739). For legal issues, you may call Ms. Rebecca Schade, Office of Chief Counsel (Telephone: 202-366-2992) (Fax: 202-366-3820). You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Petitioner's Suggested Changes; NHTSA's Decisions on the Petition a. The Content Requirements of the VIN Section 1: Positions 1-3, the Manufacturer Identifier (§ 565.6(a)) Section 2: Positions 4-8, Attributes Of The Specific Type Of Vehicle Involved (§ 565.6(b)) Section 3: Position 9, the Check Digit (§ 565.6(c)) Section 4: Positions 10-17, Additional Vehicle-Specific Information (§ 565.6(d)) b. Petitioner's Suggested Changes for Low-Speed Vehicles c. Other Aspects of the VIN Regulation III. Summary of Key Proposed Changes IV. Effective Date V. Public Participation VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices I. Background NHTSA requires vehicles to be marked with vehicle identification numbers
(VINs)to simplify vehicle identification information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns (49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)Part 565, “Vehicle Identification Number Requirements”). The VIN has become the key identifier in data systems that track compliance with Federal and state safety programs and that manage and analyze information on vehicle manufacturing processes, registrations, insurance programs, crash investigations and safety research. Organizations that utilize VINs in data systems include NHTSA, manufacturers, state motor vehicle departments, law enforcement agencies, insurance companies, and motor vehicle safety researchers. 49 CFR Part 565 stipulates the system under which each new vehicle sold in the United States receives a unique VIN. When Part 565 went into effect beginning in October of 1980, it was anticipated that the permutations available under the 17-character system described in Part 565 would provide a sufficient number of unique VINs and manufacturer identifiers such that, as required by Part 565, “the VINs of any two vehicles manufactured within a 30-year period shall not be identical.” That 30-year period is anticipated to expire in 2010. Based on concerns that the supply of unique available VINs is shrinking, SAE's Vehicle Identification Number/World Manufacturer Identifier Technical Committee (“the committee” or “the petitioner”) 1 petitioned 2 NHTSA to modify the requirements of Part 565 such that unique VINs would be able to be provided for at least another thirty years. NHTSA is issuing this proposal so that unique VINs will continue to be available for vehicles manufactured for sale in this country. 1 Organizations represented on the committee included: General Motors, International Truck and Engine Corporation, RL Polk & Company, The Hill Group, Freightliner Truck Division, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, American Suzuki Motor Corporation, Harley Davidson Motor Company, Motorcycle Industry Council, Ford Motor Company, Transport Canada, National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), DaimlerChrysler Corporation, and NHTSA. Representatives from Clifford Thames IMS in the United Kingdom, the Highway Loss Data Institute, and Caterpillar, Inc. were also given the opportunity to comment on the committee's work. 2 Petition dated October 31, 2005; corrected February 23, 2006. A letter granting the petition was sent March 7, 2006. II. Petitioner's Suggested Changes; NHTSA's Decisions on the Petition This section sets forth the petitioner's suggested changes to the VIN requirements. These are marked in bullet format, and are followed by NHTSA's response to each suggested change. As discussed below, NHTSA generally agrees with most of the petitioner's suggestions. To the extent the agency does not agree, the reasons for doing so are explained. NHTSA generally concurs with the petitioner's suggested amendments to the VIN requirements (except as noted) because the agency tentatively concludes that the changes would achieve two objectives: They would increase the number of manufacturer identifiers and VINs available for the foreseeable future, thus preserving the one vehicle-one VIN structure, and they would preserve the 17-character VIN system, thereby avoiding the potential imposition of substantial costs on the many current users of VINs in data systems. NHTSA agrees with the petitioner that the current supply of manufacturer identifiers available for large manufacturers in this country could expire in the near future. That, coupled with the rising likelihood of duplicate VINs occurring, would adversely impact the many organizations that maintain an orderly system for identifying and tracking vehicles. a. The Content Requirements of the VIN The VIN regulation (49 CFR Part 565) requires that VINs must consist of 17 characters in a fixed format. The VIN regulation (at § 565.6) separates the 17-character VIN into four sections:
(a)Section 1: Positions 1-3, the manufacturer identifier;
(b)Section 2: Positions 4-8, attributes of the specific type of vehicle involved;
(c)Section 3: Position 9, the check digit; and
(d)Section 4: Positions 10-17, additional vehicle-specific information. Section 1: Positions 1-3, the Manufacturer Identifier (§ 565.6(a)) The VIN regulation requires this section to consist of three characters that uniquely identify the manufacturer, make, and type of the motor vehicle if the manufacturer produces 500 or more motor vehicles of its type annually. If the manufacturer produces fewer than 500 motor vehicles of its type annually, these characters along with three characters of the fourth section (positions 12-14) shall uniquely identify the manufacturer, make, and type of the motor vehicle. The petitioner was particularly concerned about the supply of unique manufacturer identifiers for large U.S. manufacturers. NHTSA contracts with SAE to coordinate the assignment of manufacturer identifiers (§ 565.7(a)). In issuing the identifiers, SAE ensures that the identifier complies with both Part 565 and the requirements of International Standard 3780, *Road vehicles—world manufacturer identifier
(WMI)code (dated 1983).* In International Standard 3780, Ref. No. ISO 3780-1983 (E), the manufacturer identifier is referred to as the World Manufacturer Identifier (WMI). International Standard 3780 requires the first character of the WMI to represent the geographic area of the world in which the subject vehicle was manufactured. The second character of a WMI must indicate the country (although the standard does not specify how to determine what country should be indicated, e.g., place of manufacture, place of final assembly, place of company headquarters, etc.). In contrast, § 565.6(a) currently requires that manufacturers communicate manufacturer, make, and type of motor vehicle in the first three positions of a VIN. • The petitioner states that, to comply with Part 565, large manufacturers (as defined in the standard) in this country with multiple makes of vehicles have needed multiple manufacturer identifiers, which the petitioner believes is draining the supply of manufacturer identifiers/WMIs for producers in this country. The petitioner requests eliminating the Part 565 requirement that the manufacturer identifier identify the vehicle “make,” stating that, “The elimination of the `make' would allow for the use of a `corporate' WMI for each vehicle `type' with the vehicle `make' described elsewhere in the VIN.” According to SAE, not only do U.S. manufacturers have a large number of vehicle makes for which separate manufacturer identifiers are now required, more than fifty new large manufacturer identifiers are issued to them each year. SAE indicates that only approximately 400-450 large manufacturer identifiers remain in the current system. *NHTSA's response:* We are proposing the suggested change regarding vehicle make. The most pressing concern relating to the VIN system is the rapidly dwindling number of unique available manufacturer identifiers for large manufacturers in the U.S., as described above. The proposed changes would positively affect the supply of those identifiers available for large manufacturers in two ways. First, by moving vehicle make from the manufacturer identifier to the second section of the VIN, there would be a substantial reduction in the proliferation of new manufacturer identifiers for large manufacturers. Since manufacturers in the U.S. would no longer need to communicate vehicle make in the identifier to comply with Part 565, they would not have to obtain new manufacturer identifiers in the near future and possibly ever. (This NPRM proposes to amend Table 1 of Part 565 to establish the “vehicle make” as a required information element for each vehicle type. See discussion relating to Section 2, *infra.* ) Second, since they will no longer need to communicate vehicle make in the identifier to comply with Part 565, many major manufacturers in the U.S. will have an immediate excess of manufacturer identifiers. It is anticipated that over time many of these large manufacturers will release some, perhaps many, of the manufacturer identifiers that have been previously issued to them. 3 These released manufacturer identifiers could then be assigned to other manufacturers as needed. Comments are requested on the likelihood and implications of manufacturers releasing previously-issued identifiers that are no longer in use. The agency is particularly interested in receiving comments on this from large manufacturers. 