Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 60563

1The final rule establishing FMVSS No. 225 was 

published March 5, 1999 (64 FR 10786, docket 98–

3390, notice 2). NHTSA responded to petitions for 

reconsideration of the final rule in documents 

published August 31, 1999 (64 FR 47566; Docket 

No. 6160), July 31, 2000 (65 FR 46628; Docket No. 

7648), June 27, 2003 (68 FR 38208; Docket No. 

15438; corrected 68 FR 54861), and August 11, 2004 

(supra).

2 DaimlerChrylser AG is the parent corporation of 

Mercedes Benz U.S.A. LLC.

substantial direct compliance costs, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13084 do not apply. 

D. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains no information 

collection requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Department has determined that 

the requirements of Title II of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

do not apply to this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1 

Authority delegations (Government 

agencies), Organization and functions 

(Government agencies).

■ In consideration of the foregoing, Part 

1 of Title 49, Code of Federal 

Regulations, is amended as follows:

PART 1—ORGANIZATION AND 

DELEGATION OF POWERS AND 

DUTIES

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 1 is 

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322; 46 U.S.C. 

2104(a); 28 U.S.C. 2672; 31 U.S.C. 3711(a)(2); 

Pub. L. 101–552, 104 Stat. 2736; Pub. L. 106–

159, 113 Stat. 1748; Pub. L. 107–71, 115 Stat. 

597; Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064 (2002); 

Pub L. 107’296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002); 41 

U.S.C. 414.

■ 2. Revise § 1.24, paragraph (a) to read 

as follows:

§ 1.24 Authority. 

(a) The Deputy Secretary: (1) May 

exercise the authority of the Secretary, 

except where specifically limited by 

law, order, regulation, or instructions of 

the Secretary; and (2) serves as the Chief 

Acquisition Officer.

* * * * *

■ 3. Amend § 1.59 by adding paragraphs 

(a)(5) and (6) to read as follows:

§ 1.59 Delegations to the Assistant 

Secretary for Administration.

* * * * *

(5) Carry out the duties and 

responsibilities of agency head for 

departmental procurement within the 

meaning of the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation. This authority as agency 

head for departmental procurement 

excludes duties, responsibilities, and 

powers expressly reserved for the 

Secretary of Transportation. 

(6) Serve as Deputy Chief Acquisition 

Officer.

■ 4. Amend § 1.59a by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 1.59a Redelegations by the Assistant 

Secretary for Administration. 

(a) The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration has re-delegated to the 

Director, Office of the Senior 

Procurement Executive the authority to: 

(1) carry out the duties and 

responsibilities of agency head for 

departmental procurement within the 

meaning of the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation except for those duties 

expressly reserved for the Secretary of 

Transportation. 

(2) carry out the functions of the Chief 

Acquisition Officer except for those 

functions specifically reserved for the 

Deputy Secretary. 

(3) procure and authorize payment for 

property and services for the Office of 

the Secretary, with power to re-delegate 

and authorize successive re-delegations.

* * * * *

Issued this 26th day of September, 2004 at 

Washington, DC. 

Norman Mineta, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–22743 Filed 10–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–62–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–18793] 

RIN 2127–AJ39 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Child Restraint Anchorage 

Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule; response to petition 

for reconsideration, correction. 

SUMMARY: In August 2004, NHTSA 

denied a petition for reconsideration of 

a final rule amending Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, Child 

Restraint Anchorage Systems. The 

denial made impermissible the 

installation of stowable anchorages on 

or after September 1, 2004. In response 

to a petition from Mercedes-Benz 

U.S.A., today’s document provides 

manufacturers until March 1, 2005 to 

achieve non-stowability of the anchor 

system.

DATES: The amendments made in this 

rule are effective October 12, 2004.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for 

reconsideration of this rule, you should 

refer in your petition to the docket 

number of this document and submit 

your petition to: Administrator, Room 

5220, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh Street SW., 

Washington, DC, 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

nonlegal issues: Michael Huntley, Office 

of Crashworthiness Standards, NHTSA 

(telephone 202–366–0029). 

For legal issues: Deirdre R. Fujita, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA 

(telephone 202–366–2992). 

You can reach both of these officials 

at the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 

Washington, DC, 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

11, 2004, NHTSA published a final rule 

(69 FR 48818; Docket No. 18793) that 

provided the last of a number of 

planned responses to petitions for 

reconsideration of final rules 

establishing and amending Federal 

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 

No. 225, ‘‘Child restraint anchorage 

systems’’ (FMVSS No. 225, 49 CFR 

571.225).1 FMVSS No. 225 requires new 

vehicles to be equipped with child 

restraint anchorage systems consisting 

of two lower anchorage bars and a top 

tether anchor. Among other matters, the 

August 11, 2004 document denied a 

petition for reconsideration from Keiper 

GmbH & Co. (Keiper) to allow the 

installation of stowable lower anchorage 

bars past August 31, 2004.

