        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2009-0027; 92220-1113-0000; ABC Code: C3]
        RIN 1018-AW27
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To List the Shovelnose Sturgeon as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period and notice of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or USFWS), announce the reopening of the comment period for our September 22, 2009, proposed rule to treat the shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) as threatened under the “Similarity of Appearance” provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the location and time of a public hearing to receive public comments on the proposal. If you have previously submitted comments, please do not resubmit them because we have already incorporated them in the public record and will fully consider them in our final decision.

          DATES:
          During this reopened comment period, we will consider comments received or postmarked on or before February 4, 2010. We may not consider any comments we receive after the closing date. We will hold a public hearing on the proposed rule on January 28, 2010. For more information, see the “Public Hearing” section below.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2009-0027.
          • U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2009-0027; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
          • At the public hearing. For more information, see the “Public Hearing” section below.

          We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section below for more information).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator, Billings Field Office, 2900 4th Avenue North, Room 301, Billings, MT 59101 (telephone 406/247-7365; facsimile 406/247-7364). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800/877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        On September 22, 2009, we published a proposed rule (74 FR 48215) to treat the shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) as threatened under the “Similarity of Appearance” provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) and the endangered pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) are difficult to differentiate in the wild and inhabit overlapping portions of the Missouri and Mississippi River basins. Four States where the two species commonly coexist allow for commercial fishing of shovelnose sturgeon, which is in demand for its roe (eggs sold as caviar). The close resemblance in appearance between the two species creates substantial difficulty for fishermen, State regulators, and law enforcement personnel in differentiating between shovelnose and pallid sturgeon, both whole specimens and parts (including flesh and roe). This similarity of appearance has resulted in the documented take of pallid sturgeon and is a threat to the species. The determination that the shovelnose sturgeon should be treated as threatened due to similarity of appearance will substantially facilitate law enforcement actions to protect and conserve pallid sturgeon.
        Listing the shovelnose sturgeon as threatened under the “similarity of appearance” provisions of the Act will extend take prohibitions to shovelnose sturgeon, shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrids, or their roe when associated with a commercial fishing activity. All otherwise legal activities within the identified areas that may involve shovelnose sturgeon and shovelnose-pallid sturgeon hybrids and which are conducted in accordance with applicable State, Federal, Tribal, and local laws and regulations will not be considered take under this proposed regulation.
        Under the special 4(d) rule, take would only be prohibited where shovelnose and pallid sturgeons' range commonly overlap. Specifically, this includes the portion of the Missouri River in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota; the portion of the Mississippi River in Arkansas, Illinois (downstream from Melvin Price Locks and Dam), Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri (downstream from Melvin Price Locks and Dam), and Tennessee; the Platte River downstream of Elkhorn River confluence in Nebraska; the portion of the Kansas River downstream from Bowersock Dam in Kansas; the Yellowstone River downstream of the Bighorn River confluence in North Dakota and Montana; and the Atchafalaya River in Louisiana.
        The proposed designation of similarity of appearance under section 4(e) of the Act would not extend any other protections of the Act, such as the requirements to designate critical habitat, the recovery planning provisions under section 4(f), or consultation requirements for Federal agencies under section 7, to shovelnose sturgeon. Therefore, should the proposal become final, Federal agencies would not be required to consult with us on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out that may affect shovelnose sturgeon.

        Additional information on the pallid sturgeon and the proposal, including a copy of the Federal Register notice, can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/missouririver/moriver_pallidsturgeon.htm.

        Public Comments

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

        We will take into consideration all comments and any additional information we received during this reopened comment period on the proposed rule during the preparation of a final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from the proposal.
        Public Hearing
        Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires that we hold one public hearing on the proposal, if requested. Our September 22, 2009 proposal required written requests for a public hearing to be submitted by November 6, 2009 (74 FR 48215). Prior to this deadline, we received several requests to hold or inform the public about informational meetings or public hearings.
        Accordingly, we have scheduled an informational meeting (a brief presentation about the proposed rule with a question-and-answer period) from 4:30 p.m. to 6 p.m., and a public hearing from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., on January 28, 2010, on the 3rd floor of the University Center, Southeast Missouri State University, One University Plaza, Cape Girardeau, MO 65307 (573-651-2282).

