        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0009]
        RIN 2127-AM10
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection

          AGENCY:
          National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          This document proposes to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 305, “Electric-powered vehicles: Electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection,” to clarify the direct contact protection requirements that apply to high voltage connectors, and to explicitly permit the use of high voltage connectors that cannot be separated without the use of tools. The proposed changes to these requirements would harmonize FMVSS No. 305 with Global Technical Regulations (GTRs) No. 13 and No. 20, which explicitly permit such connectors. In addition, it would make three minor technical corrections to the standard.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before March 15, 2019.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by the docket number in the heading of this document or by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by clicking on “Help” or “FAQ.”
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility. M-30, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
          • Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.
          Regardless of how you submit comments, you must include the docket number identified in the heading of this notice.
          You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.

            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 www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

            Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its decision-making process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy. In order to facilitate comment tracking and response, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely optional. Whether or not commenters identify themselves, all timely comments will be fully considered.

            Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, or the street address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For technical issues, you may contact Ms. Shashi Kuppa, Office of Crashworthiness Standards; telephone: 202-366-3827; facsimile: 202-493-2990. For legal issues, you may contact Mr. Daniel Koblenz, Office of Chief Counsel; telephone: 202-366-2992; facsimile: 202-366-3820. The mailing address of these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

          I. Introduction
          II. Background
          III. Proposal
          IV. Technical Corrections
          V. Effective Date and Comment Period
          VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
          VII. Public Participation

        I. Introduction

        This document proposes to amend FMVSS No. 305, paragraph S5.4.1.5, to clarify that the three compliance options listed in S5.4.1.5(a), (b) and (c) only pertain to connectors that can be separated without the use of a tool. This proposal would make clear that S5.4.1.5(a), (b) and (c) do not apply to high voltage connectors that require the use of a tool to separate from their mating component and that meet S5.4.1.4's IPXXD or IPXXB requirements 1
           when the connector is connected to its mating component. NHTSA believes that connectors that require the use of a tool to separate from their mating component provide a level of direct contact protection that is equivalent to that provided by connectors already allowed under the standard. NHTSA believes that this proposed amendment will provide additional design flexibility to manufacturers of electric and fuel cell vehicles, thus facilitating the manufacture of such vehicles.

            1 Protection degree IPXXD is protection from contact with high voltage live parts. It is tested by probing electrical protection barriers with the test wire probe, IPXXD, shown in Figure 7a of FMVSS No. 305. Protection degree IPXXB is protection from contact with high voltage live parts. It is tested by probing electrical protection barriers with the jointed test finger probe, IPXXB, shown in Figure 7b of FMVSS No. 305.

        The changes proposed in this document would amend regulatory requirements that were established in the agency's September 27, 2017 final rule (82 FR 44945), which added several new requirements to improve electric vehicle safety. The final rule also sought to harmonize FMVSS No. 305 with the electrical safety requirements of GTR No. 13, “Hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles,” and a then-pending GTR No. 20, “Electric vehicle safety.” 2
           (NHTSA voted in favor of establishing GTR No. 20 in March 2018.) This NPRM proposes to better harmonize FMVSS No. 305 with GTRs No. 13 and No. 20, which allow for the use of connectors that require the use of a tool to separate. NHTSA seeks to issue a final rule based on today's NPRM as soon as possible, in light of the September 27, 2017 final rule's compliance date of September 27, 2018.

            2 GTRs are model standards that are developed through collaboration between contracting parties to the 1998 Agreement concerning the Establishing of Global Technical Regulations for Wheeled Vehicles, Equipment and Parts which can be fitted and/or be used on Wheeled Vehicles (the “1998 Agreement”). As a contracting party to the 1998 Agreement, the United States, through NHTSA, worked closely with experts from other contracting parties to develop GTR No. 13 and GTR No. 20.

        II. Background
        FMVSS No. 305 establishes requirements to reduce deaths and injuries during and after a crash that occur because of electrolyte spillage from electric energy storage devices, intrusion of electric energy storage/conversion devices into the occupant compartment, and electric shock. On September 27, 2017, NHTSA published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 305 by, among other things, adopting several electrical safety requirements found in GTR No. 13 (and later, GTR No. 20). 82 FR 44945. The GTR provisions adopted in the final rule included general requirements for protecting humans against direct contact with high-voltage live parts (FMVSS No. 305, S5.4.1.4), as well as specific direct contact protection requirements for high-voltage connectors (FMVSS No. 305, S5.4.1.5).3
           (The reason for specialized direct contact protection requirements for high voltage connectors is that, unlike other high voltage equipment, connectors are designed to separate from a mating component, which could potentially expose high voltage conductive parts to human contact.)

            3 FMVSS No. 305 defines a “connector” as “a device providing a mechanical connection and disconnection of high voltage electrical conductors to a suitable mating component, including its housing.”

        S5.4.1.4 requires that all high voltage sources, including high-voltage connectors, meet protection degree IPXXD or IPXXB (as appropriate) during normal vehicle operation. In addition, S5.4.1.5 requires that high voltage connectors must meet at least one of the following three compliance options to provide protection when separated: (a) The connector meets protection degree IPXXD/IPXXB when separated from its mating component, if the connector can be separated without the use of tools; (b) the voltage of the live parts becomes less than or equal to 60 volts of direct current (VDC) or 30 volts of alternating current expressed using the root mean square value (VAC) within one second after the connector is separated from its mating component; or (c) the connector is provided with a locking mechanism 4
           and there are other components that must be removed in order to separate the connector from its mating component and these other components cannot be removed without the use of tools.

            4 A locking mechanism requires at least two distinct actions to separate the connector from its mating component and is intended to prevent inadvertent disconnection of the connector from its mating component.

        NHTSA had intended for these provisions to harmonize the direct contact requirements for high voltage connectors in FMVSS No. 305 with those in GTRs No. 13 and No. 20 (which explicitly permit the use of connectors that require the use of a tool to separate).5 6
           However, following its issuance of the final rule, the agency received petitions for reconsideration from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and Global Automakers, which argued in part that the regulatory text adopted in the final rule did not appear to permit use of connectors that require the use of a tool to separate. For this reason, the petitions requested that NHTSA amend S5.4.1.5 to provide a compliance option for high voltage connectors that meet IPXXD/IPXXB protection degree when connected, and that require the use of a tool to separate.