3 Some of the large manufacturers represented on the SAE committee indicated that this could likely occur. Exactly how many WMIs these changes to Part 565 would make available to the VIN system cannot be determined. The initial supply of 3,267 large manufacturer identifiers has lasted for 30 years. Under the proposed revisions to Part 565, the only time large manufacturers will need a new manufacturer identifier is when they begin to manufacture a new vehicle type. The only other drain on the supply of available manufacturer identifiers will come from new large manufacturers that emerge. The agency believes that the proposed changes to the VIN system, particularly removing vehicle make from the information that must be communicated in the manufacturer identifier, should result in a supply of available manufacturer identifiers that will last for approximately the next 30 years. • Section 565.6(a) specifies a production threshold of 500 units for determining whether a WMI must be comprised of three VIN positions or of six positions. The petitioner states that in practice, U.S. manufacturers assigned six character WMIs produce nearly 900 units annually before the SAE replaces their six-character WMIs with “large manufacturer” (three-character) WMIs. The petitioner suggests that the threshold for using a six-character WMI should be raised to 900 units “to align the regulation with actual practice.” *NHTSA's response:* We agree that the production threshold should be raised, but propose to raise it to 1000 units rather than 900 units as suggested by the petitioner. Currently, Part 565 requires small manufacturers (making fewer than 500 vehicles of a given type per year) to have a six-character manufacturer identifier, using VIN positions 12-14 in addition to positions 1-3 for their manufacturer identifier. Small manufacturers then use the last three VIN positions (15-17) for sequentially numbering their vehicles. The petition indicated that small manufacturers often seek a large manufacturer identifier after the threshold of 500 vehicles has been exceeded. Whenever this occurs, the small manufacturer is in technical violation of Part 565. Moreover, the small manufacturer remains in technical violation by continuing to produce vehicles, because it has all the numbers from 501 to 999 left to number its vehicles sequentially before it faces the more serious problem of no longer being able to do so. The petition requested a threshold in Part 565 of 900 vehicles, so that a manufacturer that reaches this level of production would still have 99 numbers left before running out of available numbers for sequentially numbering vehicles. The petitioner anticipates that reaching a 900-unit threshold would prompt a manufacturer to approach SAE to obtain a large manufacturer identifier before it runs out of numbers. NHTSA has two concerns with the 900-vehicle threshold proposed by the petition. First, specifically incorporating a new threshold of 900 units into Part 565 would perpetuate the current situation, albeit in fewer instances, where it is easily possible for a manufacturer to be in technical violation of Part 565. Second, there is little apparent benefit to setting the cutoff at 900 vehicles as opposed to 999, particularly in this era of virtually instant communication. NHTSA therefore proposes to amend Part 565 such that a “high-volume manufacturer,” which the regulation would define as one producing 1,000 or more vehicles, must use a three-digit manufacturer identifier, and a “low-volume manufacturer,” which would be defined as a manufacturer that produces fewer than 1,000 vehicles, must use a six-digit manufacturer identifier. This should eliminate the problem of small manufacturers finding themselves in technical violation, because they will run out of unique available VINs (which will prevent them from selling additional vehicles produced) at the same time that they need to seek a new manufacturer identifier. Comments are requested on the threshold of 999 units, and on whether the VIN regulation should specify that all requests to the SAE for manufacturer identifiers should include “proposed production levels for vehicles of this type.” (The latter approach was suggested by the petitioner.) • The petitioner states that the SAE has assigned WMIs such that the presence of a “9” in the third VIN position indicates that the VIN contains a six-character WMI. The petition states that the committee has discovered that users of VIN information are typically unaware of this information, and requests that § 565.6(a) include a reference to this number “9” in the third position “to aid field comprehension of the VIN structure.” The agency agrees with this reasoning and is proposing to add a sentence explaining the significance of the “9” to this section. Section 2: Positions 4-8, Attributes of the Specific Type of Vehicle Involved (§ 565.6(b)) The VIN regulation (§ 565.6(b)) specifies that the second section must consist of five characters, occupying positions four through eight in the VIN, which uniquely identify the attributes of the vehicle as specified in Table 1 of Part 565. The regulation specifies that positions four and five be alphabetic characters and that position six must be a numeric value for all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles
(MPVs)and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms
(kg)(10,000 pounds (lbs)) or less. The regulation also specifies that position seven must be a numeric value for those vehicles. • The petitioner states that § 565.6(b)'s limitations on use of alphabetic and numeric values are more restrictive than both the SAE and ISO standards for vehicle identification, resulting in what the petitioner believes to be “VIN structures that are difficult to decode” or in “less refinement and resolution in VIN information available to users of the VIN content.” The petitioner believes that allowing either alphabetic or numeric characters in positions four through six of the VIN would result in greater flexibility to manufacturers, allow for more descriptive vehicle information, and achieve harmonization with the ISO identification standard. Moreover, the petitioner states that if alphabetic characters in position seven of the VIN were permitted, “the number of possible combinations would increase from the approximately 53,000 currently available to slightly more than 826,000 possible combinations.” Petitioner suggests that the change would ensure that no identical VINs will exist in a 60-year period, 4 which consists of the 30- year period covered by the current regulation plus the additional 30 years that would result from the changes proposed in this NPRM. 4 The general requirements of the VIN regulation specify that the VINs of any two vehicles manufactured within a 30-year period must not be identical (§ 565.4(d)). The petitioner believes there is a likelihood, though small, of repeating VINs at a 31-year interval, and suggested that § 565.4 be amended to specify a 60-year period. We tentatively conclude that the requested change has merit, and are proposing to amend § 565.4(d) to ensure non-repeatability of VINs. *NHTSA's response:* We have tentatively decided that the petitioner's approach has merit. According to the petitioner's estimates, the proposed changes should add at least several hundred thousand new unique available VINs, and probably many more. For example, the petition calculates that just for the changes proposed for positions 4-7 of the VIN, there should be a total of 826,551 combinations as compared to 52,900 available under the current Part 565. This number is derived from the fact that there will be a total of 33 characters (23 alphabetic plus 10 numeric) available in each of positions 4-6 and 23 characters in position 7 under the proposed changes, whereas under the current Part 565 there are 23 characters (alphabetic only) available in positions 4 and 5 and 10 characters available (numeric only) in positions 6 and 7. Thus: Current total combinations, positions 4-7: 23 × 23 × 10 × 10 = 52,900 Proposed total combinations, positions 4-7: 33 × 33 × 33 × 23 = 826,551. Additionally, in any given year the factors that will further affect the number of unique VINs available to any specific manufacturer include, among others: the 33 characters available in position 8 of the VIN, which will allow for permutations in just the second section of the VIN (positions 4-8) in the millions (the maximum possible would be 826,551 × 33 = 27,276,183); the number of manufacturer identifiers a manufacturer has or that are available to be issued to that manufacturer; the change in the VIN digit for the model year (see discussion, *infra)* ; the number of plants a manufacturer has since each plant is indicated by a specific character in position 11 of the VIN (see discussion, *infra* ); and the sequential numbering of vehicles. The cumulative effect of these factors increases substantially the current number of VINs available under Part 565. Comments are requested on the proposed changes. Chief among the concerns of the petitioner when formulating the suggested revisions to the VIN requirements was how to expand significantly the quantity of unique available manufacturer identifiers and VINs without imposing significant costs associated with data systems that use or rely on 17-character VINs. The petitioner believes that the suggested changes to the VIN system would achieve those goals. NHTSA has tentatively agreed with this determination. Comments are requested on whether this conclusion is correct. • As mentioned earlier in this preamble, this NPRM proposes to amend Table 1 of Part 565 to establish the “vehicle make” as an information element required in positions four through eight of the VIN for each vehicle type. This change complements the proposal that vehicle make be removed from the manufacturer identifier (Section 1 of the current VIN). • An attribute of passenger cars that is specified in Table 1 is “restraint system type.” The petitioner states: “To make identification of restraint system more effective, we request amendment of Part 565.6(b) to require that a manufacturer shall uniquely identify the type and location of all restraint devices on every passenger car.” NHTSA agrees that the proposal has merit, since information on the type and location of all restraint devices in the vehicle could be useful to safety researchers and other analysts. Moreover, NHTSA requests comments on whether this information should be required for all passenger vehicles, not just passenger cars. Section 3: Position 9, the Check Digit (§ 565.6(c)) The third VIN section consists of one character in the 9th position, called the “check digit.” This reflects a mathematical computation specified in § 565(c)(1) through