        Anyone wishing to make an oral statement at the public hearing for the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Speakers can sign up only at the informational meeting and hearing. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us. If you have any questions concerning the public hearing or need reasonable accommodations to attend and participate in the public hearing, please contact Jane Ledwin at (573) 234-2132, extension 109, as soon as possible, but no later than 1 week before the hearing date, to allow sufficient time to process requests. Information regarding the proposal is available in alternative formats upon request.

          Authority:

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

          Dated: December 29, 2009.
          Jane Lyder,
          Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.

      [FR Doc. 2010-565 Filed 1-13-10; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2015-0028; FXES11130900000C2-167-FF09E32000]
        RIN 1018-AX99
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Hualapai Mexican Vole From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the reopening of the comment period on our proposed rule to remove the Hualapai Mexican vole from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. We are reopening the comment period for 30 days in order to publish a summary of the proposed regulation in a newspaper of general circulation and to allow for all interested parties further opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in preparation of the final listing determination.

          DATES:
          The comment period for the proposed rule that published June 4, 2015 (80 FR 31875), is reopened. To allow us adequate time to consider your comments on the proposed rule, we must receive your comments on or before January 23, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:

            Written comments: You may submit comments on the proposed rule and draft post-delisting monitoring plan by one of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the docket number for the proposed rule, which is FWS-R2-ES-2015-0028. Then click on the Search button. On the resulting page, you may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!” Please ensure that you have found the correct rulemaking before submitting your comment.
          • By U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2015-0028, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information).

            Document availability: Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing the proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2015-0028.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Steven Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Field Office, 9828 North 31st Avenue, #C3, Phoenix, Arizona 85051-2517; telephone (602) 242-0210. Individuals who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 for TTY assistance 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        On June 4, 2015, we published a proposed rule (80 FR 31875) to remove the Hualapai Mexican vole from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.11(h)). We are proposing this action because the available information indicates the original scientific classification is no longer the appropriate determination for the subspecies, meaning that current data indicate that the original classification may be erroneous. We sought information, data, and comments from the public regarding the proposal for 60 days, ending August 3, 2015.

        We are reopening the comment period on that proposed rule for an additional 30 days (see DATES) while we simultaneously issue a notice in local newspapers. We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period. In particular, we seek comments concerning the following:
        (1) New information concerning the taxonomic classification and conservation status of Hualapai Mexican voles and Mexican voles in general;
        (2) New information on the historical and current status, range, distribution, and population size of Hualapai Mexican voles, including the locations of any additional populations; and
        (3) New information regarding the life history, ecology, and habitat use of Hualapai Mexican voles.

        Please refer to the proposed rule for more information on our proposed action and the specific information we seek.

        You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. All comments and recommendations, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record.
        If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If you mail or hand-deliver a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review, but we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the electronic docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we receive are publicly available, we will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

          Authority:

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

          Dated: December 12, 2016.
          Marty J. Kodis,
          Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2016-30816 Filed 12-21-16; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 64
        [CG Docket No. 02-278; DA 05-1347]
        Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; petition for declaratory ruling, comments requested.

          SUMMARY:
          In this document, the Commission reopens the public comment period for six declaratory ruling petitions that seek Commission preemption under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) of the application of particular state laws to interstate telemarketing calls.

          DATES:
          Comments are due on or before July 29, 2005, and reply comments are due on or before August 18, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:

          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further filing instructions.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Kelli Farmer, Consumer Policy Division, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202) 418-2512 (voice), Kelli.Farmer@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's document, DA 05-1347, released May 13, 2005. On July 3, 2003, the Commission released a Report and Orders revising its rules under the TCPA (2003 TCPA Order), published at 68 FR 44144, July 25, 2003. The Commission determined that it would consider any alleged conflicts between state and Federal requirements and the need for preemption on a case-by-case basis. The Commission instructed any party who believes that a state law is inconsistent with section 227 of the Communications Act or the Commission's rules to seek a declaratory ruling from the Commission. The six Petitions that are the subject of this document sought such a declaratory ruling. In order to assemble a more complete administrative record that encompasses and reflects relevant developments in this area, the Commission invites interested parties to file supplemental comments in the record of the following proceedings: (1) American Teleservices Association Petition for Declaratory Ruling with Respect to Certain Provisions of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Administrative Code, DA 04-3185, filed Aug. 24, 2004 (citing N.J. Statutes Ann. section 56:8-119, et seq. (West 2003) and N.J. Admin. Code title 13, section 45D (2004)); (2) ccAdvertising (aka FreeEats.com, Inc.) Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling, DA 04-3187, filed Sept. 13, 2004 (citing N.D. Cent. Code section 51-28-02); (3) Consumer Bankers Association Petition for Declaratory Ruling with Respect to Certain Provisions of the Indiana Revised Statutes and Indiana Administrative Code, DA 04-3835, filed Nov. 19, 2004 (citing Burns Ind. Code Ann. section 24-4.7-4 (2004) and Ind. Admin. Code section 11 IAC 1-1-4 and section 11 IAC 1-1-3.5 (2004)); (4) Consumer Bankers Association Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling with Respect to Certain Provisions of the Wisconsin Statutes and Wisconsin Administrative Code, DA 04-3836, filed Nov. 19, 2004 (citing Wis. Statutes section 100.52 (2003) and Wis. Admin. Code, Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, sections 127.02-127.20 and 127.80-127.84)); (5) National City Mortgage Co. Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling with Respect to Certain Provisions of the Florida Statutes, DA 04-3837, filed Nov. 22, 2004 (citing Fla. Statutes section 501.059); and (6) TSA Stores, Inc. (The Sports Authority) Petition for Declaratory Ruling with Respect to Certain Provisions of the Florida Laws and Regulations, DA 05-342, filed Feb. 1, 2005 (citing Fla. Statutes section 501.059)).

        When filing comments, please reference CG Docket No. 02-278, DA 05-1347, and the DA number assigned to the petition to which the comments relate, including one or more of the following: DA 04-3185, DA 04-3187, DA 04-3835, DA 04-3836, DA 04-3837, or DA 05-342. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, “get form <your e-mail address>.” A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
        Parties who choose to file by paper must send an original and four (4) copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by electronic media, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings or electronic media for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. Commercial and electronic media sent by overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-B204, Washington, DC 20554.

        This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit but disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules, 47 CFR 1.1200. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substances of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other rules pertaining to oral and written ex parte presentations in permit-but-disclosed proceedings are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206(b).

        The full text of this document and copies of any subsequently filed documents in this matter will be available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418-0270. This document may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing (BCPI), Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI, Inc. at their Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com or by calling 1-800-378-3160. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice) or (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document can also be downloaded in Word or Portable Document Format (PDF) at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/policy.
        Synopsis

        In late 2004 and early 2005, the Commission received six petitions for declaratory ruling seeking Commission preemption under the TCPA of particular state laws, as applied to interstate telemarketing calls. In response to public notices issued by the Commission's Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau, interested parties filed comments with the Commission on issues raised in the six declaratory ruling petitions. Since the close of the comment cycles relating to these petitions, the Commission's staff has learned of a number of recent developments that, if made a part of the formal record, may help to inform the Commission's consideration of particular issues raised in the petitions. In particular, a recently filed petition for declaratory ruling describes an increasing number of divergent state laws applicable to interstate telemarketing and lists several telemarketing-related bills that have been introduced in state legislatures in recent months that, if enacted, would apply to interstate telemarketing calls. See Alliance Contact Services, et al. Petition for Declaratory Ruling that the FCC has Exclusive Regulatory Jurisdiction Over Interstate Telemarketing, filed April 29, 2005. Similarly, we are aware of recent court proceedings involving adjudications of state enforcement actions in which the proper relationship between state and federal telemarketing laws has been at issue before the court. See, e.g., North Dakota v. FreeEats.com, Inc., Opinion and Order, No. 04-C-1694 (N.D. Dist. Ct. Feb.2, 2005); North Dakota v. FreeEats.com, Inc., Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment, No. 04-C-1694 (N.D. Dist. Ct. March 9, 2005) (state court holding that interstate political polling calls using prerecorded message violate state's telemarketing law).

