61908 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 207 / Thursday, October 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

(v) For computer programs (including 

videogames), the identifying description 

should include to the extent known at 

the time of filing, the nature, purpose 

and function of the computer program, 

including the programming language in 

which it is written, any particular 

organization or structure in which the 

program has been created; the form in 

which it is expected to be published, 

e.g. as an online–only product; whether 

there have been previous versions (and 

identification of such previous 

versions); the identities of persons 

involved in the creation of the computer 

program; and, if the work is a 

videogame, also describe the subject 

matter of the videogame and the overall 

object, goal or purpose of the game, its 

characters, if any, and the general 

setting and surrounding found in the 

game. 

(vi) For advertising or marketing 

photographs, the description should 

include the subject matter depicted in 

the photograph or photographs, 

including information such as the 

particular product, event, public figure, 

or other item or occurrence which the 

photograph is intended to advertise or 

market. To the extent possible and 

applicable, the description for 

photographs should give additional 

details which will assist in identifying 

the particular photographs, such as the 

party for whom such advertising 

photographs are taken; the approximate 

time periods during which the 

photographs are taken; the approximate 

number of photos which may be 

included in the grouping; any events 

associated with the photographs; and 

the location and physical setting or 

surrounding depicted in the 

photographs. The description may also 

explain the general presentation, e.g., 

the lighting, background scenery, 

positioning of elements of the subject 

matter as it is seen in the photographs, 

and should provide any locations and 

events, if applicable, associated with the 

photographs. 

(7) Review of preregistration 

information. The Copyright Office will 

conduct a limited review of applications 

for preregistration, in order to ascertain 

whether the application describes a 

work that is in a class of works that the 

Register of Copyrights has determined 

has had a history of infringement prior 

to authorized commercial release. 

However, a work will not be 

preregistered unless an applicant has 

provided all of the information 

requested on the application and has 

certified that all of the information 

provided on the application is correct to 

the best of the applicant’s knowledge. 

(8) Certification. The person 

submitting an application for 

preregistration must certify on the 

application that he or she is the author, 

copyright claimant, or owner of 

exclusive rights, or the authorized agent 

of the author, copyright claimant, or 

owner of exclusive rights, of the work 

submitted for this preregistration; that 

the information given in this application 

is correct to the best of his or her 

knowledge; that the work is being 

prepared for commercial distribution; 

and that he or she has a reasonable 

expectation that the work will be 

commercially distributed to the public. 

(9) Effective date of preregistration. 

The effective date of a preregistration is 

the day on which an application and fee 

for preregistration of a work, which the 

Copyright Office later notifies the 

claimant has been preregistered or 

which a court of competent jurisdiction 

has concluded was acceptable for 

preregistration, have been received in 

the Copyright Office. 

(10) Notification of preregistration. 

Upon completion of the preregistration, 

the Copyright Office will provide the 

claimant official notification by email of 

the preregistration. 

(11) Certification of preregistation. A 

certified copy of the official notification 

may be obtained in physical form from 

the Certification and Documents Section 

of the Information and Reference 

Division at the address stated in 

§ 201.1(a)(3) of this chapter. 

(12) Public record of preregistration. 

The preregistration record will also be 

available to the public on the Copyright 

Office website, http:// 

www.copyright.gov. 

(13) Effect of preregistration. 

Preregistration of a work offers certain 

advantages to a copyright owner 

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 408(f), 411 and 

412. However, preregistration of a work 

does not constitute prima facie evidence 

of the validity of the copyright or of the 

facts stated in the application for 

preregistration or in the preregistration 

record. The fact that a work has been 

preregistered does not create any 

presumption that the Copyright Office 

will register the work upon submission 

of an application for registration. 

(14) Petition for recognition of a new 

class of works. At any time an interested 

party may petition the Register of 

Copyrights for a determination as to 

whether a particular class of works has 

had a history of copyright infringement 

prior to authorized release that would 

justify inclusion of that class of works 

among the classes of works eligible for 

preregistration. 

Dated: October 19, 2005 

Marybeth Peters, 

Register of Copyrights. 