(4)that is based on the other VIN characters and serves as a check against typographical errors that may occur in transcribing a VIN. • The petitioner asked that a table it developed be added to § 565.6(c)(4) to “clarify the check digit value.” The petitioner explained that the table provides a reference for the correct check digit value to use based on both a fractional and decimal equivalent remainder. The petitioner stated: “The committee believes that the inclusion of a decimal equivalent remainder is important due to widespread use of electronic calculation devices.” The petitioner therefore suggested changing the sample check digit calculation shown currently in Table V of § 565.6(c)(5) to include a decimal equivalent remainder. *NHTSA's response:* We agree that including the suggested table would likely help clarify the correct check digit value to be used, to the extent that there is confusion on this issue. Changing the sample calculation to include a decimal equivalent remainder makes sense given the addition of the proposed table. Comments are requested on whether these changes are necessary or helpful. Section 4: Positions 10-17, Additional Vehicle-Specific Information (§ 565.6(d)) The fourth section consists of eight characters occupying positions 10-17, and includes sequential numbering of vehicles. Positions 10 and 11 are for the model year and plant of manufacture, respectively. For manufacturers of 1,000 or more vehicles of a given type, positions 12 through 17 are used to sequentially number groups of similar vehicles that are manufactured by the manufacturer. • For manufacturers initially intending to produce fewer than 500 of a type of vehicle, VIN positions 12-14 are additional characters used for the manufacturer identifier specific to the manufacturer. The petitioner states that the VIN regulation implies that VIN position twelve must be numeric, and specifically requires that positions thirteen and fourteen be numeric. The petitioner requests that the regulation be amended to explicitly allow VIN positions twelve through fourteen to use alphabetic or numeric characters when those positions are used as part of the manufacturer identifier of a small manufacturer. *NHTSA's response:* We concur that for manufacturers that produce less than 1,000 vehicles per model year, allowing either alphabetic or numeric characters in positions 12-14 as part of the six-character manufacturer identifier significantly expands the number of unique manufacturer identifiers available to them. The resultant number of additional manufacturer identifiers is at least 12,167 (23 new characters (excluding I, O, and Q) available in each of positions 12-14; 23 × 23 × 23 = 12,167). According to SAE, currently about 300 new manufacturer identifiers are issued each year for these manufacturers. At this rate, the proposed changes would add at least forty years' worth of manufacturer identifiers for small manufacturers. • Table VI of § 565.6(d)(1) sets forth codes that are used in position 10 of the VIN to indicate the vehicle model year. Currently, the table goes up to year 2013. The petitioner suggested changing the table to include codes up to and including the year 2039, since the petitioner believes that with “the adoption of the petition content listed above, the current VIN structure will have long-term viability.” NHTSA is proposing this change to Table VI for the reasons provided by the petitioner. b. Petitioner's Suggested Changes for Low-Speed Vehicles Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 500, “Low-speed vehicles,” requires low-speed vehicles
(LSVs)5 to have a VIN that conforms to the requirements of part 565 (FMVSS No. 500, S5(b)(9)). However, the application section of Part 565 does not include LSVs, and there are no substantive requirements in Part 565 for these vehicles. 5 The definition of an LSV is set forth in 49 CFR 571.3 as follows: Low-speed vehicle means a vehicle, that is 4-wheeled, whose speed attainable in 1.6 km (1 mile) is more than 32 kilometers per hour (20 miles per hour) and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) on a paved level surface, and whose GVWR is less than 1,361 kilograms (3,000 pounds). • The petition asked NHTSA to amend the application section of the VIN regulation (§ 565.2) to include LSVs, and to amend § 565.4(f) to specify where the VIN must be located in LSVs. In addition, the petitioner suggested that Table 1 of § 565.6(b) include “specific requirements for positions four through eight (4-8) of VINs assigned to LSVs to clearly identify this class of vehicle.” The petition did not suggest which elements should be included in Table 1 to achieve this result. *NHTSA's response:* We are granting this request. Amending the application section of Part 565 would make the regulation clearer and more consistent with FMVSS No. 500. Specifying where the VIN must be located in LSVs would ensure that the VIN is accessible and legible. FMVSS No. 500 requires LSVs to be equipped with headlamps, front and rear turn signal lamps, taillamps, stop lamps, reflex reflectors of specified colors, exterior mirrors, a parking brake, a windshield, and a lap or lap and shoulder seat belt assembly at each designated seating position (S5, FMVSS No. 500). NHTSA tentatively concludes that some of these attributes should be decipherable from the VIN of an LSV, since information about these attributes could be useful in analyses of crashes, theft, or other matters. These attributes are: Vehicle make, engine type, brake system, all restraint devices and their location, body type, and gross vehicle weight rating. NHTSA requests comment on whether the attributes proposed are appropriate, and whether other attributes should be considered as well. c. Other Aspects of the VIN Regulation • Imports Section 565.5 contains requirements for motor vehicles imported into the United States. Section 565.5(b) specifies requirements for passenger cars certified by a Registered Importer under 49 CFR Part 592, 6 but not for any other types of vehicles. The petitioner requested amending this section to include MPVs and trucks with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less. NHTSA concurs that this proposed change has merit since the other vehicle types are imported by registered importers, and has also included low speed vehicles among the vehicles covered by § 565.5(b) for the same reason. 6 49 CFR Part 592, “Registered Importers of Vehicles Not Originally Manufactured to Conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.” • Type Faces Permitted for a VIN Section 565.4(i) specifies that the type face used for each VIN shall consist of capital, sanserif characters. The petitioner stated that some manufacturers have been using a “posident” font type face based on a 1978 NHTSA interpretation, 7 and requests that the regulation “allow the use of a positive identification style font face as an alternate to the current sanserif font typeface.” 7 The petitioner did not identify the interpretation. The agency assumes it is a letter to Mr. R.W. Fink, available at *http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/aiam/aiam2912.html.* *NHTSA's response:* We are not granting this request. The petition did not identify the similarity or distinction between “posident” font, which it asserts is allowed under a NHTSA interpretation, and “positive identification style” font, which it requests be allowed as an alternative. NHTSA has insufficient information on this matter to include it in this NPRM. III. Summary of Key Proposed Changes This NPRM proposes to amend Part 565 by revising certain sections in order to extend the existing VIN system for another thirty years, and to ensure a sufficient supply of unique available VINs and manufacturer identifiers for that time period. The following points highlight the key provisions of the proposed requirements: • The proposed rule would move the location of the information conveying vehicle make from the manufacturer identifier to the second section of the VIN, which should increase the supply of unique available manufacturer identifiers for large manufacturers, because they will no longer need some of the identifiers they currently have, or need to request additional manufacturer identifiers for new vehicle makes that they produce. • The proposed rule would increase the number of characters available for positions 4-8 of the VIN: Changing positions 4-6 and 8 to either alphabetic or numeric, and position 7 to alphabetic. This is anticipated to increase the number of unique available VINs. • The proposed rule would allow either alphabetic or numeric characters in positions 12-14 as part of the six-character manufacturer identifier, which should increase the number of manufacturer identifiers available to low-volume manufacturers. • The proposed rule would add definitions for “high-volume manufacturer,” and “low-volume manufacturer.” The threshold between a high- and low-volume manufacturer is a production output of 1000 vehicles of a given type each year. • The proposed rule would add low-speed vehicles to the list of vehicles to which Part 565 applies, and adds attributes of LSVs that should be identified by an LSV's VIN. IV. Effective Date The petitioner suggested that the changes take effect beginning with the 2010 model year, when the supply of manufacturer identifiers for U.S. manufacturers could be exhausted and duplicate manufacturer identifiers and VINs could begin to appear. NHTSA tentatively concludes that a final rule resulting from this NPRM should be effective on a date sufficiently early to prevent the expiration of available manufacturer identifiers and unique VINs, and far enough in the future to allow various parties that will be affected by a VIN system change to plan for and make whatever data system changes will be required. That date is tentatively determined to be January 1, 2009, which corresponds to the 2010 model year suggested by the petitioner. Model year 2010 vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009, would be required to have a VIN meeting the new requirements. Model year 2009 vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 2009 would be expected to comply with the current regulation. NHTSA requests comment on whether this date provides enough lead time for those who need to make changes to computer systems to accommodate the changes. V. Public Participation How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments? Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are filed correctly in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long ( *see* 49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given under ADDRESSES . You may also submit your comments to the docket electronically by logging onto the Dockets Management System Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Click on “Help & Information,” or “Help/Info” to obtain instructions for filing the document electronically. How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received? If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information? If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES . When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512). Will The Agency Consider Late Comments? We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES . To the extent possible, we also will consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in developing the final rule, we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action. How Can I Read The Comments Submitted By Other People? You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given under ADDRESSES . The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location. You also may see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps: 1. Go to the Docket Management System