        Finally, we note that the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau released contemporaneously with this document two additional public notices seeking public comment on two separate petitions for declaratory ruling that raise issues relating to the Commission's jurisdiction and preemption authority under the TCPA. See Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on Petition for Declaratory Ruling Relating to Commission's Jurisdiction Over Interstate Telemarketing, Public Notice, CG Docket No. 02-278, DA 05-1346 (rel. May 13, 2005) (seeking comment on joint petition filed by 33 organizations engaged in interstate telemarketing activities in which petitioners ask Commission to declare its exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over interstate telemarketing); Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on Petition for Declaratory Ruling on Preemption of California Telemarketing Rules, Public Notice, CG Docket No. 02-278, DA 05-1348 (rel. May 13, 2005) (seeking comment on petition for declaratory ruling in which petitioner asks Commission not to preempt particular provisions of California's telemarketing laws). In order to assemble a more complete administrative record that encompasses and reflects relevant developments in this area, the Commission reopens the public comment period for the six declaratory ruling petitions referenced above and invites interested parties to file supplemental comments in the record of those proceedings.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Monica Desai,
          Acting Chief, Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 05-12466 Filed 6-28-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23996]
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

          ACTION:
          Denial of petition for rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          This document denies a petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr. James E. Hofferberth, to amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” to require automobile manufacturers to place an advisory placard in all passenger automobiles manufactured with both inflatable restraints and seat belts, advising that the seat belts should not be used by pregnant women. We are denying the petition because the requested placard would provide advice that is contrary to the safety of both the mother and the unborn baby.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For Non-Legal Issues: Ms. Carla Cuentas, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-4583, Facsimile: (202) 366-1740.

            For Legal Issues: Mr. Chris Calamita, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 366-2992, Facsimile: (202) 366-3820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Agency Advice: Pregnant Women Should Wear Their Seat Belt
        NHTSA recommends that pregnant women wear their seat belts. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 1
           and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2
           also recommend that pregnant women wear seat belts. NHTSA publishes a brochure,3
           developed in conjunction with ACOG and the National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition, that addresses this issue. The brochure explains that doctors recommend that pregnant women wear their seat belt and that, in a crash, seat belts are the best protection for both the pregnant woman and her unborn child. The brochure explains that even if a vehicle has air bags, a pregnant woman still needs to buckle up. Air bags are designed to work with seat belts, not replace them. Moreover, seat belts provide protection in types of crashes, including rollovers, in which air bags provide little or no protection. This is why, even though there have been many advancements in air bags, it is vital that occupants continue to use their seat belts.

            1 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Car safety for you and your baby. May 1999. Patient Education: AP018.

            2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System 1999 Report. Issued in 2003.

            3 NHTSA publication entitled “Should pregnant women wear seat belts?” dated September 2002. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/buckleplan/Internet_Services_Group/ISG-Restricted/Buckle-Up%20America/pregnancybrochure/BUA_PregnancyNHTSAchange.pdf.

        II. Petition
        On June 1, 2005, Mr. James E. Hofferberth petitioned NHTSA to amend FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” to require automobile manufacturers to place an advisory placard in all passenger automobiles manufactured with both inflatable restraints and seat belts, that the seat belts should not be used by pregnant women. He has also requested that NHTSA establish an official position and associated press release on this matter so as to preempt and negate any state or local requirements that require seat belt usage by pregnant women.
        Mr. Hofferberth stated his beliefs that seat belts can cause serious injury or death to a pregnant woman and/or her unborn fetus in both crash impact and non-impact situations. He stated that in the presence of inflatable restraint systems, seat belts provide very limited additional injury prevention capacity to a pregnant woman. He did not submit any data in support of his petition.
        III. Analysis of Petition
        In his petition, Mr. Hofferberth expressed his concern that seat belts can cause serious injury to a pregnant woman in both crash impact and non-impact situations. While pregnant women, like other occupants, can sustain belt injuries in certain crash impact situations, the 1999-2004 National Accident Sampling System (NASS) Crashworthiness Data System (CDS) data show the reduction in serious injury associated with belt use is approximately 76 percent for pregnant women.4
           In addition to this finding, the data also show that the reduction in fatalities associated with belt use is approximately 90 percent for pregnant women. Therefore NHTSA considers this concern unwarranted by the facts. We are also not aware of any serious injuries to pregnant women caused by seat belts in non-impact situations.