            5 See September 27, 2017 final rule (82 FR at 44953) (Stating that the direct contact requirements for connectors “are harmonized with GTR No. 13, ECE R100, and the draft EVS-GTR for electric vehicles.”).

            6 See GTR No. 13, 5.3.1.2.2, Protection against direct contact. https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/wp29registry/ECE-TRANS-180a13e.pdf.

        NHTSA agrees with the petitioners that, although the agency had intended to permit connectors that require the use of a tool to separate, that intent is not clear in the current regulatory text. In addition, NHTSA believes that the current wording of S5.4.1.5 does not make clear whether the provision would permit a connector that requires the use of a tool to separate when the connector does not have the “other components” mentioned in S5.4.1.5(c). The absence of a compliance option that allows high voltage connectors that require the use of a tool to separate burdens vehicle manufacturers because it is a common method of providing direct contact protection for connectors. NHTSA proposes to amend S5.4.1.5 to make clear that connectors that require the use of a tool to separate are permitted.
        The agency notes that, although these issues are within the scope of the September 27, 2017 final rule and could have been addressed in a response to the petitions for reconsideration, the agency would like to seek public comment on its proposed changes to the regulatory text. NHTSA believes public comments would be beneficial in ensuring that the changes proposed achieve their intended purpose of harmonizing FMVSS No. 305 with GTRs No. 13 and No. 20.
        III. Proposal

        NHTSA proposes to amend S5.4.1.5 to clarify that connectors are only required to meet one of the three listed compliance options if the connector can be separated without the use of a tool. NHTSA believes this change will harmonize that provision in FMVSS No. 305 with GTRs No. 13 and No. 20, as the agency had intended in its September 27, 2017 final rule. Moreover, NHTSA believes that this change will provide additional design flexibility to manufacturers of electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles without compromising safety.
        This change will harmonize FMVSS No. 305 with GTRs No. 13 and No. 20 because it will clarify that high voltage connectors that require the use of a tool to separate meet requirements for direct contact protection. As noted above, NHTSA had intended to provide the same level of direct contact protection as GTRs No. 13 and No. 20, which explicitly permit such connectors. Because FMVSS No. 305 currently does not appear to permit high voltage connectors that require the use of a tool to separate, adopting the proposed changes would bring FMVSS No. 305 in line with GTRs No. 13 and No. 20.
        The proposed change will not affect electric vehicle safety because a connector that requires the use of a tool to separate will not inadvertently separate due to vehicle jostling or human error. Thus, it eliminates the possibility that a person is inadvertently exposed to a risk of electric shock. NHTSA notes that connectors requiring the use of a tool to separate provide essentially the same level of electrical shock protection as connectors that are currently permitted under provision (c) of S5.4.1.5. That provision currently permits connectors that cannot be accessed without removing surrounding components that themselves require the use of a tool to remove. Connectors under S5.4.1.5(c) provide the same level of protection as connectors that require the use of a tool to separate because both cannot be separated without a person intentionally using a tool to accomplish connector separation, which effectively eliminates the risk of accidental shock. Thus, NHTSA believes that requiring a connector that cannot be separated without the use of a tool to also meet one of the three existing compliance options in S5.4.1.5 is unwarranted.
        IV. Technical Corrections
        NHTSA is also proposing to make several technical corrections to the language of FMVSS No. 305, which are described below.
        Definition of “High Voltage Live Part”
        NHTSA is proposing to add a definition for the term “high voltage live part” to the definitions section of FMVSS No. 305. The term would be defined as “a live part of a high voltage source.” NHTSA had intended to add this definition as part of the September 27, 2017 final rule, as indicated by the agency's statement that it will “adopt terms such as `high voltage live parts' . . . in place of proposed terms that were less clear.” 82 FR at 44948. In addition, the agency stated in Table 1 of the final rule that adding the term “high voltage live parts” to S4 will clarify the requirements of the final rule, such as the applicability of IPXXD protection requirements. The agency will add this missing definition as a technical correction.
        Cross-Reference
        NHTSA is proposing to amend the cross-reference to the electrical isolation monitoring system requirement in S8 so that it is consistent with the reorganization of the FMVSS No. 305 that was done as part of the September 27, 2017 final rule. The final rule redesignated the electrical isolation monitoring system requirement from “S5.4” to “S5.4.4,” but did not make a conforming change to S8, which still refers to “S5.4.” The agency will change the S8 cross-reference to “S5.4.4” as a technical correction.
        Corrected Term

        NHTSA is proposing to correct the use of incorrect terminology in the description of the requirements for a resistance tester in S9.2(a). Currently, that provision states that “resistance is measured using a resistance tester that can measure current levels of at least 0.2 Amperes.” (Emphasis added.) The term “measure” should be “supply.” 7
           Accordingly, the agency will replace “measure” with “supply” in S9.2(a) as a technical correction.

            7 A resistance tester does not “measure” current in a circuit; it supplies current to a circuit which allows the tester to measure that circuit's level of electrical resistance.

        V. Effective Date and Comment Period

        NHTSA proposes that the final rule that follows this NPRM will have an immediate effective date upon publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
        The Safety Act states that an amendment to a safety standard may not take effect earlier than 180 days after the standard is prescribed, or later than one year after the standard is prescribed unless, for good cause shown, a different effective date would be in the public interest. 49 U.S.C. 30111(d). NHTSA has tentatively concluded that good cause exists for this rule to become effective immediately, because the rule would not impose new substantive requirements that would burden vehicle manufacturers, and in fact would relieve an existing restriction. Similarly, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) states that a rule cannot be made effective less than 30 days after publication, unless the rule falls under one of three enumerated exceptions. One of these exceptions is for a rule that “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). This rule would fall under this exception because it would relieve the existing restriction that prohibits the use of high voltage connectors that cannot be separated without the use of tools. NHTSA seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that good cause exists to justify an immediate effective date for a final rule based on this proposal.
        DOT Order 2100.5 requires that NHTSA provide a public comment period of at least 45 days for non-significant regulations, but may provide a shorter comment period if the proposed regulation is accompanied by a brief statement of reasons. NHTSA is providing a shortened 15-day comment period principally for two reasons. First, the September 27, 2017 final rule's effective date was September 27, 2018. The proposed amendments provide flexibility to manufacturers in meeting the final rule's requirements, so NHTSA would like to issue a final rule based on this NPRM as soon as possible. Second, the proposed changes are merely corrective and clarifying in nature, and a review of them by the public can be done quickly.
        VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

        We have considered the potential impact of this proposed rule under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, E.O. 13563, and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and have determined that today's proposed rule is nonsignificant. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866. It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The amendments proposed by this NPRM mostly clarify or correct text adopted by a September 27, 2017 final rule and will have no significant effect on the national economy. This NPRM would clarify the direct contact protection requirements that apply to high voltage connectors, and to explicitly permit the use of high voltage connectors that cannot be separated without the use of tools.

