32140 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1 Volvo’s use of the term ‘‘voluntarily installed’’

reflects that company’s interpretation that Standard

No. 208 does not require the installation of Type

2 belts at locations where Standard No. 208 allows

manufacturers to meet seat belt requirements by

installing either a Type 1 or a Type 2 belt. As the

minimum requirement for those locations can be

met by installing a Type 1 belt, Volvo adheres to

the view that Type 2 belts used where only a Type

1 is required are ‘‘voluntarily installed’’ belts.

concluded, as a generic matter, that

there is no adverse economic impact.

The factual basis for the Agency’s

generic certification for tolerance

actions published on May 4, 1981 (46

FR 24950), and was provided to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration.

IV. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of this rule in

today’s Federal Register. This is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 2, 1998.

James Jones,

Director, Registration Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is

amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.

§ 180.493 [Amended]

2. In § 180.493, by amending

paragraph (b) by changing the date ‘‘3/

15/99’’ to read ‘‘9/15/00’’.

[FR Doc. 98–15745 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3773]

RIN 2127–AF91

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Seat Belt Assembly

Anchorages

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document responds to a

petition from Volvo Cars of North

America (Volvo), by amending the seat

belt anchorage strength requirements of

FMVSS No. 210, ‘‘Seat belt assembly

anchorages,’’ to require the anchorages

of all lap/shoulder belts to meet a 6,000

pound strength requirement, regardless

of whether a manufacturer has the

option of installing a lap belt or a lap/

shoulder belt at that seating position.

Two different requirements existed for

testing the anchorages of lap/shoulder

belts. One requirement, applicable to

lap/shoulder belts installed at locations

where manufacturers did not have the

option of installing any other type of

belt, called for all three anchorages of a

lap/shoulder belt to withstand a 6,000

pound strength test. The second

requirement, applicable to lap/shoulder

belts installed at locations where a

manufacturer could install either a lap

belt or a lap/shoulder belt, required the

anchorages of the lap portions of a lap/

shoulder belt to withstand the 5,000

pound strength test applied to lap belts.

The adoption of this new certification

requirement allows manufacturers to

test all lap/shoulder belts alike, i.e.

according to the 6,000 pound strength

test appropriate for lap/shoulder belts,

and no longer need also test the

anchorages for the lap belt portion to the

5,000 pound test used for belts

consisting of just a lap belt.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is

effective June 14, 1999. Manufacturers

wishing to comply with the

requirements of this final rule may do

so before the effective date commencing

September 10, 1998.

Petition Date: Any petitions for

reconsideration must be received by

NHTSA no later than July 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for

reconsideration should refer to the

docket and notice number of this notice

and be submitted to: Administrator,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

following persons at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington,

DC 20590:

For non-legal issues: Mr. John Lee,

Light Duty Vehicle Division, Office of

Crashworthiness Standards, NPS–11,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, telephone: (202) 366–

4924, facsimile (202) 493–2739,

electronic mail ‘‘jlee@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

For legal issues: Otto Matheke, Office

of the Chief Counsel, NCC–20,

telephone (202) 366–5263, facsimile

(202) 366–3820, electronic mail

‘‘omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov’’.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under

Standard No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash

protection,’’ manufacturers have the

option of installing a Type 1 seat belt

(i.e., lap belt) instead of a Type 2 seat

belt assembly (i.e., lap/shoulder belts) at

these locations:

• Vehicles, including school buses,

with a GVWR of more than 10,000

pounds: all seats, except passenger seats

in buses;

• School buses with a gross vehicle

weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds

or less: the passenger seats; and

• All other vehicles with a GVWR of

10,000 pounds or less: all seats, except

forward-facing outboard seats.

Prior to this final rule, the anchorage

requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle

Safety Standard No. 210, ‘‘Seat belt

assembly anchorages,’’ required the lap

belt anchorages for Type 2 belts

installed at these positions to meet the

5,000 pound load requirement

applicable to Type 1 belts. However, the

anchorages for the shoulder belt portion

were not subject to any load

requirement. These requirements were

established in a final rule published on

April 30, 1990 (55 FR 17970) without

any explanatory discussion in the

preamble to the final rule. Where Type

2 belts were the only configuration

allowed at a seating position, the

Standard required the anchorages for

Type 2 seat belts to withstand the

simultaneous application of a 3,000-

pound load applied to the lap belt

anchorages and a separate 3,000-pound

load to the shoulder belt anchorages.