            4 “Supplemental Analyses of Crash Investigation Data”, Docket No. NHTSA-2006-23996. We note that the agency's regulatory impact analysis conducted in 1984 entitled, “Final Regulatory Impact Analysis Amendment to FMVSS No. 208. Passenger Car Front Seat Occupant Protection”, estimated that manual 3-point safety belts, when used by drivers or right-front passengers of cars, reduce fatality risk by 40 to 50 percent relative to the unrestrained occupant. The percent reductions calculated above are higher than agency's overall safety belt effectiveness estimates because they do not account for confounding factors. Confounding factors include age, gender, speed limit, and occupant misinterpretation of belt use. Self-selection is another confounding factor, which suggests that a driver who is wearing a seat belt or who is pregnant will have a tendency to practice safer driving habits than an unbelted or non-pregnant driver.

        Mr. Hofferberth also stated that in the presence of inflatable restraint systems, seat belts provide very limited additional injury prevention capacity to a pregnant woman. NHTSA does not concur with this statement. Seat belts alone are very effective in preventing fatalities in rollover crashes (74 percent fatality reduction in passenger cars and 80 percent for light trucks).5
           Approximately 10,000 people per year are killed in rollover crashes. Inflatable restraints that are designed for frontal impacts provide little injury prevention in side or rollover crash impacts. Thus, we do not agree that inflatable restraints alone would provide optimal protection to pregnant occupants under all crash circumstances, particularly rollover events.

            5 Based on NHTSA study of 1986-99 FARS data, “Initiatives to Address the Mitigation of Vehicle Rollover,” June 2003.

        Mr. Hofferberth also stated that seat belts are a known hazard to a fetus and that they are likely to cause serious injury or death in crash impact situations. The 1999-2004 NASS CDS data actually suggest that seat belt usage is advantageous for a fetus, because the estimated reduction in fatalities associated with belt use is approximately 89 percent for fetuses. We also examined the 30 sampled cases involving fetal death in the 1999-2004 data. (We note that this number includes some for whom the crash report explicitly reported fetal death plus nine other fetuses for whom we inferred death based on the pregnancy term and the death of the mother.) National estimates based on these cases suggest that an average of 180 fetal deaths in crashes per year involved unbelted women, 73 involved belted women, and seven involved women for whom belt use could not be determined. Thus, an estimated 71 percent of the identified fetal deaths were associated with pregnant women who were not using their seat belts at the time of the crash.
        Other evidence also supports the use of a properly positioned seat belt during pregnancy. Several research studies support our analyses that seat belts reduce the risk of fetal injury and have shown that pregnant women in crashes in which the mother wore her seat belt were not significantly more at risk for adverse fetal outcomes. The University of Utah undertook a study in 2003 on the effects of crashes on fetal outcomes and reported that pregnant women who did not wear seat belts during a crash were twice as likely to experience maternal bleeding and 2.8 times more likely to experience a fetal death than belted pregnant women in crashes.6
           Pearlman et al. reported that in 42 investigations involving pregnant occupants, an improperly restrained or unrestrained mother suffered an adverse fetal outcome 62 percent of the time, whereas a properly restrained mother only suffered an adverse fetal outcome 27 percent of the time.7
           This suggested that unrestrained pregnant women were at a higher risk of suffering an adverse fetal outcome than restrained mothers for the same crash severity. An additional paper by Pearlman, M., and Viano, D. found that when seat belts were placed in the position recommended by NHTSA on the pregnant crash test dummy, the outcome resulted in the lowest recorded readings of the force transmission to the uterus and fetal head acceleration.8
           It further found that the abdominal force and fetal head acceleration were highest for the unrestrained pregnant occupant.

            6 Hyde, Lisa K. et al., entitled “Effect of Motor Vehicle Crashes on Adverse Fetal Outcomes,” dated 2003. This research was partially supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, NHTSA, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

            7 Pearlman, M. et al., entitled “A comprehensive program to improve safety for pregnant women and fetuses in motor vehicle crashes: A Preliminary Report,” dated October 1999. This work was supported by General Motors Corporation, pursuant to an agreement with the U.S. Department of Transportation.