Approved by: 

James H. Billington, 

The Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 05–21381 Filed 10–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2005–21048] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document denies a 

petition for rulemaking submitted by 

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (Honda), to 

amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ‘‘Child 

restraint systems.’’ Honda requested that 

FMVSS No. 213 be amended to limit the 

weight of all child restraint systems 

used with the 3-year-old dummy. Honda 

stated that such an amendment would 

assure the proper operation of weightbased occupant detection systems used 

to meet the air bag suppression 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208, 

‘‘Occupant crash protection.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

For Non-Legal Issues: Mr. Tewabe 

Asebe, Office of Crashworthiness 

Standards, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, 

Telephone: (202) 366–2365. 

For Legal Issues: Mr. Chris Calamita, 

Office of Chief Counsel, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366–2992, 

Facsimile: (202) 366–3820. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On May 12, 2000, NHTSA issued a 

final rule for advanced air bags, 

amending FMVSS No. 208 to, among 

other things, minimize injuries to small 

adults and young children due to air bag 

deployment (65 FR 30680). To address 

the risk air bags pose to young children 

in child restraint systems, the agency 

amended FMVSS No. 208 to include a 

number of alternative tests, one of 

which requires the front passenger air 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 207 / Thursday, October 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61909 

1SafetyBeltSafe U.S.A. provided the weights of 

these varying child restraints to NHTSA. A list of 

the restrint make/models and weights has been 

submitted separately to this docket. 

bag system to automatically suppress 

when a child or child in a child restraint 

system is present. Some manufacturers 

rely on weight-based technology to 

comply with the automatic air bag 

suppression requirement. Weight-based 

technologies utilize load cells or other 

sensors designed into the vehicle seat. 

With this option, the vehicle air bag in 

the right front passenger seat is 

suppressed when a child or a child in 

a child restraint system is placed on the 

seat. If an adult occupies the front 

passenger seat, the feature enables the 

air bag deployment. The threshold for 

enabling the air bag deployment is 

dependent on the design and calibration 

of the suppression system used. 

The agency selected certain child 

restraint systems to be used for 

compliance testing of the air bag 

suppression systems. The selected child 

restraint systems are included as an 

appendix (Appendix A, ‘‘Selection of 

child restraint systems’’) in FMVSS No. 

208. The list of child restraint systems 

is periodically updated to reflect child 

restraint systems currently on the 

market. On November 19, 2003, the 

agency updated the list of child restraint 

systems in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 

208 (68 FR 65179). FMVSS No. 208 

requires that vehicles be certified for 

compliance using any of the child 

restraint systems in Appendix A. 

II. The Petition 

On February 11, 2004, the agency 

received a petition for rulemaking from 

Honda requesting that NHTSA amend 

FMVSS No. 213 to limit the weight of 

all child restraint systems, including 

rear-facing, forward-facing, and 

convertible type restraints used by 3- 

year-old children and produced in 

accordance with FMVSS No. 213, for 

the purpose of maintaining the 

appropriate air bag deployment for 

small occupants. Honda suggested that, 

based on available child restraint system 

designs, ‘‘perhaps a weight limit of 

about 8.5 kilograms (kg) (18.7 lb) may be 

appropriate.’’

As Honda’s petition specifically 

addresses the air bag suppression 

requirements for child restraints used 

with the 3-year-old dummy, NHTSA 

notes that manufacturers choosing to 

certify to FMVSS No. 208 S21.2, OptionAutomatic suppression feature, must 

demonstrate compliance when using 

any of the child restraints listed in 

sections C and D of FMVSS No. 208 

Appendix A. These child restraints 

include (1) forward-facing toddler and 

forward-facing convertible seats, and (2) 

forward-facing toddler/belt positioningbooster seats and belt-positioning 

booster seats. 

In its petition, Honda stated that it 

agrees with NHTSA that it is very 

important to periodically update the 

child restraint system list in Appendix 

A of FMVSS No. 208. However, Honda 

claimed that the weight of certain child 

restraint system models recommended 

for 3-year-old children in the updated 

list were heavier than others. Honda 

proposed to limit the child restraint 

system mass to about 8.5 kg (18.7 

pounds). Specifically, the petitioner 

stated: 

A current, popular system for automatic 

suppression of the air bag for the infant and 

small child is seat weight detection. If 

increasingly heavier CRSs are added to the 

market endlessly, the stable and reliable 

performance of small occupant detection 

systems cannot be achieved. Consequently, 

future air bag suppression systems designed 

to prevent deployment with infants or small 

children in very heavy future CRSs could 

also suppress deployment for small adults 

such as the AF5 (5th percentile adult female). 