(DMS)Web page of the Department of Transportation ( *http://dms.dot.gov/* ). 2. On that page, click on “search.” 3. On the next page ( *http://dms.dot.gov.search/* ), type in the four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number were “NHTSA-2007-1234,” you would type “1234.” After typing the docket number, click on “search.” 4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. Although the comments are imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the “pdf” versions of the document are word searchable. Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion at the end of the next section. VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). This document proposes changes to the VIN requirements that for the most part provide manufacturers greater flexibility in meeting VIN requirements: • The proposed rule would increase the supply of unique available manufacturer identifiers for large manufacturers, because they will no longer need to request additional manufacturer identifiers for new vehicle makes that they produce. • The proposed rule would permit the use of either alphabetic or numeric characters in many positions of the VIN. • The proposed rule would permit low-volume manufacturers to manufacture 999 vehicles (increased from 499) before a new manufacturer identifier is required. • The proposed rule would reduce or eliminate the waiting period before the time an identifier or VIN can be used. • The proposed rule would add low-speed vehicles to the list of vehicles to which Part 565 applies, and would add attributes of LSVs that should be identified by an LSV's VIN. Vehicle manufacturers, including those of low-speed vehicles, are already required to label their vehicles with a VIN and report to NHTSA information relating to deciphering the characters in the VIN. This proposed rule would not substantially change those requirements. The minimal impacts of today's proposed amendments do not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation. NHTSA anticipates no direct safety impacts from this proposed rule. However, NHTSA believes that this NPRM has a beneficial effect on safety in that it would ensure the continued integrity of the VIN system (ensuring that vehicles will continue to be uniquely identified). There might be some cost impacts in changing data retrieval and recordkeeping systems to account for features of the VIN that might be different than those of current VINs (e.g., the use of alphabetic and numeric characters in certain VIN positions). However, NHTSA does not believe that the costs would be significant. The members of the committee representing operators of data systems that utilize the 17-character VIN system indicated that there would be some costs involved in making software and other modifications to data systems required by changes proposed in the petition, but that those costs would be extremely small compared to what would be required to deal with an expanded number of VIN characters. The petition noted that “any increase in the quantity of characters beyond the current seventeen would require massive software changes to all programs that use a motor vehicle VIN, and would affect not only automotive OEM's, but also state DMV's, local governments, insurance companies, law enforcement agencies, research companies, NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis, as well as others.” Comments are requested on the cost of the proposed changes to Part 565. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* , as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR Part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NHTSA has considered the effects of this proposed rule under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Any small vehicle manufacturers that might be affected by this proposed rule are already required to provide a VIN and provide information to NHTSA that enables the VIN to be deciphered. Manufacturers of low-speed vehicles would have to make sure that the VIN reflects the six LSV features newly added to Table 1 of Part 565, but the burden associated with that responsibility should be negligible and would not incur a significant economic impact. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) NHTSA has examined today's NPRM pursuant to Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rule does not have federalism implications because the rule 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.” We note that the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) was a member of the SAE committee that submitted the petition prompting this rulemaking. Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect of today's proposed rule. NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in at least two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemptive provision: “When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). In addition to the express preemption noted above, the Supreme Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements unenforceable. See *Geier* v. *American Honda Motor Co.,* 529 U.S. 861 (2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in today's rulemaking, however, in part because such conflicts can arise in varied contexts, but it is conceivable that such a conflict may become clear through subsequent experience with today's proposed rule. NHTSA may opine on such conflicts in the future, if warranted. See id. at 883-86. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as SAE. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This NPRM would make Part 565's requirements for manufacturer identifiers and for identifying attributes of the specific vehicle type more consistent with SAE and ISO standards for vehicle identification. The NPRM would permit the use of alphabetic and numeric characters in certain VIN positions, which would substantially increase harmonization of Part 565 with the ISO identification standard. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This final rule will not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million annually. National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) When promulgating a regulation, *Executive Order 12988* specifically requires that the agency must make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation, as appropriate:
(1)Specifies in clear language the preemptive effect;
(2)specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified;
(3)provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4)specifies in clear language the retroactive effect;
(5)specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court;
(6)explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and
(7)addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of regulations. NHTSA has reviewed this proposed rule according to the general requirements and the specific requirements for regulations set forth in *Executive Order 12988* . This proposed rule does not result in any preemptive effect and does not have a retroactive effect. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceeding is not required before parties may file suit in court. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. The Consolidated VIN Requirements have an OMB control number of 2127-0510. As a result of this NPRM being made final, although the agency may require information to be provided in a slightly different way (e.g., vehicle make being transferred from the first to the second section of the VIN), the scope of the overall reporting requirements of Part 565 will not change. We emphasize that there will be no increase or decrease in the collection of information because of this rulemaking. Plain Language Executive Order 12866 and the President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, require each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language includes consideration of the following questions: • Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs? • Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? • Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that isn't clear? • Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand? • Would more (but shorter) sections be better? • Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams? • What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand? If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this proposal. Regulation Identifier Number
(RIN)The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN)to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda. Privacy Act Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* until October 1, 2007; after October 1, 2007, you may visit *http://DocketInfo.dot.gov* . List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 565 Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; incorporation by reference. In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 565 as follows: PART 565—VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NUMBER REQUIREMENTS 1. The authority citation continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30141, 30146, 30166, and 30168; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 2. In § 565.2, the first sentence is revised to read as follows: § 565.2 Applicability. This part applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers (including trailer kits), incomplete vehicles, low speed vehicles, and motorcycles. 3. In § 565.3, paragraphs
(i)through
(o)are redesignated as paragraphs
(l)through (r), and paragraphs (i), (j), and
(k)are added as follows: § 565.3 Definitions.
(i)*Manufacturer identifier* shall refer to the first three digits of a VIN of a vehicle, in the case of a high-volume manufacturer, and the first three digits of a VIN and the twelfth through fourteenth digits of a VIN in the case of a low-volume manufacturer.
(j)*High-volume manufacturer* , for purposes of this part, means a manufacturer of 1,000 or more vehicles of a given type each year.
(k)*Low-volume manufacturer* , for purposes of this part, means a manufacturer of fewer than 1,000 vehicles of a given type each year. 4. In § 565.4, paragraphs
(d)and
(f)are revised to read as follows: § 565.4 General requirements.