            8 Pearlman, M., and Viano, D., “Automobile crash simulation with the first pregnant crash test dummy,” dated October 1996. This work was funded in part through the U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA grant DTNH22-95H-07157.

        IV. Conclusion
        Based on our analysis of the aforementioned information, NHTSA finds no basis to amend FMVSS No. 208 to require automobile manufacturers to place an advisory placard in all passenger automobiles manufactured with both inflatable restraints and seat belts advising pregnant women not to use their seat belt. The available information shows that seat belts are beneficial to both the mother and her unborn baby. Therefore, the requested placard would provide advice that is contrary to the safety of both the mother and the unborn baby.
        Subsequent to his initial petition, an additional letter from Mr. Hofferberth was received on September 8, 2005, requesting that NHTSA recall our publication that advocates belt usage by all pregnant women, because he believes it displays improper belt placement. Specifically, he believes the illustration could be interpreted as depicting improper positioning of the lap belt. His request to modify the illustration is denied. The illustration shows the lap belt positioned below the pregnant woman's belly and specifically states that the pregnant woman must “adjust the lap belt across your hips/pelvis, and below your belly.” NHTSA may consider whether the illustration or other aspects of the brochure can be improved in future revisions, but the agency is not making any changes at this time.
        Based on the foregoing, the agency is denying Mr. Hofferberth's petition to amend FMVSS No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” in accordance with 49 CFR part 552. This completes the agency's review of the petition.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          Issued on: March 20, 2006.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 06-2835 Filed 3-22-06; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0186; FRL-10014-23-Region 4]
        Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Revisions to Construction and Operation Permits

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of North Carolina through the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality (DAQ), on July 10, 2019. The SIP revision seeks to modify the State's construction and operation permitting regulations by making minor changes that do not significantly alter the meaning of the regulations. EPA is proposing to approve this revision pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before November 18, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:

          Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0186 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
            http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Pearlene Williams, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Williams can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9144, or via electronic mail at williams.pearlene@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        On July 10, 2019, the State of North Carolina submitted changes to the North Carolina SIP for EPA approval. EPA is proposing to approve changes to the following regulations under 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Subchapter 02Q,1
           Section .0300, Construction and Operation Permits: Section .0301, Applicability; Section .0303, Definitions; Section .0304, Applications; Section .0305, Application Submittal Content; Section .0307, Public Participation Procedures; Section .0308, Final Action on Permit Applications; Section .0309, Termination, Modification and Revocation of Permits; Section .0310, Permitting of Numerous Similar Facilities; Section .0311, Permitting of Facilities at Multiple Temporary Sites; Section .0312, Application Processing Schedule; Section .0313, Expedited Application Processing Schedule; Section .0314, General Requirements for All Permits; Section .0315, Synthetic Minor Facilities; Section .0316, Administrative Permit Amendments; and Section .0317, Avoidance Conditions.
          2

            1 In the table of North Carolina regulations federally approved into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.1770(c), 15A NCAC 02Q is referred to as “Subchapter 2Q Air Quality Permits.”

            2 The State submitted the SIP revision following the readoption of several air regulations, including .0301, .0303, .0304, .0305, .0307, .0308, .0309, .0310, .0311, .0312, .0313, .0314, .0315, .0316, and .0317, pursuant to North Carolina's 10-year regulatory readoption process at North Carolina General Statute 150B-21.3A.