We are also concerned that older vehicles 

already on the road with suppression systems 

calibrated to the lower weights of older CRS 

specifications will fail to recognize newer, 

heavier designs. This means the air bag could 

deploy for an infant or small child in a very 

heavy CRS in vehicles calibrated to lighter 

weight CRSs that were on the market at the 

time the vehicle suppression system was 

designed. 

Therefore, we believe NHTSA should 

amend the FMVSS No. 213, ‘‘Child Restraint 

Systems,’’ to limit the weight of all C3Y 

(Three-year-old Child Dummy) CRSs 

(including rear-facing, forward-facing and 

convertible type CRSs) produced in 

accordance with FMVSS 213 for the purpose 

of maintaining the appropriate airbag 

deployment for small occupants. Based on 

the CRS designs available, perhaps a weight 

limit of about 8.5 kilograms may be 

appropriate. 

Based on the wide variety of CRS designs 

already on the market, Honda does not 

believe this simple requirement would 

unduly limit CRS designs or performance. A 

lighter CRS weight would assist in assuring 

the proper operation of weight-based air bag 

suppression systems and would add to 

consumer convenience and usage by being 

easier to carry and install in a vehicle. 

III. Data 

Honda provided the mass distribution 

for the child restraint systems in 

Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208. The 

weight distribution for these restraints 

ranged from about 1.5 kg (3.3 pounds) 

for Evenflo Right Fit to about 7.9 kg 

(17.4 pounds) for Britax Expressway 

ISOFIX, with an average weight of about 

4.6 kg (11 pounds). Honda proposed to 

limit the child restraint system weight 

to about 8.5 kg (18.7 pounds). It is 

important to note that as currently 

written, FMVSS No. 213 is a 

performance standard, and as such, does 

not specify any weight limit on 

particular child restraint system 

designs. 

While Honda’s petition provided the 

weight of the child restraint systems 

currently included in Appendix A of 

FMVSS No. 208, NHTSA obtained the 

weight of a number of varying restraint 

designs, either currently available or 

available in recent years, including 

infant beds, infant seats with and 

without a base, convertible child seats, 

forward-facing only seats, combination 

child and booster seats, and booster 

seats child restraints.1 From this list, 

NHTSA examined the weights of those 

restraints that could possibly be 

included in sections C and D of FMVSS 

No. 208 Appendix A, and therefore 

relevant to the subject petition (e.g., 

forward-facing toddler, forward-facing 

convertible seats, forward-facing 

toddler/belt positioning-booster seats, 

and belt-positioning booster seats). 

While the vast majority of these child 

restraint systems weigh less than the 

Britax Expressway ISOFIX (currently, 

the heaviest child restraint system 

included in Appendix A of FMVSS No. 

208), NHTSA found at least seven child 

restraint systems heavier than the Britax 

Expressway ISOFIX. Further, six of 

these are heavier than the 8.5 kg limit 

suggested by Honda in its petition. 

IV. Analysis 

Appendix A of FMVSS No. 208 

specifies a list of child restraint systems 

that may be used by NHTSA to test the 

air bag suppression systems of a vehicle 

that has been certified as complying 

with S19, S21, or S23 of FMVSS No. 

208. When selecting a child restraint 

system to be included in Appendix A, 

the agency considers a number of 

different factors. These factors are 

outlined in the agency’s November 

2003, final rule as follows: 

In deciding whether to amend Appendix 

A, NHTSA will consider a number of factors, 

such as whether a particular restraint has 

been a high volume model, whether it has 

mass and dimensions that are representative 

of many restraints on the market, whether its 

mass and dimensions represent outliers, and 

whether a variety of restraint manufacturers 

are represented in the appendix. This 

approach will allow us to limit Appendix A 

to those restraints that represent large 

portions of the CRS market, while including 

exceptionally large or small restraints. We 

believe a combination of restraints is needed 

to assure the robustness of automatic 

suppression systems under real world 

conditions. 