(d)The VINs of any two vehicles subject to Federal motor vehicle safety standards and manufactured within a 60-year period beginning with the 1981 model year shall not be identical.
(f)The VIN for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, low speed vehicles, and trucks of 4536 kg or less GVWR shall be located inside the passenger compartment. It shall be readable, without moving any part of the vehicle, through the vehicle glazing under daylight lighting conditions by an observer having 20/20 vision (Snellen) whose eye-point is located outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar. Each character in the VIN subject to this paragraph shall have a minimum height of 4 mm. 5. In § 565.5, paragraph
(b)is revised to read as follows: § 565.5 Motor vehicles imported into the United States.
(b)All passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, low speed vehicles, and trucks of 4536 kg or less GVWR certified by a Registered Importer under 49 CFR part 592 whose VINs do not comply with Part 565.4 and 565.5 shall have a plate or label that contains the following statement, in characters with a minimum height of 4 mm, with the identification number assigned by the original manufacturer provided in the blank: SUBSTITUTE FOR U.S. VIN: _______ SEE PART 565. The plate or label shall conform to § 565.4
(h)and (i). The plate or label shall be permanently affixed inside the passenger compartment. The plate or label shall be readable, without moving any part of the vehicle, through the vehicle glazing under daylight conditions by an observer having 20/20 vision (Snellen) whose eye-point is located outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar. It shall be located in such a manner as not to cover, obscure, or overlay any part of any identification number affixed by the original manufacturer. Motor vehicles conforming to Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115 are exempt from this paragraph. 6. In § 565.6: a. paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(4) are revised; b. Tables V and VI are designated as Tables VI and VII; c. new Table V is added at the end of paragraph (c)(4); d. new Table VI is revised after paragraph (c)(5) and new Table VII is revised after paragraph (d)(1); and, e. paragraph (d)(3) is revised. These amended and new paragraphs and tables would read as follows: § 565.6 Content requirements.
(a)The first section shall consist of three characters that occupy positions one through three (1-3) in the VIN. This section shall uniquely identify the manufacturer and type of the motor vehicle if the manufacturer is a high-volume manufacturer. If the manufacturer is a low-volume manufacturer, positions one through three (1-3) along with positions twelve through fourteen (12-14) in the VIN shall uniquely identify the manufacturer and type of the motor vehicle. These characters are assigned in accordance with § 565.7(a). A “9” shall be placed in the third position of the VIN if the manufacturer identifier is six characters. A “9” in the third position always indicates the presence of a six-character manufacturer identifier. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration offers access to manufacturer identifier assignments via its search engine at the following Internet Web site: *http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/manufacture.*
(b)The second section shall consist of five characters, which occupy positions four through eight (4-8) in the VIN. This section shall uniquely identify the attributes of the vehicle as specified in Table I. For passenger cars, and for multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, and low speed vehicles, the first, second, and third characters of this section shall be either alphabetic or numeric. The fourth character of this section shall be alphabetic. The fifth character may be either alphabetic or numeric. The characters utilized and their placement within the section may be determined by the manufacturer, but the specified attributes must be decipherable with information supplied by the manufacturer in accordance with § 565.7(c). In submitting the required information to NHTSA relating gross vehicle weight rating, the designations in Table II shall be used. The use of these designations within the VIN itself is not required. Tables I and II follow: Table I—Type of Vehicle and Information Decipherable *Passenger car:* Make, line, series, body type, engine type, and all restraint devices and their location. *Multipurpose passenger vehicle:* Make, line, series, body type, engine type, gross vehicle weight rating. *Truck:* Make, model or line, series, chassis, cab type, engine type, brake systems and gross vehicle weight rating. *Bus:* Make, model or line, series, body type, engine type, and brake system. *Trailer, including trailer kits and incomplete trailer:* Make, type of trailer, body type, length and axle configuration. *Motorcycle:* Make, type of motorcycle, line, engine type, and net brake horsepower. *Incomplete vehicle other than a trailer:* Make, model or line, series, cab type, engine type, and brake system. *Low speed vehicle:* Make, engine type, brake system, all restraint devices and their location, body type, and gross vehicle weight rating.
(c)* * *
(4)The check digit is based on either the Fractional Remainder or the Decimal Equivalent Remainder as reflected in Table V. All Decimal Equivalent Remainders in Table V are rounded to the nearest thousandth. Table V.—Ninth Position Check Digit Values [Rounded to the nearest thousandth] Fractional remainder 0 1/11 2/11 3/11 4/11 5/11 6/11 7/11 8/11 9/11 10/11 Decimal equivalent remainder 0 0.091 0.182 0.273 0.364 0.455 0.545 0.634 0.727 0.818 0.909 *Check digit* 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X The check digit, zero through nine (0-9) or the letter “X” shall appear in VIN position nine (9).
(5)A sample check digit calculation is shown in Table VI as follows: Table VI.—Calculation of a Check Digit VIN position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Sample VIN 1 G 4 A H 5 9 H 5 G 1 1 8 3 4 1 Assigned value 1 7 4 1 8 5 9 8 5 7 1 1 8 3 4 1 Weight factor 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 10 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Multiply assigned value times weight factor 8 49 24 5 32 15 18 80 0 45 56 7 6 40 12 12 2 Add products: 8+49+24+5+32+15+18+80+0+45+56+7+6+40+12+12+2 = 411. Divide by 11: 411/11 = 37 4/11 or 37.3636. If the fourth digit is 5 or greater, round up. If the fourth digit is 4 or smaller, round down. In the example above, the remainder is 4/11 or 0.364 when rounded up. Looking up the remainder in Table V—Ninth Position Check Digit Values indicates that ‘4’ is the check digit to be inserted in position nine
(9)of the VIN for this sample digit calculation.
(d)* * *
(1)The first character of the fourth section shall represent the vehicle model year. The year shall be designated as indicated in Table VII as follows: Table VII.—Year Codes for VIN Year Code 2005 5 2006 6 2007 7 2008 8 2009 9 2010 A 2011 B 2012 C 2013 D 2014 E 2015 F 2016 G 2017 H 2018 J 2019 K 2020 L 2021 M 2022 N 2023 P 2024 R 2025 S 2026 T 2027 V 2028 W 2029 X 2030 Y 2031 1 2032 2 2033 3 2034 4 2035 5 2036 6 2037 7 2038 8 2039 9
(2)* * *
(3)The third through the eighth characters of the fourth section shall represent the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process if the manufacturer is a high-volume manufacturer. If a manufacturer is a low-volume manufacturer, the third, fourth, and fifth characters of the fourth section, combined with the three characters of the first section, shall uniquely identify the manufacturer and type of the motor vehicle and the sixth, seventh, and eighth characters of the fourth section shall represent the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process. 7. In § 565.7, paragraphs
(a)and
(d)are revised to read as follows: § 565.7 Reporting requirements.
(a)The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has contracted with the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE)to coordinate the assignment of manufacturer identifiers. Manufacturer identifiers will be supplied by SAE at no charge. All requests for assignments of manufacturer identifiers should be forwarded directly to: Society of Automotive Engineers, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, Pennsylvania, 15096, Attention: WMI Coordinator (telephone: 724-776-4841). Any requests for identifiers submitted to NHTSA will be forwarded to SAE. Manufacturers may request a specific identifier or may request only assignment of an identifier(s). SAE will review requests for specific identifiers to determine that they do not conflict with an identifier already assigned or block of identifiers already reserved. SAE will confirm the assignments in writing to the requester. Once confirmed by SAE, the identifier need not be resubmitted to NHTSA.