        As noted above, NHTSA is providing a 15-day comment period for two principal reasons. First, the September 27, 2017 final rule's effective date is September 27, 2018. The proposed amendments provide flexibility to manufacturers in meeting the final rule's requirements, so NHTSA would like to issue a final rule based on this NPRM as soon as possible. Second, the proposed changes are merely corrective and clarifying in nature, and a review of them by the public can be done quickly.
        Executive Order 13771
        This proposed rule is E.O. 13771 titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” are subject to these requirements. This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
        Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
        The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 13609 provides that unnecessary differences in regulatory approaches between U.S. agencies and their foreign counterparts can negatively affect the international competitiveness of U.S. businesses. Accordingly, U.S. agencies should, where possible, engage with these foreign counterparts to identify regulatory approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
        This rulemaking harmonizes FMVSS No. 305 with provisions that are in GTRs No. 13 and No. 20. Specifically, the primary clarification proposed by this document—that the use of connectors that cannot be separated without the use of tools is permissible under FMVSS No. 305—will bring FMVSS No. 305 into alignment with GTRs No. 13 and No. 20 requirements relating to high voltage connectors, and so will further the goals of E.O. 13609.
        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)(1)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the proposal 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 proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        I hereby certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The amendments proposed by this NPRM mostly clarify or correct text adopted by a September 27, 2017 final rule. This proposed rule would make clear that connectors that cannot be separated without the use of a tool are permitted under FMVSS No. 305 without having to have present “other components” needing a tool to separate.
        This action would not impose any additional restrictions that would affect small entities, and in fact, would give greater design flexibility to manufacturers of electric vehicles and HFCVs.
        Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to E.O. 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 rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Today's proposed rule would 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.”
        NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision stating that, if NHTSA has established a standard for an aspect motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance a State may only prescribe or continue in effect a standard for that same aspect of performance if the State standard is identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
        The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules—even if not expressly preempted.

        This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer—notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
        Pursuant to E.O. 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
        To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum safety standard. Accordingly, NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's proposal. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard proposed in this document. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
        Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
        When promulgating a regulation, E.O. 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.
        Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive effect of this proposed rule is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.
        Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks)
        E.O. 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks,” (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) applies to any proposed or final rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant,” as defined in E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If a rule meets both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the rule on children, and explain why the rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
        This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not economically significant.
        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 the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
        Pursuant to the above requirements, the agency conducted a review of voluntary consensus standards to determine if any were applicable to this proposed rule. NHTSA searched for but did not find voluntary consensus standards directly applicable to the amendments proposed in this NPRM.
        However, consistent with the NTTAA, this proposal is aligned with regulations developed globally on electric vehicle safety, namely GTR No. 13 and GTR No. 20.8
           The GTRs permit the use of high voltage connectors that cannot be separated without the use of tools. We believe that the proposed amendment to FMVSS No. 305 would promote harmonization of our countries' regulatory approaches on electric vehicles and HFCVs.

            8 The NTTAA seeks to support efforts by the Federal government to ensure that agencies work with their regulatory counterparts in other countries to address common safety issues. Circular No. A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities,” January 27, 2016, p. 15.

        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). We note that as this proposed rule only makes minor adjustments and clarifications to FMVSS No. 305. Thus, it would not result in expenditures by any of the aforementioned entities of over $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 would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
        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. This proposed rule imposes no new reporting requirements on manufacturers.
        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.
        VII. Public Participation
        How do I prepare and submit comments?
        • To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket Number found in the heading of this document in your comments.
        • Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long.9
           NHTSA 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, and there is no limit on the length of the attachments.

            9 49 CFR 553.21.

        • If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, NHTSA asks that the documents be submitted using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing NHTSA to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.

        • Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for substantive data to be relied on and used by NHTSA, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, NHTSA encourages you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/dot-information-dissemination-quality-guidelines.

        Tips for Preparing Your Comments
        When submitting comments, please remember to:

        • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
        • Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives, and substitute language for your requested changes.
        • Describe any assumptions you make and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
        • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
        • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.
        • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

        • To ensure that your comments are considered by the agency, make sure to submit them by the comment period deadline identified in the DATES section above.

        For additional guidance on submitting effective comments, visit: https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf.

        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 a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the docket 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 received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), 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 the docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

        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. You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.

          List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
          Imports, Motor vehicles, Motor vehicle safety.

        In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 571 as follows:

          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 1.95 and 501.8.

        2. Amend § 571.305 by:
        a. Adding, in alphabetical order, a definition for “High voltage live part” to paragraph S4;
        b. Revising paragraph S5.4.1.5;
        c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph S8; and
        d. Revising paragraph S9.2(a).
        The addition and revisions read as follows:

          § 571.305
          Standard No. 305; Electric-powered vehicles; electrolyte spillage and electrical shock protection.

          S4. Definitions.

            High voltage live part means a live part of a high voltage source.

          S5.4.1.5 Connectors. All connectors shall provide direct contact protection by:
          (a) Meeting the requirements specified in S5.4.1.4 when the connector is connected to its corresponding mating component; and,
          (b) If a connector can be separated from its mating component without the use of a tool, meeting at least one of the following conditions (1), (2), or (3):
          (1) The connector meets the requirements of S5.4.1.4 when separated from its mating component;
          (2) The voltage of the live parts becomes less than or equal to 60 VDC or 30 VAC within one second after the connector is separated from its mating component; or,
          (3) The connector requires at least two distinct actions to separate from its mating component and there are other components that must be removed in order to separate the connector from its mating component and these other components cannot be removed without the use of tools.

          S8. Test procedure for on-board electrical isolation monitoring system. Prior to any impact test, the requirements of S5.4.4 for the on-board electrical isolation monitoring system shall be tested using the following procedure.

          S9.2 * * *

          (a) Test method using a resistance tester. The resistance tester is connected to the measuring points (the electrical chassis and any exposed conductive part of electrical protection barriers or any two simultaneously reachable exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other), and the resistance is measured using a resistance tester that can supply current levels of at least 0.2 Amperes with a resolution of 0.01 ohms or less. The resistance between two exposed conductive parts of electrical protection barriers that are less than 2.5 meters from each other may be calculated using the separately measured resistances of the relevant parts of the electric path.

          Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
          Raymond R. Posten,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 2019-03181 Filed 2-27-19; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AT74

        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch)

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of public comment period and notice of availability of draft economic analysis.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the public comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae (Coachella Valley milk-vetch), and the availability of a draft economic analysis of the proposed designation of critical habitat. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. Comments previously submitted on this proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they have already been incorporated into the public record and will be fully considered in our final determination.

          DATES:
          We will accept public comments and information until October 27, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments and materials may be submitted to us by any one of the following methods:
          1. You may submit written comments and information to Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Carlsbad, CA 92011;
          2. You may hand-deliver written comments and information to our Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the above address, or fax your comments to 760/431-9624; or

          3. You may send your comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to fw1cfwocvmv@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit electronic comments, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please submit your comments by the alternate methods mentioned above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jim Bartel, Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, at the above address (telephone 760/431-9440; facsimile 760/431-9624).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Public Comments Solicited
        We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period. We intend that any final action resulting from our critical habitat proposal be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning the proposed rule and the associated draft economic analysis. We particularly seek comments concerning:

        (1) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether the benefits of designation would outweigh any threats to the species resulting from designation;
        (2) Specific information on the distribution of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, the amount and distribution of the species' habitat, and which habitat is essential to the conservation of the species, and why;
        (3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on the species or proposed critical habitat;
        (4) Whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments;
        (5) Any foreseeable economic, environmental, or other impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat or coextensively from the listing, and in particular, any impacts on small entities or families;
        (6) Whether the economic analysis identifies all State and local costs. If not, what other costs should be included;
        (7) Whether the economic analysis makes appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely regulatory changes imposed as a result of the listing of the species or the designation of critical habitat;
        (8) Whether the economic analysis correctly assesses the effect on regional costs associated with land- and water-use controls that derive from the designation;
        (9) Whether the designation will result in disproportionate economic impacts to specific areas that should be evaluated for possible exclusion from any final designation;
        (10) Whether the economic analysis appropriately identifies all costs that could result from the designation or coextensively from the listing; and
        (11) Whether there is information about areas that could be used as substitutes for the economic activities planned in critical habitat areas that would offset the costs and allow for the conservation of critical habitat areas.

        All previous comments and information submitted during the initial comment period on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted. If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning the draft economic analysis and the proposed rule by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES section). Our final determination concerning designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae will take into consideration all comments and any additional information received during both comment periods. On the basis of public comment on the critical habitat proposal, the draft economic analysis, and the final economic analysis, we may during the development of our final determination find that areas proposed are not essential, are appropriate for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, or are not appropriate for exclusion.

        Please submit electronic comments in an ASCII file and avoid the use of any special characters or any form of encryption. Also, please include “Attn: Coachella Valley milk-vetch” and your name and return address in your e-mail message regarding the Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae proposed rule or the draft economic analysis. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, please submit your comments in writing using one of the alternate methods described above in the ADDRESSES section.
        Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

        Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in preparation of the proposal to designate critical habitat, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Copies of the proposed critical habitat rule for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae and the draft economic analysis are also available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/pacific/carlsbad/CVMV.htm. In the event that our Internet connection is not functional, please obtain copies of documents directly from the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.
        Background
        On December 14, 2004, we published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (69 FR 74468) to designate critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae pursuant to the Act. We identified approximately 20,559 acres (ac) (8,320 hectares (ha)) of essential habitat for this species. Of the essential habitat, we proposed to designate approximately 3,583 ac (1,450 ha) of critical habitat in three units in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, California. Approximately 16,976 ac (6,870 ha) of essential habitat covered under the pending Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan in Riverside County was excluded from proposed critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act. The first comment period for the A. l. var. coachellae proposed critical habitat rule closed on February 14, 2005. For more information on this species, refer to the final rule listing this species as endangered, published in the Federal Register on October 6, 1998 (63 FR 53596).
        The proposed critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, published on December 14, 2004 (69 FR 74475), was intended to include only Federal and State lands. Although the descriptions of the proposed critical habitat units describe those units as Federal or State lands, due to using a 100 meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid in our mapping process, some acres associated with private lands were inadvertently included in the total acreage figures. Because the draft economic analysis looks at the costs associated with all of the acreage included in the proposed rule, the development costs on private lands were included. If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, the Service intends to explicitly remove the private lands in the final determination.
        Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. If the proposed rule is made final, section 7 of the Act will prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency. Federal agencies proposing actions affecting areas designated as critical habitat must consult with us on the effects of their proposed actions, pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

        Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, impact to national security, and any other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We have prepared a draft economic analysis of the December 14, 2004 (69 FR 74468), proposed designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae.

        The draft economic analysis considers the potential economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae, including costs associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to designating critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and local laws that aid habitat conservation for A. l. var. coachellae in essential habitat areas. The analysis considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the “opportunity costs” associated with the commitment of resources to comply with habitat protection measures (e.g., lost economic opportunities associated with restrictions on land use). This analysis also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. This information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or economic sector. Finally, this analysis looks retrospectively at costs that have been incurred since the date the species was listed as an endangered species and considers those costs that may occur in the 20 years following the designation of critical habitat.
        Pre-designation costs include those Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae-related conservation activities associated with sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act that have accrued since the time that A. l. var. coachellae was listed as endangered (October 6, 1998), but prior to the final designation of critical habitat. The pre-designation costs in the proposed critical habitat are estimated at $2.5 million.

        Post-designation effects include likely future costs associated with Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae conservation efforts following the final designation of critical habitat in December 2005 (effectively 2006 through 2025). The total costs associated with the designation of critical habitat are expected to be $7.8 million in constant dollars, or $5.8 million and $4.2 million when using a three percent or seven percent discount rate, respectively, over the next 20 years (an annualized cost of $0.4 million at either rate). As mentioned above, private lands were not meant to be included in the proposed designation. The costs associated with development on private lands are $1.5 million in constant dollars, or $1.1 million and $0.8 million when using a three percent or seven percent discount rate, respectively, over the next 20 years (an annualized cost of $0.07 million at either rate). Therefore, the net costs associated with the designation of critical habitat are expected to be $6.2 million in constant dollars, or $4.7 million or $3.4 million when using a three percent or seven percent discount rate, respectively over the next 20 years (an annualized cost of $0.03 million at either rate).
        Required Determinations
        Regulatory Planning and Review

        In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues. However, because the draft economic analysis indicates the potential economic impact associated with a designation of all habitat with features essential to the conservation of this species would total no more than $0.4 million per year, we do not anticipate that this final rule will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the time line for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not formally review the proposed rule.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
        Under 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 rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In our proposed rule, we withheld our determination of whether this designation would result in a significant effect as defined under SBREFA until we completed our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation so that we would have the factual basis for our determination.