NHTSA denied the request to allow 

stowable anchorage bars on a permanent 

basis out of a concern that a general use 

of these anchorage systems might 

impede efforts to achieve maximum 

compatibility between child restraint 

systems and the vehicle anchorage 

system. NHTSA acknowledged that 

stowable anchorages were being used by 

DaimerChrysler on limited models (69 

FR 48821).2

On September 7, 2004, MercedesBenz U.S.A. (MBUSA) submitted a 

petition for reconsideration of the 

decision on the Keiper petition. MBUSA 

asked for an extension of time, to March 

1, 2005, to comply with the agency’s 

directive that lower anchorages cannot 

be stowable. MBUSA stated that its CClass, CLK-Class and Maybach models 

are equipped with stowable anchorages 

and that the changes necessary to make

60564 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

their anchorages non-stowable 

(described below) will take until March 

1, 2005 to implement, even when using 

the fastest possible implementation 

schedule. The manufacturer also stated 

that there have been no consumer 

complaints about the stowable system, 

which led MBUSA to believe that there 

would be no adverse safety consequence 

to extending the date to March 1, 2005. 

Agency Decision 

In a notice of proposed rulemaking 

that proposed to establish a new Federal 

motor vehicle safety standard 

mandating tire pressure monitoring 

systems (69 FR 55895, September 16, 

2004, Docket 19054), NHTSA clarified 

some of the implications of submitting 

petitions for reconsideration of final 

rules. That discussion warrants 

repeating here. The agency carefully 

reviews the petitions it receives before 

deciding the appropriate response to a 

petition. While petitions are pending, 

the final rule is effective as originally 

promulgated. Manufacturers cannot 

assume that the agency will make the 

changes requested in their petitions. 

Accordingly, they must plan to comply 

with the final rule as issued, without 

reservation. 

To allow manufacturers to do 

otherwise would be contrary to the 

public interest. The effective date of a 

final rule, and the societal benefits 

associated with it, cannot be delayed by 

the mere filing of petitions for 

reconsideration. 

At the same time, NHTSA recognizes 

that it has a responsibility to provide a 

timely response to petitions. In the case 

at hand, the agency did not respond to 

the petition for reconsideration until 

only three weeks remained in the period 

during which the stowable anchorages 

were allowed. Further, in denying the 

petition, NHTSA did not assess the 

difficulty MBUSA would have in 

making its anchorages non-stowable at 

that late juncture. 

In light of this, NHTSA has decided 

to allow vehicle manufacturers until 

March 1, 2005 to make necessary design 

changes and cease use of stowable 

anchorages. MBUSA stated in its 

petition that it has sought to make its 

anchorages non-stowable in the quickest 

time possible and that it cannot 

immediately achieve non-stowability of 

the anchorages. MBUSA said that it 

considered simply locking the 

anchorages in the extended position, but 

found this to be unfeasible because a 

portion of the anchorage is large enough 

to make use of the rear seat by adult 

occupants extremely uncomfortable. 

The manufacturer also considered 

locking in place smaller ‘‘attachment 

clips,’’ but found this too to be 

unfeasible because the smaller clips did 

not provide sufficient clearance for a 

child restraint fastener to extend fully 

over them. MBUSA believes that it must 

develop a new child restraint 

attachment assembly. The manufacturer 

stated that it needs to develop new 

tooling for the anchorage, change the 

tooling for the cross-member and 

produce a new welding tool. It also has 

to reduce the following aspects of 

production to the shortest amount of 

time: the technical clearance of design 

of the new anchorage assembly; 

feasibility testing; parts ordering; 

sample checking; manufacturing 

process; and delivery to the assembly 

line. MBUSA stated that the necessary 

modifications cannot be implemented 

before March 1, 2005. 

The agency believes that the only 

quick fixes MBUSA could develop 

proved unworkable. Because a rapid fix 

is not available, MBUSA is expediting 

the development of a new child restraint 

attachment assembly. Extending the 

deadline to March 1, 2005 fairly 

implements the denial of the Keiper 

petition. Accordingly, the deadline is 

extended to March 1, 2005. 

Correction 

Although the August 11, 2004 denial 

of Keiper’s petition intended to prohibit 

the installation of stowable anchorages 

past September 1, 2004, it is not evident 

from the regulatory text of FMVSS No. 

225 that stowability of the anchorages 

after that date (which has been changed 

to March 1, 2005 by this document) is 

impermissible. To make that 

impermissibility clearer, the agency is 

adding a provision to S9.1.1 that 

specifies that the anchorage bars on 

vehicles manufactured on or after March 

1, 2005 must not be stowable (i.e., 

foldable or otherwise stowable). 

Effective Date 

The agency is making today’s 

amendment effective on publication. 

This final rule provides a 6-month 

period to meet the requirement that 

lower anchorages not be stowable. 

MBUSA could not now sell the three 

models of vehicles that have stowable 

lower anchorages if the amendments 

were not effective on publication. 

NHTSA thus finds for good cause to 

make this amendment effective in less 

than 180 days.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

a. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review) and DOT 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

This rulemaking document was not 

reviewed under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review.’’ This document 

simply provides manufacturers (and 

MBUSA is the sole manufacturer using 

stowable bars) some time to render their 

lower anchorage bars non-stowable. 