The Volvo Petition

On May 18, 1995, Volvo Cars of North

America, Inc. (Volvo) petitioned

NHTSA to amend Standard No. 210.

Volvo stated that it subjects the

anchorages of its ‘‘voluntarily installed

Type 2 seat belts’’ to two different tests.1

Pursuant to Standard No. 210, it tests

the anchorages for the lap belt portion

of those belts for compliance with the

anchorage requirements for a Type 1

seat belt. In addition, for quality control

purposes, it tests the anchorages of its

voluntarily installed Type 2 seat belts

for compliance with the requirements
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 32141

for the anchorages of mandatorily

installed Type 2 seat belts.

To reduce the amount of testing,

Volvo requested that the Standard be

amended to give manufacturers a choice

of certifying the lap belt anchorages of

a ‘‘voluntarily installed’’ Type 2 seat

belt either to the requirements for Type

1 seat belt anchorages or to the

requirements for a Type 2 seat belt

anchorage. The adoption of this request

would allow Volvo to cease separate

testing of the lap belt portion of its

voluntarily installed Type 2 seat belts.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

On May 14, 1996 (61 FR 24265),

NHTSA published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing that

FMVSS 210 be amended so that all Type

2 belts are tested alike. Manufacturers

that choose to install Type 2 seat belts

at positions where they are optional

would be required to certify the

anchorages according to the

requirements for the anchorages for

mandatory Type 2 seat belts.

Comments in Response to the NPRM

Six comments were received in

response to the NPRM. The commenters

included Volvo Cars of North America

(Volvo), General Motors Corporation

(GM), Insurance Institute for Highway

Safety (IIHS), Volkswagen (VW), Truck

Manufacturers Association (TMA), and

American Automobile Manufacturers

Association (AAMA). Additionally, a

related letter was received from the

National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB). All those submitting comments

concurred with the proposal. However,

General Motors (GM), Insurance

Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and

American Automotive Manufacturers

Association (AAMA) had additional

comments.

Although GM agreed with the agency

proposal, it suggested that the proposed

rule change might be unnecessary. GM

commented that because FMVSS 208

expressly provides the vehicle

manufacturer with the option of

installing ‘‘a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt

assembly ‘‘ at certain designated seating

positions, the Standard requires that one

or the other be provided. In GM’s view,

if a vehicle manufacturer decides to

provide a Type 2 seat belt assembly at

the designated seating position, that

Type 2 seat belt assembly becomes the

FMVSS 208 required seat belt assembly

for that designated seating position and,

as such, becomes subject to the

requirements for such belt assemblies as

specified prior to this final rule.

IIHS made similar arguments. It

supported proposed changes in the

NPRM, but believes that the term

‘‘voluntarily-installed’’ is confusing.

IIHS noted that Standard 208 states that

either a Type 1 or Type 2 belt must be

installed at all non-outboard forwardfacing seats. In IIHS’ view, nothing in

Standard 208 indicates that the

installation of a Type 2 belt is a

voluntary decision and that the agency

should not refer to Type 2 belts installed

where they are not required as

voluntarily installed seat belts.

AAMA suggested that S4.2.2 include

the phrase ‘‘and except for side-facing

seats,’’ and that the proposed changes

become effective 30 days after the final

rule.

In a letter dated September 20, 1996,

offered in response to the NPRM, the

National Transportation Safety Board

(NTSB) recommended that NHTSA

require installation of center rear lap/

shoulder belts in all newly

manufactured passenger vehicles for

sale in the United States.

Analysis of Comments

The comments submitted by GM and

IIHS concern the issue of whether a

Type 2 seat belt installed at a seating

position for which Standard No. 208

expressly provides the option of

installing either a Type 1 or Type 2 seat

belt is a voluntarily installed belt. GM

contended that if a vehicle manufacturer

decides to provide a Type 2 seat belt

assembly at such a designated seating

position, it is doing so to satisfy

Standard 208 and the decision is

therefore not a voluntary one. In GM’s

view, such Type 2 seat belt assemblies

are installed to comply with Standard

208 and would be tested to conform to

the specifications applicable to Type 2

seat belt assemblies installed where

Standard 208 requires such belts.