        According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions, including school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 residents, as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this designation as well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the term significant economic impact is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's business operations.

        To determine if this proposed designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae would affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., residential, industrial, and commercial development). We considered each industry or category individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal activities are not affected by the designation.

        If this proposed critical habitat designation is made final, Federal agencies must consult with us if their activities may affect designated critical habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing consultation process. Our analysis determined that costs involving conservation measures for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae would be incurred for activities involving residential, commercial, and industrial development (land subdivision companies); transportation (California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans), Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), or Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)); Federal land (Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)); other public (California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR)) or conservation (The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM)) land management, water supply (Mission Springs Water District (MSWD) and Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)), and flood control (CVWD and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC) agencies); implementation of the draft Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP); and wind energy projects (private businesses and individuals).

        In our economic analysis of this proposed designation, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of this species and proposed designation of its critical habitat. Critical habitat designation is expected to result in additional costs to real estate development projects through a Local Development Mitigation Fee. This fee will be imposed by local jurisdictions on residential, commercial, and industrial development occurring on private land containing habitat for covered species (species included in the MSHCP permit) within the Coachella Valley MSHCP Plan Area. The affected land is located within Riverside County and under private ownership by individuals who will either undertake a development project on their own or sell the land to developers for development. However, as previously mentioned, due to using a 100 meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid in our mapping process, private lands were inadvertently included in the proposed critical habitat designation. If the proposed rule is made final, the Service intends to explicitly remove private lands, and therefore the additional costs to real estate development projects mentioned above will likely not materialize. For businesses involved with land development, the relevant threshold for “small” is annual revenues of $6 million or less. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237210 is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in servicing land (e.g., excavation, installing roads and utilities) and subdividing real property into lots for subsequent sale to builders. Land subdivision precedes actual construction, and typically includes residential but may also include industrial and commercial properties.

        It is likely that development companies in Riverside County, the entities directly impacted by the regulation, would not bear the additional costs of Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae conservation within the essential habitat, but pass these costs to the landowners through a lower land purchase price. Of the 8,598 acres of developable land in Units 1 and 2, 8,559 acres are under private ownership and “vacant”; the remaining 39 acres are under private ownership and in agriculture.
        To comply with the SBA recommendation that Federal agencies consider impacts to entities that may be indirectly affected by the proposed regulation, this screening level analysis presents information on land subdivision and farming businesses for Riverside County as these are the businesses that would likely be impacted directly or indirectly by the regulation (see Table A-1 in the draft economic analysis). As highlighted in Table A-1, the majority of the land subdivision and farming businesses within Riverside County are considered small businesses.

        It is important to note that the identity and number of land subdivision and farming businesses impacted by the critical habitat designation is not known. In addition, the identity and number of affected businesses classified as “small” is also not known. Nevertheless, the county-level information provided in Table A-1 reflects the smallest region for which data relevant to this analysis exist. This county-level information clearly over-represents the potential number of small businesses impacted by development-related Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae conservation efforts as the privately owned developable land within the essential habitat (approximately 8,598 acres) comprises less than two-tenths of one percent of the total land area in the County (4,612,480 acres), and only 265.2 acres of this private land is forecasted to be developed between 2006 and 2025. Furthermore, the 39 acres of agriculture land represent less than one-half of one percent of the developable land (approximately 8,598 acres) within the essential habitat.

        While the identity and number of land subdivision and farming businesses impacted by the critical habitat designation is not known, considering that low density residential development is expected to comprise 79 percent of the forecasted acres of land development between 2006 and 2025, this analysis relates the economic impacts to the median home price in the County. The mitigation cost per acre of development is $1,975 for this species, and the build-out density for residential low development is fewer than eight dwelling units per acre. Thus, Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae-related conservation efforts are expected to cost between $247 and $1,975 per residential dwelling unit (one to eight dwelling units per acre) developed. Considering the median sales price for single family residences in the County was $315,000 in 2004, the economic impacts are equal to 0.08 percent to 0.63 percent of the median home price in Riverside County. These costs may be borne by the developer or passed on to the landowner through a lower land purchase price.
        Based on this data, we have determined that this proposed designation would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, in particular to land developers or farmers in Riverside County since no private lands are actually being proposed for critical habitat as stated earlier in the Background section. We may also exclude areas from the final designation if it is determined that these localized areas have an impact to a substantial number of businesses and a significant proportion of their annual revenues. As such, we are certifying that this proposed designation of critical habitat would not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Please refer to Appendix A of our draft economic analysis of this proposed designation for a more detailed discussion of potential economic impacts to small business entities.
        Executive Order 13211
        On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This proposed rule is considered a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866 because it raises novel legal and policy issues. On the basis of our draft economic analysis, the proposed critical habitat designation is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required. Please refer to Appendix A of our draft economic analysis of the proposed designation for a more detailed discussion of potential effects on energy supply.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
        In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501), the Service makes the following findings:
        (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, tribal governments, or the private sector and includes both “Federal intergovernmental mandates” and “Federal private sector mandates.” These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). “Federal intergovernmental mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments” with two exceptions. It excludes “a condition of Federal assistance.” It also excludes “a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program,” unless the regulation “relates to a then-existing Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,” if the provision would “increase the stringency of conditions of assistance” or “place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's responsibility to provide funding” and the State, local, or tribal governments “lack authority” to adjust accordingly. At the time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement. “Federal private sector mandate” includes a regulation that “would impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.”
        The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties. Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under section 7. Non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, permits, or otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat. However, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above on to State governments.