Specifically with respect to Honda’s 

concern about the increasing weight of 

61910 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 207 / Thursday, October 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

2Final Economic Assessment, FMVSS No. 213, 

FMVSS No. 225, Child Restraint Systems, Child 

Restraint Anchorage Systems. Docket No. NHTSA–

1998–3390–27, Page 44, February 1999. 

child restraint systems, the heaviest 

child restraint system selected for 

inclusion in Appendix A, as amended 

in the November 19, 2003 final rule, is 

about 0.5 kg (1.1 lbs) heavier than the 

heaviest child restraint system removed 

from Appendix A. However, as noted 

earlier, the Britax Expressway ISOFIX is 

lighter than at least seven other child 

restraint systems either currently 

available or available in recent years 

that could be included in sections C and 

D of FMVSS No. 208 Appendix A. 

Importantly, NHTSA notes that there is 

no single established weight threshold 

for all weight-based air bag suppression 

systems on the market. The design of 

these systems may vary depending on a 

number of different parameters, as long 

as the system adequately suppresses the 

air bag when tested in accordance with 

the requirements of FMVSS No. 208. 

Honda stated that for weight-based 

occupant detection systems used for air 

bag suppression, if increasingly heavier 

child restraint systems are added to the 

market endlessly, the stable and reliable 

performance of small occupant 

detection systems could not be 

achieved. NHTSA does not believe that 

the addition of the Britax Expressway 

ISOFIX, the heaviest child restraint 

system included in Appendix A of 

FMVSS No. 208 to date, serves as an 

indication that child restraints are 

becoming heavier. As noted earlier, 

NHTSA has identified at least nine 

child restraint systems that are above 

the 8.5 kg mass limit proposed by 

Honda. However, as FMVSS No. 213 

does not require child restraint systems 

to meet specific weight limits, NHTSA 

does not weigh the restraints as part of 

its annual compliance test program. As 

such, the agency has no historical data 

to show that there is a trend towards 

increasingly heavier child restraint 

systems as implied by Honda. Further, 

Honda did not provide such data in 

support of its petition. 

The agency did estimate that, in order 

to comply with the requirement that all 

child restraint systems have hardware 

enabling the restraint to attach to the 

universal child restraint anchorage 

system required in vehicles as a result 

of FMVSS No. 225, ‘‘Child restraint 

anchorage systems,’’ each child restraint 

system would have an incremental 

weight increase ranging from less than 

0.45 kg (1 pound) to 1.36 kg (3 pounds) 

depending on the type of attachment 

hardware used.2 To date, virtually all 

child restraint systems have adopted the 

use of flexible-type attachment 

hardware, which only marginally 

increases the weight of the child 

restraint system. Notably, the heaviest 

child restraint system in Appendix A of 

FMVSS No. 208-the Britax Expressway 

ISOFIX-is a restraint that utilizes a rigid 

lower attachment system to connect to 

the vehicle anchorages and is designed 

for forward-facing use. These rigid 

anchorages are typically heavier than 

the flexible attachment hardware that is 

predominant in current designs. 

However, we note that the Britax 

Expressway ISOFIX, at 7.9 kg (17.4 lb), 

is still significantly lighter than the 

heaviest child restraint system 

examined by NHTSA-the Britax Super 

Elite (a forward-facing seat for children 

weighing between 22 and 80 pounds, 

equipped with a 5-point harness 

restraint system) at 11.6 kg (25.6 lb). 

Honda stated that based on the wide 

variety of child restraint system designs 

already on the market, the company 

does not believe a weight limit 

requirement would unduly limit child 

restraint system design or performance. 

However, Honda did not present 

evidence to support this claim. Absent 

such evidence, there is no way for the 

agency to confirm Honda’s assertion. As 

noted earlier, FMVSS No. 213-as with 

the other FMVSSs-is a performance 

standard. The agency does not believe 

that it is appropriate to impose designrestrictive requirements that may hinder 

the development of safety features for 

use in future child restraint system 

designs. For example, NHTSA is 

conducting ongoing research in the area 

of improved side impact protection for 

children in crashes in response to the 

Transportation Recall, Enhancement, 

Accountability and Documentation 

(TREAD) Act. NHTSA does not want to 

put constraints on potential innovative 

designs that could improve safety for 

children in this or other areas in the 

future, and believes that imposing 

design-restrictive parameters for child 

restraints-such as imposing a weight 

limit as suggested in the subject 

petition-could potentially preclude the 

development of safety advances. While 

FMVSS No. 213 does not currently 

specify weight limits on child restraint 

designs, the agency notes, as did Honda, 

that lighter weight child restraint 

systems can be considered more userfriendly in that they are easier to move 

from one vehicle to another and from 

one seating position to another in the 

same vehicle if needed. 