In contrast, Volvo’s petition for

rulemaking is premised on the view that

Type 2 belts installed in lieu of Type 1

belts are ‘‘voluntarily installed.’’ This

view is based on NHTSA’s prior

interpretation supporting the concept of

‘‘voluntarily installed’’ belts and

language previously found in S4.2.1(b)

specifying that the lap belt portion of a

Type 2 seat belt that is ‘‘voluntarily

installed at a designated seating

position’’ must withstand a 5,000 pound

force.

Although GM and IIHS differ from

Volvo about whether the standard

would have required the 3,000 pound

test load to be applied to the lap belt

portion of the seat belt assembly

simultaneously with a 3,000 pound test

load applied to the shoulder belt portion

uniformly to all Type 2 seat belt

anchorages, they agree that uniformity is

desirable. The agency concurs in this

view. In proposing to amend the

standard, the agency accepted Volvo’s

view that an amendment was necessary.

Upon considering the comments from

GM and IIHS, NHTSA concedes that the

former language of the standard could

support the interpretation those

commenters gave it. However, Volvo’s

position also has support in the record

and is in accord with earlier agency

interpretations. To avoid future

uncertainty, NHTSA concludes that the

better course is to amend the standard

as proposed. It accordingly amends

S4.2.1. by deleting the reference to

‘‘voluntarily installed’’ Type 2 seat

belts, thereby making the lap and

shoulder anchorages for all such belts

each subject to the 3,000 pound test

requirements of S4.2.2. IIHS also

suggested that S4.2.2 (b), as proposed in

the NPRM, be removed on the basis that

this text was superfluous. NHTSA

agrees that S4.2.2(b) is superfluous and

should be deleted.

The agency has also concluded that it

is appropriate to follow AAMA’s

suggestion that the phrase ‘‘and except

for side-facing seats’’ be incorporated

into S4.2.2. Such an amendment makes

the section consistent with the existing

side-facing seat requirements of

Standard 210. NHTSA does not agree,

however, that the amendments

incorporated in this final rule should be

effective 30 days after publication.

NHTSA recognizes that these

amendments simplify testing and lessen

compliance burdens for many

manufacturers. An early effective date

would therefore benefit some members

of the industry. However, since the

amendment to S4.2.1 reverses an earlier

NHTSA interpretation regarding Type 2

belts and their anchorages, the agency is

concerned that some manufacturers who

have relied on this prior interpretation

to locate the upper anchorages for Type

2 belts be afforded sufficient time to

implement changes to bring existing or

planned vehicles into compliance with

the anchorage location requirements of

S4.3.2.

The agency has consistently

maintained that systems or components

installed in addition to required safety

systems are not required to meet Federal

safety standards, provided the

additional components or systems do

not impair the performance of required

systems. In the case of Type 2 belts,

NHTSA has said that manufacturers are

permitted to locate the anchorage for the

upper end of voluntarily installed

shoulder belts outside of the area

specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210,

provided that the voluntarily installed

anchorages and shoulder belts do not

destroy the ability of the required

anchorages and lap belts to comply with
32142 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

the requirements of the safety standards.

The effect of the amendment made by

this final rule is that anchorages for all

Type 2 seat belts will be required to

meet the location requirements as well

as the strength requirements of Standard

No. 210. To permit manufacturers who

need to relocate their Type 2 anchorages

to do so, the agency is providing that the

rule will take effect one year from the

date of its publication.

Section 30111(d) of Chapter 329, 49

U.S.C. 30111(d) prohibits establishment

of an effective date for a seat standard

less than 180 days or more than one

year after the standard is prescribed.

This restriction does not apply if, for

good cause shown, that a different

effective date is in the public interest.

NHTSA believes that setting the

effective date one year after

promulgation will not have a negative

impact on safety. The principal effect of

this rule will be to simplify testing

requirements and harmonize anchorage

strength criteria for Type 2 belts. Volvo

and other manufacturers wishing to test

the anchorages of Type 2 belts to the

Type 2 requirements may do so before

the effective date of this rule. It is

expected that these manufacturers will

do so, in order to avoid the costs of

duplicative testing.

In regard to the suggestion provided

by the NTSB that NHTSA require the

installation of Type 2 seat belts at all

designated seating positions, NHTSA

believes that such a requirement is

beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

The instant action concerns the

requirements for seat belt anchorages

rather than what types of seat belts are

required at different seating positions.

NHTSA acknowledges that mandating

the installation of Type 2 belts at all

seating positions may have safety

benefits. The agency has not, in the

course of this rulemaking, examined

those benefits or potential risks and

costs of such a requirement.