        (b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As discussed in the draft economic analysis, nine small local governments are located adjacent to or bisect the areas subject to this analysis: Palm Springs (population 42,807); Cathedral City (population 42,647); Banning (population 23,562); Yucca Valley (population 16,865); Desert Hot Springs (population 16,582); Cherry Valley (population 5,891); Thousand Palms (population 5,120); Cabazon (population 2,229); and Morongo Valley (population 1,929). All nine of the local governments have populations that fall within the criteria (fewer than 50,000 residents) for “small entity.” However, there is no record of consultations between the Service and these cities since Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae was listed in 1998. Indeed, it is not likely that these cities would be involved in a land development project involving a section 7 consultation, although a city may be involved in land use planning or permitting, and may play a role as an interested party in infrastructure projects. Any cost associated with this activity/involvement is anticipated to be a very small portion of the city's budget. Consequently, we do not believe that critical habitat designation would significantly or uniquely affect small government entities. As such, Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
        Takings

        In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (“Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights”), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of proposing critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae. Critical habitat designation does not affect landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require Federal funding or permits to go forward. In conclusion, the designation of critical habitat for Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae does not pose significant takings implications.
        Author

        The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

          Authority:

          The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

          Dated: September 16, 2005.
          Craig Manson,
          Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 05-19098 Filed 9-26-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 090122047-9050-01]
        RIN 0648-XM11
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; 2009 Georges Bank Cod Hook Sector Operations Plan and Agreement, and Allocation of Georges Bank Cod Total Allowable Catch

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule provides interested parties an opportunity to comment on the proposed sector operations plan and supplemental environmental assessment (EA) prior to final approval or disapproval of the sector operations plan and allocation of a Georges Bank (GB) cod total allowable catch (TAC) to the GB Cod Hook Sector (Hook Sector) for fishing year (FY) 2009.
          Amendment 13 to the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) implemented the Hook Sector and authorized annual allocation of up to 20 percent of the GB cod TAC to the Hook Sector. Pursuant to that authorization, a representative of the Hook Sector has submitted an operations plan and sector agreement (contract), and requested an allocation of GB cod to the Hook Sector for FY 2009.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before February 25, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by 0648-XM11, 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) 281-9135, Attn: Mark Grant,
          • Mail: 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.

            Instructions: All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted to 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 (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous). You may submit attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
          Copies of the Sector Agreement and the EA are available from the NE Regional Office at the mailing address specified above.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mark Grant, Sector Policy Analyst, phone (978) 281-9145, fax (978) 281-9135, e-mail Mark.Grant@NOAA.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        NMFS announces that the Administrator, NE Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has made a preliminary determination that the 2009 Hook Sector Operations Plan and Agreement, which contains the sector contract and operations plan, is consistent with the goals of the FMP, as currently implemented, and other applicable law and is in compliance with the regulations governing the development and operation of a sector as specified under § 648.87. The final rule implementing Amendment 13 (69 FR 22906, April 27, 2004) specified a process for the formation of sectors within the NE multispecies fishery and the allocation of TAC for specific groundfish species (or days-at-sea (DAS)), implemented restrictions that apply to all sectors, implemented the Hook Sector, established the GB Cod Hook Sector Area (Sector Area), and specified a formula for the allocation of GB cod TAC to the Hook Sector.
        The principal regulations applying to the Hook Sector specify that: (1) All vessels with a valid limited access NE multispecies DAS permit are eligible to participate in the Hook Sector; (2) membership in the Hook Sector is voluntary, but each member is required to remain in the Hook Sector for the entire fishing year and cannot fish in the NE multispecies DAS program outside the sector during the fishing year, unless certain conditions are met; (3) vessels fishing in the Hook Sector are confined to fishing in the Sector Area, which is that portion of the GB cod stock area north of 39° 00′ N. lat. and east of 71° 40′ W. long; and (4) participating vessels are required to comply with all pertinent Federal fishing regulations, unless specifically exempted by a Letter of Authorization issued by the Regional Administrator, and the provisions of an approved operations plan.
        While Amendment 13 implemented the Hook Sector, in order for GB cod to be allocated to the Hook Sector and for the Hook Sector to be authorized to fish, the Hook Sector must submit an operations plan and sector contract to the Regional Administrator annually for approval. The operations plan and sector contract must contain certain elements, including a contract signed by all Hook Sector participants and a plan containing the management rules that the Hook Sector participants agree to abide by in order to avoid exceeding the allocated TAC. An additional analysis of the impacts of the Hook Sector's proposed operations may also be required in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Further, the public must be provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed operations plan and sector contract. The regulations require that, upon completion of the public comment period, the Regional Administrator will make a determination regarding approval of the sector contract and operations plan. If approved by the Regional Administrator, participating vessels would be authorized to fish under the terms of the operations plan and sector contract.
        The Hook Sector was authorized to fish in FYs 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008; and, based upon the GB cod landings history of its members, was allocated 12.60, 11.70, 10.03, 8.02, and 6.44 percent, respectively, of the annual GB cod TAC.
        On September 30, 2008, the Hook Sector submitted its FY 2009 operations plan and sector agreement to NMFS. A draft environmental assessment (EA) was submitted on November 14, 2008. The proposed 2009 Hook Sector agreement and operations Plan contains the same elements and proposed exemptions as the 2008 Hook Sector agreement and operations plan. The Hook Sector would be overseen by a Board of Directors and a Sector Manager. The Hook Sector Agreement specifies, in accordance with Amendment 13, that the Hook Sector's GB cod TAC would be based upon the number of Hook Sector members and their historic landings of GB cod. The GB cod TAC is a “hard” TAC, meaning that, once the TAC is reached, Hook Sector vessels could not fish under a DAS, possess or land GB cod or other regulated species managed under the FMP (regulated species), or use gear capable of catching groundfish (unless fishing under charter/party or recreational regulations). Should the hard TAC be exceeded, the Hook Sector's allocation would be reduced by the amount of the overharvest in the following year.
        The 2009 operations plan proposes exemptions from the following restrictions of the FMP: The GB cod trip limit; the GB Seasonal Closure Area; the 3,600-hook limit for longline gear in the GB Regulated Mesh Area (RMA); the 2,000-hook limit for longline gear in the Gulf of Maine (GOM) and Southern New England (SNE) RMAs; the Western U.S./Canada Area 72-hr observer notification requirement; the DAS Leasing Program vessel size restrictions; and differential DAS counting implemented by Framework Adjustment (FW) 42 and any temporary rules. Justification for the proposed exemptions and analysis of the potential impacts of the operations plan are contained in the EA. A Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) is summarized in the Classification section of this proposed rule.
        Twenty-four prospective Hook Sector members signed the 2009 Hook Sector Contract. The GB cod TAC calculation is based upon the historic GB cod landings of the participating vessels, using all gear. The allocation percentage is calculated by dividing the sum of total landings of GB cod by Hook Sector members for FY 1996 through 2001 by the sum of the total accumulated landings of GB cod harvested by all NE multispecies vessels for the same time period. Based upon the 24 prospective members (and their associated GB cod landings history), the Hook Sector's share of the overall U.S. portion of the GB cod TAC would be 8.09 percent, or 625,570 lb (284 mt) (8.09 percent times the fishery-wide GB cod target TAC of 7,729,408 lb (3,506 mt)). If prospective members of the Hook Sector are deemed ineligible to, or decide not to, participate in the Hook Sector after the publication of this proposed rule and prior to a final decision by the Regional Administrator, it is possible that the total number of participants in the Hook Sector and the TAC for the Hook Sector may be reduced from the numbers above, but no additional members may join the Hook Sector for FY 2009.