Stowable anchorages have been 

permitted for a number of years and 

have not been used on a widespread 

basis. Vehicle manufacturers are 

unlikely to begin installing stowable 

bars in vehicles that do not now have 

them knowing that their installation 

would only be allowed until March 1, 

2005. Based on our review of the 

potential impacts of this action, we have 

determined that this action is not 

significant within the meaning of the 

Department of Transportation’s 

regulatory policies and procedures. We 

have further determined that the effects 

of this rulemaking do not warrant 

preparation of a full final regulatory 

evaluation. 

b. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

NHTSA has considered the effects of 

this rulemaking action under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby 

certify that it will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This rule 

affects motor vehicle manufacturers, 

almost all of which are not small 

businesses. Even if there are motor 

vehicle manufacturers that qualify as 

small entities, this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on them 

because it generally does not change the 

manufacturers’ responsibilities to install 

non-stowable child restraint anchorage 

systems pursuant to FMVSS No. 225. 

This rule just provides more time in 

which to make stowable lower bars nonstowable. Accordingly, the agency has 

not prepared a regulatory flexibility 

analysis. 

c. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This rulemaking action has been 

analyzed in accordance with the 

principles and criteria contained in 

Executive Order 13132. This rulemaking 

will not have a substantial direct effect 

on States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Accordingly, 

NHTSA has determined that this 

rulemaking does not contain provisions

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 12, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 60565

that have federalism implications or that 

preempt State law. 

d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) 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. This rulemaking does 

not impose any unfunded mandates as 

defined by that Act. 

e. 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.’’ The 

August 11, 2004 final rule addressed the 

NTTAA regarding NHTSA’s decision to 

deny Keiper’s petition on installing 

stowable anchorages on a permanent 

basis. There are no technical standards 

relating to the specific issue addressed 

by today’s document. 

f. 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. 

g. Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This rulemaking does not have any 

retroactive effect. Under section 49 

U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard is in effect, a 

state may not adopt or maintain a safety 

standard applicable to the same aspect 

of performance which is not identical to 

the Federal standard, except to the 

extent that the state requirement 

imposes a higher level of performance 

and applies only to vehicles procured 

for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets 

forth a procedure for judicial review of 

final rules establishing, amending or 

revoking Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards. That section does not require 

submission of a petition for 

reconsideration or other administrative 

proceedings before parties may file suit 

in court. 

h. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain any 

collection of information requirements 

requiring review under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13). 

i. Viewing Docket Submissions 

You may read the submissions 

received by Docket Management at 

Room PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, 20590 (telephone 202–

366–9324). You may visit the Docket 

from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday. 

You may also see the submissions on 

the Internet. Go to the Docket 

Management System (DMS) Web page of 

the Department of Transportation

(http://dms.dot.gov/). 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all submission 

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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571 

Imports, Incorporation by reference, 

Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

■ In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA amends 49 CFR Chapter V as set 

forth below.

PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR 

VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 571 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50.

■ 2. Section 571.225 is amended by 

adding S9.1.1(d) and republishing 

S9.1.1(e). 

The added and republished 

paragraphs read as follows:

§ 571.225 Standard No. 225; Child restraint 

anchorage systems.

* * * * *

S9.1.1 The lower anchorages shall 

consist of two bars that—

* * * 

(d) For bars installed in vehicles 

manufactured on or after March 1, 2005, 

the bars must not be capable of being 

stowable (foldable or otherwise 

stowable). 

(e) [Reserved]

* * * * *

Issued on October 5, 2004. 

Jeffrey W. Runge, 

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–22851 Filed 10–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

[Docket No. 030912231–3266–02; I.D. 

100504A] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Scup Fishery; Adjustment to 

the 2004 Winter II Quota

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Notification of scup Winter II 

quota adjustment and possession limit 

adjustment.

SUMMARY: NMFS adjusts the 2004 

Winter II commercial scup quota and 

possession limit. This action complies 

with Framework Adjustment 3 

(Framework 3) to the Summer Flounder, 

Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP), which 

implemented procedures to allow the 

rollover of unused commercial scup 

quota from the Winter I period to the 

Winter II period.

DATES: This rule is effective November 

1, 2004 through December 31, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sarah McLaughlin, Fishery Policy 

Analyst, (978) 281–9279, fax (978) 281–

9135, e-mail 

sarah.mclaughlin@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register on November 3, 2003 (68 FR 

62250), implementing Framework 3. 

Framework 3 implemented a process, 

for years in which the full Winter I 

commercial scup quota is not harvested, 

to allow unused quota from the Winter 

I period to be added to the quota for the 

Winter II period, and to allow 

adjustment of the commercial 

possession limits for the Winter II 

period based on the amount of quota 

rolled over from the Winter I period. 

Table 5 of the final 2004 quota 

specifications for summer flounder, 

scup, and black sea bass (69 FR 2074, 

January 14, 2004) presented detailed 

information regarding Winter II 

possession limits, based on the amount 

of scup to be rolled over from Winter I 

to Winter II.