Accordingly, the agency is therefore

respectfully declining to take the actions

suggested by NTSB.

Final Rule

NHTSA is making several changes to

the proposal outlined in the NPRM. The

phrase ‘‘and except for side-facing

seats’’ is added to S4.2.2. As discussed

above, S4.2.2(b) is being deleted in its

entirety.

Effective Date

In response to the NPRM, AAMA

suggested that the agency establish an

early effective date for the new

anchorage requirements. As noted

above, the rule will become effective

one year from the date of publication in

the Federal Register. Manufacturers

wishing to comply prior to that date

may do so commencing 90 days after

publication.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

NHTSA has considered the impact of

this rulemaking action under E.O. 12866

and the Department of Transportation’s

regulatory policies and procedures. This

rulemaking document was not reviewed

under E.O. 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning

and Review.’’ This action has been

determined to be not ‘‘significant’’

under the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. This final rule will result in

reduced testing costs for manufacturers

who had previously been testing Type 2

belt anchorages to two different strength

standards. The cost savings will vary

depending on the test procedure being

used by the manufacturer. The agency

believes that the impact of this final rule

does not warrant the preparation of a

full regulatory analysis.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

(Public Law 96–354) requires each

agency to evaluate the potential effects

of a final rule on small businesses.

Modifications to standards for seat belt

anchorages affect motor vehicle

manufacturers, few of which are small

entities. The Small Business

Administration (SBA) has set size

standards for determining if a business

within a specific industrial

classification is a small business. The

Standard Industrial Classification code

used by the SBA for Motor Vehicles and

Passenger Car Bodies (3711) defines a

small manufacturer as one having 1,000

employees or less.

I hereby certify that this final rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

businesses. Very few single stage

manufacturers of motor vehicles within

the United States have 1,000 or fewer

employees. Those that do are not likely

to perform testing of seat belt

anchorages and would be much more

likely to contract with a larger

manufacturer or a test facility to perform

such testing. Furthermore, this rule

reduces test burdens for manufacturers

by eliminating any perceived need to

test the anchorages of certain Type 2

seat belts to two different strength

requirements. For this reason, NHTSA

believes that this final rule will not have

a significant impact on any small

business.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96–511),

there are no requirements for

information collection associated with

this final rule.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

NHTSA has also analyzed this final

rule under the National Environmental

Policy Act and determined that it would

not have a significant impact on the

human environment.

E. Executive Order 12612

(Federalism)and Unfunded Mandates

Act

NHTSA has analyzed this final rule in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and

has determined that this final rule

would not have significant federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

In issuing this final rule modifying

seat belt anchorage strength

requirements, the agency notes, for the

purposes of the Unfunded Mandates

Act, that it is pursuing the least cost

alternative. This rulemaking does not

impose new costs but reduces

compliance test costs by eliminating

potentially duplicative requirements.

F. Civil Justice Reform

This final rule will not have any

retroactive effect. Under 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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor

vehicles.

In consideration of the foregoing, 49

CFR Part 571 is amended as follows:

PART 571–FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE

SAFETY STANDARDS

1. The authority citation for Part 571

of Title 49 continues to read as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 32143

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

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

2. 571.210 is amended by revising

sections S4.2.1 and S4.2.2 to read as

follows:

§ 571.210 Standard No. 210, Seat Belt

Assembly Anchorages.

* * * * *

S4.2.1 Except as provided in S4.2.5,

and except for side-facing seats, the

anchorages, attachment hardware, and

attachment bolts for any of the following

seat belt assemblies shall withstand a

5,000 pound force when tested in

accordance with S5.1 of this standard:

(a) Type 1 seat belt assembly; and

(b) Lap belt portion of either a Type

2 or automatic seat belt assembly, if

such seat belt assembly is equipped

with a detachable upper torso belt.

S4.2.2 Except as provided in S4.2.5,

and except for side facing seats, the

anchorages, attachment hardware, and

attachment bolts for any of the following

seat belt assemblies shall withstand a

3,000 pound force applied to the lap

belt portion of the seat belt assembly

simultaneously with a 3,000 pound

force applied to the shoulder belt

portion of the seat belt assembly, when

tested in accordance with S5.2 of this

standard:

(a) Type 2 and automatic seat belt

assemblies that are installed to comply

with Standard No. 208 (49 CFR

571.208); and

(b) Type 2 and automatic seat belt

assemblies that are installed at a seating

position required to have a Type 1 or

Type 2 seat belt assembly by Standard

No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208).