        The Sector Contract contains procedures for the enforcement of the operations plan, a schedule of penalties, and provides the authority to the Hook Sector Manager to issue stop fishing orders to members of the Hook Sector. Participating vessels would be required to land fish only in designated landing ports and would be required to provide the Hook Sector Manager with a copy of the Vessel Trip Report (VTR) within 48 hr of offloading. Dealers purchasing fish from participating vessels would be required to provide the Hook Sector Manager with a copy of the dealer report on a weekly basis. On a monthly basis, the Hook Sector Manager would transmit to NMFS aggregate catch data from dealer slips and aggregate discard data from the VTRs. After 90 percent of the Hook Sector's allocation has been harvested, the Hook Sector Manager would be required to provide NMFS with aggregate reports on a weekly basis. A total of 1/12 of the Hook Sector's GB cod TAC would be allocated to each month of the fishing year. GB cod quota that is not landed during a given month would be rolled over into the following month. If landings exceed the monthly quota, the excess would be deducted from subsequent monthly quotas to ensure the Hook Sector does not exceed its GB cod TAC. The harvest rules would not preclude a vessel from fishing under the charter/party or recreational regulations, provided the vessel fishes under the applicable charter/party and recreational rules on separate trips.
        Participating vessels would not be allowed to fish with or have on board gear other than jigs, non-automated demersal longline, or handgear. Participating Hook Sector vessels could use an unlimited number of hooks in the Sector Area and would be exempt from the GB Seasonal Closure Area.
        Participating vessels would be required to call the Sector Manager prior to leaving port on a fishing trip. All legal-sized cod caught would be retained, landed and counted against the Hook Sector's GB cod TAC. For each fishing trip, participating vessels would be required to fish under the NE multispecies DAS program regulations to account for any incidental groundfish species that they may catch while fishing for GB cod. In addition, participating vessels would have a 1,000-lb (454-kg) trip limit for white hake (consistent with current regulations); a 2,000-lb (907-kg) trip limit for GB winter flounder (more restrictive than current regulations); and a 100-lb (45-kg) trip limit for all yellowtail flounder (more restrictive than current regulations). All of these exemptions were approved for FY 2006 and FY 2007.
        In FY 2006 and FY 2007 the exemption from differential DAS counting was approved because the combination of a hard TAC for GB cod and specific trip limits for GB winter flounder, yellowtail flounder, and white hake was determined to be conservation equivalent to differential DAS counting in the existing GOM and SNE Differential DAS Areas for meeting the mortality reduction and stock rebuilding goals of both the 2006 Secretarial Action and FW 42. NMFS is concerned about granting this exemption in FY 2009 because of the new differential DAS counting area proposed in the Secretarial Interim Action (74 FR 2959). The proposed Hook Sector operations plan and agreement, and supporting EA, were drafted and submitted prior to the publication of the proposed Secretarial Interim Action and therefore do not contain a justification for, or analysis of the impacts of, exempting the Hook Sector from the proposed differential DAS area. Therefore, NMFS may partially approve the Hook Sector operations plan and agreement, disapproving the differential DAS exemption requested, unless further information demonstrates that the operations plan would be the conservation equivalent of the differential DAS counting. Accordingly, NMFS is particularly interested in receiving public comment on the Hook Sector's request for an exemption from differential DAS counting as proposed in the Secretarial Interim Action.
        The EA prepared for the Hook Sector's operations concludes that the biological impacts of the Hook Sector will be positive because the hard TAC and the use of DAS would provide two means of restricting both the landings and effort of the Hook Sector. Implementation may have a positive impact on essential fish habitat and bycatch, if the Hook Sector's quota is caught prior to the end of the fishing year, by reducing the amount of time that gear would be in the water. The analysis of economic impacts of the Hook Sector concludes that the members would realize higher economic returns if the Hook Sector is implemented. The EA asserts that fishing in accordance with the Sector Contract rules enables more efficient harvesting of GB cod with hook gear than would be possible if the participating vessels were fishing in accordance with the common pool (non-sector) rules. The social benefits of the Hook Sector would accrue to sector members, as well as the Chatham, MA, and Harwichport, MA, communities, which are more dependent upon groundfish revenues as a percentage of fishery-derived landings than many other communities. The EA concludes that the self-governing nature of the Hook Sector and the member's opportunity to develop rules governing the way in which they harvest their GB cod TAC enables stewardship of the cod resource by the Hook Sector. The cumulative impacts of the Hook Sector are expected to be positive due to a positive biological impact, potential positive impact on habitat, and a positive social and economic impact. In contrast, the cumulative impact of the no action alternative is estimated to be neutral, with negative social and economic impacts.
        Should the Regional Administrator approve the Sector Contract as proposed, a Letter of Authorization would be issued to each member of the Hook Sector exempting them, conditional upon their compliance with the Sector Contract, from the GB cod possession restrictions, the 3,600-hook limit in the GB RMA, the 2,000-hook limit in the GOM and SNE RMAs, the GB Seasonal Closure Area, the Western U.S./Canada Area 72-hr observer notification requirement, the DAS Leasing Program vessel size restrictions, and differential DAS counting, as specified in §§ 658.86(b)(2), 648.80(a)(4)(v), 648.80(a)(3)(v), 648.80(b)(2)(v), 648.81(g), 648.85(a)(3)(ii)(C), 648.82(k)(4)(ix), 648.82 (e)(2), respectively.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304 (b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the NE Multispecies FMP as currently implemented, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment, particularly in light of whether the Secretarial Interim Action is implemented.
        This action is exempt from review under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.