Honda stated that it is concerned that 

older vehicles that are already on the 

road, with suppression systems 

calibrated to the lower weights of older 

child restraint systems, will fail to 

recognize newer and heavier child 

restraint systems. Honda stated that the 

air bag could deploy for an infant or 

small child in a very heavy child 

restraint system in vehicles calibrated to 

lighter weight child restraint systems 

that were on the market at the time the 

vehicle suppression system was 

designed. NHTSA notes that the mass of 

the Britax Expressway ISOFIX is only 

0.5 kg (1.1 lb) more than the previous 

heaviest child restraint system included 

in Appendix A. This is a very nominal 

increase (approximately 3 percent) in 

child restraint mass, and the agency 

would expect that the margin of safety 

designed into the occupant detection 

systems used to control air bag 

suppression systems is sufficient to 

address such small changes in child 

restraint system mass. This is especially 

important given that the agency has 

identified a number of child restraints 

either currently available or available in 

the recent past that are heavier- and in 

some cases, significantly heavier-than 

the Britax Expressway ISOFIX. 

While Honda proposed to limit child 

restraint system design mass to about 

8.5 kg (18.7 lb), it did not provide any 

rationale or supporting data to justify 

this 8.5 kg limit. This, coupled with the 

fact that there is no single established 

weight threshold for all weight-based air 

bag suppression systems on the market, 

does not support the adoption of 

Honda’s proposed amendment. The 

agency does not have a rationale to 

restrict the mass of child restraint 

systems to a limit of 8.5 kg at this time. 

While NHTSA does not believe that 

amendments are necessary at this time, 

the agency shares Honda’s concern. As 

noted earlier, the agency does not weigh 

child restraints as part of the FMVSS 

No. 213 compliance test program. 

However, the agency does now weigh 

these seats for use in (1) developing 

future upgrades to Appendix A of 

FMVSS No. 208 and (2) the agency’s 

Child Restraint Ease of Use Ratings 

Program. In addition, we will continue 

to monitor developments on this matter 

through the Society of Automotive 

Engineers-Child Restraint Systems 

Standard Committee, whose members 

include motor vehicle and motor 

vehicle equipment manufacturers, and 

child restraint systems manufacturers. 

This committee has been and continues 

to be in dialog on this subject, and we 

will ensure that the concerns are well 

communicated. 

VI. Conclusion 

The agency has clearly noted the 

composition of Appendix A is intended 

to represent large portions of the child 

restraint system market, while including 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 207 / Thursday, October 27, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61911 

exceptionally large or small restraints. 

This combination of restraints is needed 

to assure the robustness of automatic 

suppression systems under real world 

conditions. It is also important to note 

that when Appendix A was amended in 

November 2003, the Britax Expressway 

ISOFIX was unique in design, in that it 

was the only child restraint system 

available with rigid Lower Anchors and 

Tethers for Children (LATCH) 

attachments. While the agency has 

identified a small percentage of child 

restraint systems that weigh more than 

the Britax Expressway ISOFIX, the 

inclusion of heavier child restraint 

system designs is not inconsistent with 

the intent of Appendix A of FMVSS No. 

208. Further, while the Britax 

Expressway ISOFIX is approximately 

0.5 kg (1.1 lb) heavier than the heaviest 

child restraint system that was removed 

from Appendix A as amended in the 

November 2003 final rule, the agency 

does not consider this to be an 

indication that child restraint system 

designs are increasing in weight. 

As noted earlier, FMVSS No. 213 is a 

performance standard, and does not 

specify particular design constraints 

such as mass and/or dimensions. Honda 

did not provide any rationale for its 

proposal to limit child restraint system 

designs to a maximum of 8.5 kg (18.7 

lb). NHTSA has not identified any realworld data to support the need to limit 

the weight of child restraint systems, 

and specifically as it relates to the 

performance of occupant detection 

systems for automatic air bag 

suppression. Further, specification of a 

child restraint system mass limit, when 

considered in conjunction with the 

mass of the dummy used in air bag 

suppression testing, would effectively 

establish a weight threshold for weightbased air bag suppression systems. It is 

not the intent of the agency to specify 

such a threshold. Each vehicle 

manufacturer is responsible for meeting 

the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 

when using any of the child restraint 

systems listed in Appendix A. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA is denying Honda’s petition for 

rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 213 to 

adopt a design weight limit for child 

restraint systems used with the 3-yearold dummy. In accordance with 49 CFR 

Part 552, this completes the agency’s 

review of the petition. 