* * * * *

Issued on June 4, 1998.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–15558 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 648

[Docket No. 980529141–8141–01; I.D.

052198A]

RIN 0648–AL34

Fisheries of the Northeastern United

States; Final Rule for the Loligo Squid/

Butterfish, Scup, Black Sea Bass, and

Illex Squid Fisheries; Moratorium

Vessel Permit Eligibility

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: NMFS issues a final rule to

amend the regulations implementing

Amendment 5 to the Fishery

Management Plan (FMP) for the Atlantic

mackerel, squid, and butterfish fisheries

(Amendment 5), and Amendments 8

and 9 to the FMP for the summer

flounder, scup, and black sea bass

fisheries (Amendments 8 and 9). The

purpose of this final rule is to comply

with the intent of Amendments 5, 8, and

9 regarding the application restrictions

for initial moratorium permits.

DATES: Effective June 9, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom

Warren, Fishery Management Specialist,

(978) 281–9347.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final

rule that implemented the commercial

vessel moratorium for the Loligo squid/

butterfish fishery in Amendment 5 was

published on April 2, 1996 (61 FR

14465). The measures implementing the

Illex squid moratorium were revised and

approved in resubmitted Amendment 5

on May 27, 1997 (62 FR 28638). The

final rules that implemented

Amendments 8 and 9 were published on

August 23, 1996 (61 FR 43420), and

November 15, 1996 (61 FR 58461),

respectively and established moratoria

on entry into the scup and black sea

bass fisheries, respectively.

Application restrictions for

moratorium vessel permits were

specified for each of these fisheries. The

regulations implementing Amendments

5, 8, and 9 specified that no one may

apply for an initial commercial

moratorium permit 12 months after the

effective date of the final rule

implementing each amendment. The

application deadlines as specified in the

final rule of each amendment are: Loligo

squid/butterfish, May 2, 1997; scup,

September 23, 1997; black sea bass,

December 15, 1997; and Illex squid,

June 26, 1998.

The intent of the regulations was to

provide 12 months of opportunity for

vessel owners to apply for initial

moratorium permits. However, logistical

problems developed in coordinating the

availability of the initial application

forms with the effective dates of the

final regulations. As a consequence,

notification to potential applicants of

the application requirements, including

the deadlines, was delayed. Since forms

were not available for vessel owners to

apply for a moratorium fishery, the

actual time frame in which they could

apply was truncated. As a result,

applicants for the Loligo squid/

butterfish fishery received 8 months to

apply; scup applicants received 11

months; and black sea bass applicants

received 8 months. The intent of the

regulations to provide 12 months in

which to apply was thus not fulfilled.

By reopening the permit application

period for these fisheries, NMFS is

providing additional time for applicants

to apply for initial moratorium permits,

as was originally intended.

Since the application periods for

these three fisheries have expired, they

must be reopened. Reopening the

application periods for initial

moratorium permits for the Loligo

squid/butterfish, scup, and black sea

bass fisheries for the period from June

9, 1998, through August 31, 1998, will

result in additional opportunity, though

not continuous, for applicants to apply

for an initial moratorium permit.

Therefore, the intent of this rule is to

allow a more equitable opportunity to

apply for these moratorium permits.

This final rule also adjusts the

deadline for submittal of applications

for the Illex squid moratorium permit so

that it coincides with the August 31,

1998, deadline implemented by this

final rule for Loligo squid/butterfish,

scup, and black sea bass. Revising the

date of the application deadline for the

Illex squid moratorium permit (August

31, 1998) will result in a uniform

deadline and reduce confusion in the

industry.

Classification

Pursuant to authority at 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator,

NMFS, finds good cause to waive the

requirement to provide prior notice and

opportunity for public comment for this

rule as such procedures are unnecessary

and contrary to the public interest. A

proposed rule informing the public of

the application limitation for these

fisheries was previously published for

the original application deadlines. An

additional comment period is

unnecessary and will protract the

permitting process for these fisheries

without any concomitant benefit. The

rule operates to relieve an unintended

restriction and to avoid confusion in the

industry by providing a uniform

extension of the permit application

deadline and the shortest hiatus in the

permitting process. Because this rule

relieves a restriction under 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(1), it is not subject to a 30-day

delay in effective date.

Because prior notice and opportunity

for public comment are not required for

this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other

law, the analytical requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601

et seq., are inapplicable.