(b)* * *
(c)* * *
(d)The information required under paragraph
(c)of this section shall be submitted at least 60 days prior to offering for sale the first vehicle identified by a VIN containing that information, or if information concerning vehicle characteristics sufficient to specify the VIN code is unavailable to the manufacturer by that date, then within one week after that information first becomes available. The information shall be addressed to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, Attention: VIN Coordinator. Issued: September 19, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-18925 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 070612190-7326-01] RIN 0648-AV58 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2008 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Quota Specifications and Effort Controls AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments; notice of public hearings. SUMMARY: NMFS proposes initial 2008 fishing year specifications for the Atlantic bluefin tuna
(BFT)fishery to set BFT quotas for each of the established domestic fishing categories and to set effort controls for the General category and Angling category. This action is necessary to implement recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). NMFS solicits written comments and will hold public hearings in October 2007 to receive oral comments on these proposed actions. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 1, 2007. The public hearing dates are: 1. October 3, 2007, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Silver Spring, MD. 2. October 23, 2007, 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., Gloucester, MA. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by “0648-AV58”, by any one of the following methods: • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* • Fax: 978-281-9340, Attn: Sarah McLaughlin • Mail: Sarah McLaughlin, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Office of Sustainable Fisheries (F/SF1), NMFS, One Blackburn Dr., Gloucester, MA 01930 Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to Portal *http://www.regulations.gov* without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information. NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. The hearing locations are: 1. Silver Spring — NOAA Science Center, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 2. Gloucester — NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Supporting documents including the 2007 Environmental Assessment, Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and Regulatory Impact Review are available by sending your request to Sarah McLaughlin at the mailing address specified above. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah McLaughlin, 978-281-9260. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic tunas are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the ATCA. The ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and appropriate, to implement ICCAT recommendations. The authority to issue regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the ATCA has been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA). Background On May 28, 1998, NMFS published in the **Federal Register** (64 FR 29090) final regulations, effective July 1, 1999, implementing the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (1999 FMP). On October 2, 2006, NMFS published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 58058) final regulations, effective November 1, 2006, implementing the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (Consolidated HMS FMP), which consolidates the management of all Atlantic HMS (i.e., sharks, swordfish, tunas, and billfish) into one comprehensive FMP. The implementing regulations for Atlantic HMS are at 50 CFR part 635. The 2008 annual specifications are necessary to implement the 2006 ICCAT quota recommendation, as required by the ATCA, and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The proposed rule would:
(1)establish initial quota specifications consistent with the BFT rebuilding program by adjusting the 2006 ICCAT-recommended quota as necessary for the 2008 fishing year (January 1, 2008 - December 31, 2008);
(2)establish General category effort controls, including restricted fishing days
(RFDs)and initial retention limits; and
(3)establish Angling category retention limits for the 2008 fishing season. This action is published in accordance with the framework procedures set forth in the Consolidated HMS FMP and is supported by the analytical documents prepared for the Consolidated HMS FMP and for the 2007 BFT specifications and effort controls. Copies of these documents are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). 2006 ICCAT Recommendation, BFT Underharvests, and Transfers to Other ICCAT Contracting Parties At its 2006 meeting, ICCAT recommended a western Atlantic BFT Total Allowable Catch
(TAC)of 2,100 mt to allow for continued rebuilding of BFT through 2018. The TAC includes dead discards and will be effective through 2008, and thereafter until changed. The following are deducted from the TAC prior to determining the U.S. share percentage: 4 mt for the United Kingdom (in respect of Bermuda), 4 mt for France (in respect of St. Pierre and Miquelon), 25 mt for Mexico (to allow incidental catch in the longline fishery in the Gulf of Mexico), and 15 mt for Canada and 25 mt for the United States (for bycatch related to directed longline fisheries “in the vicinity of the management boundary area,” i.e., the Northeast Distant gear restricted area (NED), which was defined in the 2003 BFT annual specification rulemaking process as the Northeast Distant statistical area (68 FR 56783, October 2, 2003)). The U.S. share of the adjusted TAC is 57.48 percent, or 1,165.12 mt. Accounting for the 25 mt NED set-aside, the total U.S. allocation is 1,190.12 mt. The 2006 ICCAT recommendation also includes provisions to:
(1)limit carryover of underharvest to no more than 50 percent of a contracting party's initial TAC;
(2)limit mortality of school BFT to an average of 10 percent of the initial TAC, calculated on a four-year basis; and
(3)allow a contracting party with a TAC allocation to make a one-time transfer within a fishing year of up to 15 percent of its TAC allocation to other contracting parties with TAC allocations, consistent with domestic obligations and conservation considerations. Regarding the third provision, the ICCAT recommendation stipulates that the quota transfer may not be used to cover overharvests, and that a contracting party that receives a one-time quota transfer may not retransfer that quota. For the United States, the 15-percent limit on quota transfer equates to 178.5 mt. Consistent with § 635.27(a)(8), NMFS would consider several factors in deciding whether or not the United States would enter into an arrangement with another ICCAT contracting party, including, but not limited to, the amount of quota to be transferred, the projected ability of U.S. vessels to harvest the U.S. TAC before the end of the fishing year, the potential benefits of the transfer to U.S. fishing participants, potential ecological impacts, and the contracting party's ICCAT compliance status. Should NMFS consider a transfer of U.S. quota to another ICCAT contracting party, NMFS would publish a separate action in the **Federal Register** , which would provide detail of the transaction considered, including information regarding the factors above. Domestic Allocations and Quotas The 1999 FMP and its implementing regulations established baseline percentage quota shares for the domestic fishing categories. These percentage shares were based on allocation procedures that NMFS developed over several years. The baseline percentage quota shares established in the 1999 FMP and contained in the Consolidated HMS FMP for fishing years beginning June 1, 1999, and continuing to the present are as follows: General category — 47.1 percent; Harpoon category — 3.9 percent; Purse Seine category — 18.6 percent; Angling category — 19.7 percent; Longline category — 8.1 percent; Trap category — 0.1 percent; and Reserve category — 2.5 percent. In the final 2007 fishing year BFT specifications (72 FR 33401, June 18, 2007), NMFS modified the baseline landings quota to 1,165.12 mt to implement the 2006 ICCAT recommendation and set the category subquotas per the allocations established in the Consolidated HMS FMP. The baseline quotas are as follows: General category — 548.8 mt; Harpoon category — 45.4 mt; Purse Seine category — 216.7 mt; Angling category — 229.5 mt; Longline category — 94.4 mt; and Trap category — 1.2 mt. An additional 29.1 mt is allocated to the Reserve category for inseason adjustments, scientific research collection, potential overharvest in any category except the Purse Seine category, and potential quota transfers. The baseline Angling category quota of 229.5 mt is further subdivided as follows: School BFT — 119 mt, with 45.8 mt to the northern area (north of 39°18′ N. latitude), 51.2 mt to the southern area (south of 39°18′ N. latitude), plus 22 mt held in reserve; large school/small medium BFT — 105.2 mt, with 49.6 mt to the northern area and 55.6 mt to the southern area; and large medium/giant BFT — 5.3 mt, with 1.8 mt to the northern area and 3.5 mt to the southern area. The 25-mt NED set-aside quota is in addition to the overall incidental longline quota to be subdivided in accordance with the North/South allocation percentages (i.e., no more than 60 percent to the south of 31° N. latitude). Thus, the baseline Longline category quota of 94.4 mt is subdivided as follows: 37.8 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT north of 31° N. latitude and 56.6 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT south of 31° N. latitude, with 25 mt set-aside for bycatch of BFT related to directed pelagic longline fisheries in the NED. NMFS accounts for landings under this additional quota separately from other landings under the Longline north subcategory. The baseline landings quota and category subquotas are effective until changed, for instance, as a result of a potential new ICCAT BFT TAC recommendation made at its upcoming 2008 Annual Meeting. Consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS will make underharvest and overharvest adjustments as necessary for the 2008 fishing year. 2008 Quota Specifications NMFS anticipates that the 2007 fishing year underharvest will be substantial, based on current landings information and communication with BFT fishermen, and given the relatively low BFT harvest rates in recent years. However, the current ICCAT recommendation limits the amount of underharvest the United States may carry over for 2008 to 595.1 mt. In this action, NMFS proposes to carryover 595.1 mt of BFT underharvest from the 2007 fishing year to the 2008 fishing year quota, and distribute that underharvest in such a manner to:
(1)Allow for potential transfer of a portion (up to 15 percent) of the 2008 U.S. quota to other ICCAT Contracting Parties and other domestic management objectives, if warranted;
(2)ensure that the Longline category has sufficient quota to operate during the 2008 fishing year after the required accounting for BFT dead discards; and
(3)provide the non-Longline quota categories a share of the remainder of the underharvest consistent with the allocation scheme established in the Consolidated HMS FMP. The United States must report dead discard estimates to ICCAT annually and account for this mortality as part of the specification calculation process. Accordingly, NMFS must account for BFT dead discards in setting the 2008 fishing year quota. NMFS proposes to assign a sufficient amount of any quota carryover (53.6 mt) to the Longline category so that after accounting for dead discards, sufficient quota is available to cover anticipated pelagic longline fishery landings during the 2008 fishing year. Providing sufficient landings quota would allow not only a full year fishery but avoid discards that could result if the fishery were closed due to the quota being met while longline vessels are fishing for other species. The best available preliminary estimate of dead discards for 2006 is 91.3 mt. This estimate is generated via extrapolation of pelagic longline logbook tallies by pooled observer data. Estimates of dead discards from other gear types and fishing sectors that do not use the pelagic longline vessel logbook are unavailable at this time and thus are not included in this calculation. Per the ICCAT recommendation, which specifies a U.S. quota that is inclusive of dead discards, and consistent with the regulations regarding annual quota adjustments at § 635.27(a)(10)(iv), NMFS would deduct the 91.3 mt of estimated dead discards from the amount of quota available for the Longline category for the 2008 fishing year. The best available information indicates that pelagic longline landings and dead discards for 2006 totaled 148 mt. The baseline longline category quota is 94.4 mt. Therefore, NMFS proposes to use 56.7 mt of BFT underharvest to cover the anticipated pelagic longline fishery landings during the 2008 fishing year. Additionally, NMFS would place 178.5 mt (i.e., 15 percent of 1,190.12 mt) of 2007 fishing year underharvest in the Reserve for potential ICCAT transfer purposes and other domestic management objectives. NMFS proposes to distribute the remainder of the quota carryover (363 mt) to the Angling, General, Harpoon, Purse Seine, and Trap categories consistent with their FMP allocations. In accordance with the 2006 ICCAT quota recommendation, the Consolidated HMS FMP percentage shares for each of the domestic categories, and regulations regarding annual adjustments at § 635.27(a)(10), NMFS proposes initial quota specifications for the 2008 fishing year as follows: General category — 740.0 mt; Harpoon category — 61.2 mt; Purse Seine category — 292.2 mt; Angling category — 309.5 mt; Longline category — 56.7 mt; and Trap category — 1.6 mt. Additionally, 207.6 mt would be allocated to the Reserve category for inseason adjustments, scientific research collection, potential overharvest in any category except the Purse Seine category, and potential quota transfers. The proposed General category quota of 740.0 mt would be divided per the time period allocations established in the Consolidated FMP, i.e., 39.2 mt (5.3 percent) for the period beginning January 1, 2008, and ending January 31, 2008, 370.0 mt (50 percent) would be available in the period beginning June 1, 2008, and ending August 31, 2008; 196.1 mt (26.5 percent) would be available in the period beginning September 1, 2008, and ending September 30, 2008; 96.2 mt (13 percent) would be available in the period beginning October 1, 2008, and ending November 30, 2008; and 38.5 mt (5.2 percent) would be available in the period beginning December 1, 2008, and ending December 31, 2008. As discussed in the Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS has received public comment expressing concern relating to the rollover of underharvest or overharvest from one subperiod to the next between fishing years. In the Consolidated FMP, NMFS considered three scenarios that could occur regarding disposition of any carryover that accrues during the December subperiod:
(1)rollover of any underharvest or overharvest in full to the January subquota;
(2)rollover of 5.3 percent of the underharvest or overharvest to the January subquota; and
(3)no rollover of any underharvest or overharvest to the January subquota. However, the 2006 ICCAT recommendation to cap the carryover of underharvest from one year to the next and to account for dead discards annually has led to the underharvest allocation approach used in the 2007 fishing year and described above. NMFS intends to publish final specifications in advance of the 2008 fishing year, which would allow General category participants to plan fishing activities based on the adjusted January 2008 subquota. Based on the above proposed initial specifications and considerations regarding the school BFT fishery, the Angling category quota of 309.5 mt would be further subdivided as follows: School BFT — 119 mt, with 45.8 mt to the northern area (north of 39°18′ N. latitude), 51.2 mt to the southern area (south of 39°18′ N. latitude), plus 22 mt held in reserve; large school/small medium BFT — 183.4 mt, with 86.6 mt to the northern area and 96.8 mt to the southern area; and large medium/giant BFT — 7.1 mt, with 2.4 mt to the northern area and 4.7 mt to the southern area. The 25-mt NED set-aside quota is in addition to the overall incidental longline quota to be subdivided in accordance with the North/South allocation percentages (i.e., no more than 60 percent to the south of 31° N. latitude). Thus, the proposed Longline category quota of 56.7 mt would be subdivided as follows: 22.7 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT north of 31° N. latitude and 34.0 mt to pelagic longline vessels landing BFT south of 31° N. latitude, with 25 mt set-aside for bycatch of BFT related to directed pelagic longline fisheries in the NED. NMFS would account for landings under this additional quota separately from other landings under the Longline north subcategory. Adjustments to the 2008 quotas and subquotas will be updated in the final rule. If complete information is not available when the final rule is published, NMFS may need to publish a quota adjustment in 2008. General Category Effort Controls In addition to time-period subquotas, NMFS also implements General category RFDs to extend the General category fishing season. The RFDs are designed to address the same issues addressed by time-period subquotas and provide additional fine scale inseason flexibility. For the 2008 fishing year, NMFS proposes a series of solid blocks of RFDs to extend the General category for as long as possible through the end of the 2008 fishing year. Therefore, NMFS proposes that persons aboard vessels permitted in the General category would be prohibited from fishing, including catch-and-release and tag-and-release, for BFT of all sizes on the following days: all Saturdays and Sundays from November 15, 2008, through December 31, 2008, plus November 27 and December 25, 2008, while the fishery is open. Finally, NMFS proposes to increase the General category retention limit to three BFT (73 inches (185.4 cm) or greater per vessel per day/trip) for the January and June-August subperiods. This action is intended to allow increased opportunities to harvest the General category quota during the period when catch rates have historically been slow, and to avoid accumulation of unused quota. This retention limit would be effective from January 1, 2008, through January 31, 2008 and from June 1, 2008, through August 31, 2008, unless adjusted with an inseason action, if necessary. NMFS may consider further retention limit adjustments after August 31, 2008, depending on several factors, including but not limited to catch rates and availability of quota. Angling Category Effort Controls NMFS proposes to increase the Angling category retention limit to one school BFT (27 inches (68.6 cm) to less than 47 inches (119.4 cm)), and two large school/small medium BFT (i.e., two BFT measuring 47 inches (119.4 cm) to less than 73 inches (185.4 cm)) per vessel per day/trip. This limit was set for the 2007 fishing year to be consistent with the 2006 ICCAT recommendation that limits tolerance for school BFT landings to 10 percent of the U.S. TAC, calculated on a four-year average, and to maximize use of the Angling category quota while avoiding overharvest of each of the Angling category subquotas. The action also would provide the same retention limit for both private and charter/headboat vessels. NMFS has received public comment on the 2007 quota and effort control specifications and during the 2007 fishing season that application of the same measures for both sectors works well. NMFS does not have information, from recreational BFT landings estimates or from public comment, that would support a change in the Angling category retention limit for 2008 from the one implemented for the 2007 fishing year. Classification NMFS has preliminarily determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act as well as with the Consolidated HMS FMP and recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as follows: The 2008 annual specifications are necessary to implement the 2006 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) quota recommendation, as required by the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act, and to achieve domestic management objectives under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The proposed rule would:
(1)Establish initial quota specifications consistent with the BFT rebuilding program by adjusting the 2006 ICCAT-recommended quota as necessary for the 2008 fishing year;
(2)establish General category effort controls, including restricted fishing days
(RFDs)and initial retention limits; and
(3)establish Angling category retention limits for the 2008 fishing season. This action was developed in accordance with the framework procedures set forth in the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (Consolidated HMS FMP), and is supported by the analytical documents prepared for the Consolidated HMS FMP and for the 2007 BFT specifications and effort controls. On June 18, 2007, the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS)published a final rule (72 FR 33401) that modified the baseline BFT landings quota to 1,165.12 mt to implement the 2006 ICCAT recommendation, set the category subquotas per the allocations established in the Consolidated HMS FMP, and set effort controls for the General and Angling categories for the 2007 fishing year (June 1 through December 31, 2007, pursuant to the change in fishing year to a calendar year as of January 2008 per the Consolidated HMS FMP). The final regulatory flexibility analysis
(FRFA)prepared for the 2007 BFT specifications and effort controls indicated that there were 9,001 commercial Atlantic tunas or Atlantic HMS permit holders. This constitutes the best available information regarding the universe of permit holders as permits are still being renewed for the 2007 and 2008 fishing years. Because NMFS considers all the commercial Atlantic tunas and HMS permit holders to be small business entities, disproportionality of economic impacts between small and large business entities is not an issue. This proposed rule would *not* change the BFT baseline quota and category subquotas, or implement any new management measures not previously considered, and thus NMFS has determined that the impact on small entities affected by the proposed rule will not be significant. The 2006 ICCAT recommendation is in effect until changed, for instance, as a result of a new ICCAT BFT quota recommendation made at its November 2008 Annual Meeting. The domestic BFT baseline quotas and subquotas are codified in the regulations. Each proposed action in this rule is addressed separately below. *Carryover of underharvest:* The 2006 ICCAT recommendation limits carryover of BFT underharvest from the 2007 fishing year to the 2008 fishing year quota to 595.1 mt. NMFS proposes to carry over and to distribute 595.1 mt of BFT underharvest via the same method as used for the 2007 fishing year, and consistently with the ICCAT recommendation and with the Consolidated HMS FMP. The adjusted quota for the 2008 fishing year would be 2 percent higher than that for the 2007 fishing year based on the preliminary estimate of the amount of underharvest that NMFS would use to cover anticipated Longline category landings in 2008. Given that the U.S. quota has been underharvested by a substantial amount in the last few years, and is expected to be underharvested this year, this increase is not expected to have a significant impact on individual small entities. The annual specification process that this proposed rule follows, including application of underharvests and overharvests, is described in detail in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Consolidated HMS FMP. *Effort controls:* The proposed rule would increase the General category retention limit from the default level of 1 BFT to 3 BFT (73 inches or greater), the maximum allowed under the FMP. This action is the same as implemented for the 2007 fishing year and is intended to allow for maximum utilization of the BFT quota. An examination of landings data indicates that, while the retention limit increase would allow fishermen the flexibility to retain a second or third BFT if encountered, it is likely to have only slightly positive economic impacts on General category participants because success rates of catching a second or third BFT have been very low in recent years. NMFS currently does not have information that would support a change in the Angling category retention limit for 2008 from the one implemented for the 2007 fishing year. The proposed increase of the Angling category retention limit from the default of 1 fish (school, large school, or small medium BFT) to 3 fish (1 school BFT plus 2 large school or small medium BFT) is expected to provide increased opportunities to for recreational anglers without risking overharvest of the Angling category quota. To the extent that these increased opportunities may result in increased charter/headboat bookings, there may be slightly positive impacts on Charter/Headboat permit holders. The proposed RFDs are also the same as those implemented for the 2007 fishing year (with adjustments as needed for the 2008 calendar) and are designed to pace the entry of product to the market when landings rates are high. To the extent that RFDs have the potential to improve market prices, particularly for exported BFT, the implementation of RFDs may have slightly positive impacts, if needed, i.e., if not waived upon determination that they will not be needed, for instance if late season fishing rates are low. Regardless, the schedule of proposed RFDs is not expected to have a significant impact on small entities and is not expected to have any relative impact when compared with the 2007 fishing season. Because the economic impact of the carryover of underharvest and effort controls, to the extent that there are any, is expected to be generally positive, this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Public Hearings The hearing locations are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Sarah McLaughlin at
(978)281-9279, at least 7 days prior to the meeting. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 *et seq.* ; 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* Dated: September 26, 2007. William T. Hogarth Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E7-19421 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 190 Tuesday, October 2, 2007 Notices AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT Notice of Public Information Collection Being Reviewed by the U.S. Agency for International Development; Comments Requested; Republication SUMMARY: This **Federal Register** notice was originally published on July 23, 2007 (72 FR 40110) and is being republished and amended. U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is making efforts to reduce the paperwork burden. USAID invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act for 1995. Comments are requested concerning:
(a)Whether the proposed or continuing collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;
(b)the accuracy of the burden estimates;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. DATES: Submit comments on or before December 3, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comment via e-mail at *jdenale@usaid.gov* or mail comments to: Jeff Denale, Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Office of Security, United States Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20523,
(202)712-1264. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Johnson, Bureau for Management, Office of Administrative Services, Information and Records Division, United States Agency for International Development, Ronald Reagon Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20523,
(202)712-1365 or via e-mail *bjohnson@usaid.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *OMB No:* *Form No.:* N/A. *Title:* Partner Information Form. *Type of Review:* New Information Collection. *Purpose:* The United States Agency for International Development USAID). Office of Security, intends to collect information from approximately 2000 individuals and/or officers of non-governmental organizations
(NGOs)who apply for USAID contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, other funding from USAID, or who apply for registration with USAID as Private and Voluntary Organizations (PVO). Collection of personally identifiable information from these individuals is specifically used to conduct screening to ensure that neither USAID funds nor USAID-funded activities inadvertently provide support to entities or individuals associated with terrorism. *Annual Reporting Burden:* *Respondents:* 2000. *Total annual responses:* 2000. *Total annual hours requested:* 500 hours. Dated: September 24, 2007. Joanne Paskar, Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of Administrative Services, Bureau for Management. BILLING CODE 6116-01-M EN02OC07.000 EN02OC07.001 EN02OC07.002 [FR Doc. 07-4775 Filed 10-01-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 39
Traces to 39 documents
U.S. Code
26 references not yet in our index
  • 5 CFR 352
  • Pub. L. 105-277
  • 5 CFR 534
  • 32 CFR 212
  • 32 CFR 123
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 96-354
  • Pub. L. 96-511
  • 5 CFR 950
  • 10 USC 4744
  • 33 CFR 117
  • 5 USC 601-612
  • Pub. L. 104-121
  • 44 USC 3501-3520
  • 2 USC 1531-1538
  • 42 USC 4321-4370f
  • 49 CFR 565
  • 49 CFR 571.3
  • 49 CFR 592
  • 49 CFR 553.21
  • 49 CFR 512
  • 13 CFR 121
  • 529 U.S. 861
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 49 CFR 1.50
  • 50 CFR 635
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of proposed rulemaking
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 3584
U.S.C.§ 7701
U.S.C.§ 601
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 220101
U.S.C.§ 177
U.S.C.§ 178
U.S.C.§ 2552
SCOTUS529 U.S. 861
Cite5 CFR 352
Pub. L.Pub. L. 105-277
Cites 65 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.