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

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

Issued on: October 13, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05–21465 Filed 10–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 222 and 223 

[Docket No.050922245–5276–02; I.D. 

092005A, 100505D] 

RIN 0648–AT89 

Sea Turtle Conservation; Shrimp 

Trawling Requirements 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this temporary 

rule to allow shrimp fishermen to 

continue to use limited tow times as an 

alternative to Turtle Excluder Devices 

(TEDs) in inshore and offshore waters 

from the Florida/Alabama border, 

westward to the boundary shared by 

Matagorda and Brazoria Counties, 

Texas, and extending offshore 50 

nautical miles, as initially authorized in 

rules published on September 28 and 

October 14, 2005. This action is 

necessary because environmental 

conditions resulting from Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita persist on the fishing 

grounds, preventing some fishermen 

from using TEDs effectively. 

DATES: Effective from October 24, 2005, 

through 11:59 p.m, local time, 

November 23, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the 

Environmental Assessment on this 

action should be addressed to the Chief, 

Marine Mammal Division, Office of 

Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 EastWest Highway, Silver Spring, MD 

20910. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Barnette, 727–551–5794. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

All sea turtles that occur in U.S. 

waters are listed as either endangered or 

threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The Kemp’s 

ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), 

leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and 

hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) 

turtles are listed as endangered. The 

loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green 

(Chelonia mydas) turtles are listed as 

threatened, except for breeding 

populations of green turtles in Florida 

and on the Pacific coast of Mexico, 

which are listed as endangered. 

Sea turtles are incidentally taken, and 

some are killed, as a result of numerous 

activities, including fishery-related 

trawling activities in the Gulf of Mexico 

and along the Atlantic seaboard. Under 

the ESA and its implementing 

regulations, the taking of sea turtles is 

prohibited, with exceptions identified 

in 50 CFR 223.206(d), or according to 

the terms and conditions of a biological 

opinion issued under section 7 of the 

ESA, or according to an incidental take 

permit issued under section 10 of the 

ESA. The incidental taking of turtles 

during shrimp or summer flounder 

trawling is exempted from the taking 

prohibition of section 9 of the ESA if the 

conservation measures specified in the 

sea turtle conservation regulations (50 

CFR 223) are followed. The regulations 

require most shrimp trawlers and 

summer flounder trawlers operating in 

the southeastern United States (Atlantic 

area, Gulf area, and summer flounder 

sea turtle protection area, see 50 CFR 

223.206) to have a NMFS-approved TED 

installed in each net that is rigged for 

fishing to allow sea turtles to escape. 

TEDs currently approved by NMFS 

include single-grid hard TEDs and 

hooped hard TEDs conforming to a 

generic description, the flounder TED, 

and one type of soft TED the Parker soft 

TED (see 50 CFR 223.207). 

TEDs incorporate an escape opening, 

usually covered by a webbing flap, 

which allows sea turtles to escape from 

trawl nets. To be approved by NMFS, a 

TED design must be shown to be 97 

percent effective in excluding sea turtles 

during testing based upon specific 

testing protocols (50 CFR 223.207(e)(1)). 

Most approved hard TEDs are described 

in the regulations (50 CFR 223.207(a)) 

according to generic criteria based upon 

certain parameters of TED design, 

configuration, and installation, 

including height and width dimensions 

of the TED opening through which the 

turtles escape. 

The regulations governing sea turtle 

take prohibitions and exemptions 

provide for the use of limited tow times 

as an alternative to the use of TEDs for 

vessels with certain specified 

characteristics or under certain special 

circumstances. The provisions of 50 

CFR 223.206(d)(3)(ii) specify that the 

NOAA Assistant Administrator for 

Fisheries (AA) may authorize 

compliance with tow time restrictions 

as an alternative to the TED requirement 

if the AA determines that the presence 

of algae, seaweed, debris, or other