        II. Analysis of North Carolina's SIP Revision
        The revision that is the subject of this proposed rulemaking make changes to construction and operating permitting regulations under Subchapter 2Q of the North Carolina SIP. These changes revise the applicability of permit exemptions, permit application and processing procedures, and revise related definitions. EPA is proposing to find that the changes do not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable CAA requirement. Detailed descriptions of the changes are below:
        1. Section .0301, Applicability is revised to make clarifying edits to the rule text, such as reformatting the regulatory citations and minor wording changes. In addition, changes are made to reflect that owners or operators of sources required to have permits under 15A NCAC 2Q Section .0300 (Construction and Operation Permits) are also subject to the requirements of 15A NCAC 2Q Section .0700 (Toxic Air Pollutant Procedures); these changes provide clarity that sources are subject to both regulations.
        2. Section .0303, Definitions is revised to update the definitions “modified facility,” “new facility,” “Title IV source,” and “Title V source”; to add the definition of “responsible official”; and to alphabetize the definitions in this section. The term “modified facility” is revised to make administrative updates to the rule text and reformat a sentence. In addition, minor wording changes are made to the definition of “New facility.” The terms “Title IV source” and “Title V source” are revised to reformat the regulatory citations.  The term “Responsible official” is added and defined in three subsections to include officials in different types of organizations: Corporations; partnerships or sole proprietorships; and government or public agencies. With respect to corporations, a responsible official is defined as a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president who is in charge of a principal business or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-making functions, or a duly-authorized representative of such person who meets certain criteria. With respect to partnerships or sole proprietorships, a responsible official is defined as a general partner or the proprietor, respectively. With respect to government or public agencies, a responsible official is defined as either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official; for purposes of a federal agency, a principal executive officer includes a chief executive officer having responsibility for overall operations of a principal geographic unit within the agency.
        3. Section .0304, Applications is revised to make minor, clarifying edits to punctuation, to reformat the regulatory citations, and to adjust capitalization. In addition, minor changes are made to require that certain permit applications be signed by the “responsible official” as defined in the new definition at Section .0303. Edits that add clarity include changing “letter” to “application” and removing now redundant language regarding the signing of permit application, including a list of persons who must sign permit applications, as the requirements for signature are now identified with the requirements for the particular type of permit application (see e.g., .0305(a)(1)(E)). 15A NCAC 02Q .0304(b)(3) is revised to require an applicant to use certain submission forms or systems to file emissions inventories. In addition, changes are made to remove duplicative language in .0304(d) (to remove language regarding applications for permit ownership change with no modifications) and .0304(j) (to remove language regarding signatures of application).
        4. Section .0305, Application Submittal Content is revised to state that applications are considered incomplete for processing instead of “returned” if they do not contain specific required information and to allow for changes of ownership to be completed through a form provided by DAQ rather than by letter. This rulemaking is also proposing to amend minor changes, such as to revise the required number of copies needed for permit renewals, name changes, ownership changes, corrections of typographical errors and the application package. In addition, language is revised to clarify that if there is an ownership change and the seller and buyer choose to send notification letters to DAQ rather than the aforementioned form, the buyer and seller must sign such letters. Last, Section .0305 is revised to make minor clarifying edits; for example, to add punctuation, reformat regulatory citations, and update the regulation with defined terms instead of cross references.
        5. Section .0307, Public Participation Procedures is revised to remove the requirement to pay for copies of permitting documents, to make minor wording changes and punctuation updates, to correct typographical errors, and to reformat the regulatory citations contained in this section. The changes also remove a provision regarding a mailing list for air permit notices.
        6. Section .0308, Final Action on Permit Applications is revised to make minor changes, such as removing language specifying the type of document for name changes or ownership to reflect changes in .0305(a)(4), and to modify punctuation and wording. This rulemaking is also revised to include the state law citation that outlines guidelines for appeals of permit applications.