        An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA consists of this section, the preamble, and the EA prepared for this action. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and in sections 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 of the EA prepared for this action. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

        The Small Business Administration size standard for small commercial fishing entities is $4 million in average annual receipts, and the size standard for small charter/party operators is $6.5 million in average annual receipts. All permitted and participating vessels in the groundfish fishery, including prospective Hook Sector members, are considered to be small entities because gross sales by any one entity (vessel) do not exceed this threshold, and, therefore there is no disproportionate impact between large and small entities. While an entity may own multiple vessels, available data make it difficult to determine which vessels may be controlled by a single entity. For this reason, each vessel is treated as a single entity for purposes of size determination and impact assessment. All permitted and participating vessels in the groundfish fishery, including prospective Hook Sector members, are considered to be small entities because gross sales by any one entity (vessel) do not exceed this threshold. The number of prospective participants in the Hook Sector is 24, substantially less than the total number of active vessels in the groundfish fishery. Only these 24 vessels would be subject to the regulatory exemptions and operational restrictions proposed for the Hook Sector for FY 2009.
        Economic Impacts of the Proposed Action
        The proposed alternative would allocate a GB cod TAC of 284 mt to the Hook Sector. Once the GB cod TAC is harvested, participating vessels would not be allowed to fish under a NE multispecies DAS, possess or land GB cod, or other regulated species managed under the NE multispecies FMP, or use gear capable of catching groundfish (unless fishing under recreational or charter/party regulations). Vessels intending to fish in the Hook Sector during FY 2009 may only fish with hook gear. Under the proposed operations plan, members would be exempt from several restrictions of the FMP described in the preamble to this proposed rule and in the EA.
        The Hook Sector fishermen and the Chatham, MA, and Harwichport, MA, communities are dependent upon GB cod and other groundfish. The Amendment 13 restrictions that reduced the GB cod trip limit had a disproportionate affect on these fishermen. According to Amendment 13, Chatham's overall community dependence on NE multispecies as a percentage of total fisheries revenues from federally permitted vessels averaged about 71 percent, and it was likely that at least some of the active groundfish vessels in Chatham and Harwichport were even more than 71-percent dependent on the NE multispecies fishery.
        Haddock and cod comprised the largest proportion of Hook Sector landings (62.47 percent and 32.46 percent, respectively, in FY 2007). During FY 2007, members of the Hook Sector made 239 trips, landed 155,453 lb (70,512 kg) of cod and 299,126 lb (135,681 kg) of haddock, and generated approximately $ 290,697, and $ 523,471 in revenue from those species, respectively (assuming a dockside price of $ 1.87 and $ 1.75 per lb [$4.11 and $ 3.85 per kg], respectively). The FY 2007 data indicated a 34-percent decline in the number of trips, a 13-percent decline in cod landings, and a 16-percent increase in haddock landings compared to FY 2006. The net effect was a 3.2-percent increase in revenue from cod and haddock and a 55-percent increase in revenue per trip from these species compared to FY 2006. Hook Sector members also landed various other species, which increased their revenue. In general, the operation of the Hook Sector would continue to mitigate the negative economic impacts that result from the current suite of regulations that apply to the groundfish fishery (most recently FW 42; October 23, 2006; 71 FR 62156). The Hook Sector, by fishing under rules that are designed to meet their needs (as well as the conservation requirements of the FMP), is afforded a larger degree of flexibility and efficiency, which result in economic gains. For example, Hook Sector members are able to plan their fishing activity and income in advance with more certainty due to the fact that there is a cod TAC, which is apportioned to each month of the year. They are able to maximize their efficiency (revenue per trip) due to the exemption from trip limits and limits on the number of hooks fished. Forty-one of the Hook Sector's 239 trips (17 percent) in FY 2007 landed more than the daily GB cod trip limit (1,000 lb/day; 454 kg/day) in place for the common pool vessels (non-sector vessels). This resulted in an additional 77,429 lb (35,121 kg) (49.8 percent of the Hook Sector's FY 2007 cod landings) being landed, rather than discarded. For some vessel owners in the Hook Sector, participation in the Hook Sector enables their businesses to remain economically viable.
        No other alternatives in addition to the No Action and the proposed action were considered. The RFA requires each IRFA to include a description of significant alternatives that accomplish the objectives of applicable statues (in this case, sector provisions) and minimize any significant economic impact to small entities. The objective of sector management, as originally developed and implemented under Amendment 13 to the FMP, is to provide opportunities for like-minded vessel operators to govern themselves so that they can operate in a more effective and efficient manner. The Hook Sector developed the proposed operations plan after consultation with prospective members. Prospective members then signed a binding sector contract to abide by the measures specified in the proposed operations plan. As described above, the proposed operations plan minimizes economic impacts to participating vessels by allowing them to operate more efficiently. Accordingly, the proposed operations plan reflects the management measures preferred by vessels participating in the Hook Sector during FY 2009 and represents all of the significant alternatives that accomplish the objectives of sector provisions and minimize economic impacts to small entities, as required by the RFA. Therefore, in conjunction with the NEPA requirement to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, no other alternatives were considered as part of this proposed action.
        Economic Impacts of Alternative to the Proposed Action
        Under the No Action alternative, the Hook Sector operations plan is disapproved and no modified operations plan is submitted. While the Hook Sector would remain implemented under the NE Multispecies FMP under the No Action Alternative, the Hook Sector would not be authorized to fish, would not be allocated a GB cod TAC, and all vessels would remain in the Common Pool and fish under the regulations implemented in Amendment 13 and subsequent FW to the NE Multispecies FMP.
        Because cod usually represents a high proportion of total fishing income for Cape Cod-based hook gear vessels, revenues for such vessel owners are very sensitive to regulations that impact how and when they can fish for cod, such as trip limits and restrictions on the number of hooks fished. Under the common pool rules implemented by FW 42 (e.g., differential DAS counting) and Amendment 13 (restrictive daily trip limits for cod), it is likely that Hook Sector vessels would experience revenue losses in comparison to proposed action. It is more likely under the No Action alternative that disruption to the Chatham/Harwichport communities would occur.

        If the proposed Hook Sector operations plan is approved without the exemption from differential DAS counting it will have a lesser benefit to the members, but will not result in the same level of revenue losses as the No Action alternative.

        Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the Proposed Rule
        This proposed rule contains no collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
        Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed sector operations plans and TAC allocations.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: February 4, 2009
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. E9-2781 Filed 2-9-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S