        7. Section .0309, Termination, Modification and Revocation of Permits is revised to make minor changes to the rule text including changes to punctuation, capitalization, and regulatory citation format. In addition, minor wording changes are made. Last, this section is revised to clarify the circumstances in which the DAQ Director may terminate, modify, or revoke a permit; and to clarify the requirement for a permittee to furnish records to the Director.
        8. Section .0310, Permitting of Numerous Similar Facilities is revised to remove unnecessary text. In addition, it makes minor clarifying edits to the rule text, such as simplifying the wording in a manner that does not change the requirements for such facilities or conditions under which the Director will issue single permits for more than one facility.
        9. Section .0311, Permitting of Facilities at Multiple Temporary Sites is revised to make minor clarifying edits to the rule text, such as simplifying the wording in a manner that does not change the requirements for issuing single permits authorizing emissions from a facility or source at multiple temporary sites.
        10. Section .0312, Application Processing Schedule is revised to make minor clarifying edits to the rule text, such as updating language, removing unnecessary language, reformatting regulatory citations, and altering punctuation. This section is updated to require the Director to cease processing permit applications when additional information is requested but not provided and when an application contains insufficient information to complete review; the changes also remove the schedule for processing certain requests for synthetic minor facility status.
        11. Section .0313, Expedited Application Processing Schedule is revised to make minor clarifying edits to the rule text, such as minor wording changes, removing unnecessary language, and reformatting regulatory citations and capitalization.
        12. Section .0314, General Requirements for All Permits is revised to revise the title from “GENERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS” to “GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL PERMITS.” This section is also revised to make minor changes, such as punctuation changes, reformatting of regulatory citations, and clarifying edits.
        13. Section .0315, Synthetic Minor Facilities is revised to make minor clarifying edits to the rule text, such as reformatting the regulatory citations. In addition, changes are made to clarify that that North Carolina's Title V major source operating permit requirements are not applicable to synthetic minor permits, to clarify that the applicant may request to have permit restrictions added to the permit; to clarify that a modification to a permit to remove synthetic minor conditions must follow the procedures of North Carolina's Title V regulations or Section .0315, and to clarify that a synthetic minor permit is issued pursuant to Section .0315.
        14. Section .0316, Administrative Permit Amendments is revised to make minor clarifying edits to the rule text, such as updating punctuation. In addition, changes are made to the text of .0316(b)(2) to provide that the Director shall make administrative amendments using the criteria in paragraph (a) of the same rule.
        15. Section .0317, Avoidance Conditions is revised to make minor clarifying edits to the rule text, such as reformatting regulatory citations and stating that the Director may require monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting necessary to assure compliance with the terms and conditions placed in a permit that includes an avoidance condition pursuant to Section .0317.
        EPA has preliminarily determined that the changes to the regulations above provide clarity to the applicability of permit exemptions, permit application and processing procedures, and definitions. The changes are minor changes that do not significantly alter the meaning of the regulations. The revisions to the SIP satisfy CAA section 110(l) and do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Therefore, EPA is proposing approval of the changes to these regulations.
        III. Incorporation by Reference

        In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the following sections of 15A NCAC Subchapter 2Q with a state-effective date of April 1, 2018: Section .0301, Applicability; Section .0303, Definitions; Section .0304, Applications; Section .0305, Application Submittal Content; Section .0307, Public Participation Procedures; Section .0308, Final Action on Permit Applications; Section .0309, Termination, Modification and Revocation of Permits; Section .0310, Permitting of Numerous Similar Facilities; Section .0311, Permitting of Facilities at Multiple Temporary Sites; Section .0312, Application Processing Schedule; Section .0313, Expedited Application Processing Schedule; Section .0314, General Requirements for All Permits; Section .0315, Synthetic Minor Facilities; Section .0316, Administrative Permit Amendments; and Section .0317, Avoidance Conditions. These changes are proposed to revise the applicability of permit exemptions, revise permit application and processing procedures, and amend definitions. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information).
        IV. Proposed Action

        EPA is proposing to approve North Carolina's July 10, 2019 SIP revision, which contains changes to the following regulations under 15A NCAC Subchapter 02Q, Section .0300, Construction and Operation Permits: Section .0301, Applicability; Section .0303, Definitions; Section .0304, Applications; Section .0305, Application Submittal Content; Section .0307, Public Participation Procedures; Section .0308, Final Action on Permit Applications; Section .0309, Termination, Modification and Revocation of Permits; Section .0310, Permitting of Numerous Similar Facilities; Section .0311, Permitting of Facilities at Multiple Temporary Sites; Section .0312, Application Processing Schedule; Section .0313, Expedited Application Processing Schedule; Section .0314, General Requirements for All Permits; Section .0315, Synthetic Minor Facilities; Section .0316, Administrative Permit Amendments; and Section .0317, Avoidance Conditions. The proposed changes are consistent with the CAA.
        V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
        • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;

        • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

        • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
        • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
        • Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
        • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
        • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
        • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
        • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
        The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

          Authority:
          42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

          Dated: September 1, 2020.
          Mary Walker,
          Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 2020-19837 Filed 10-16-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P