        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 745
        [EPA-R04-OPPT-2010-0789; FRL-9457-7]
        Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair and Painting, and Pre-Renovation Education Activities in Target Housing and Child Occupied Facilities; North Carolina and Mississippi; Notice of Self-certification Program Authorization, Request for Public Comment, Opportunity for Public Hearing

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Program authorization, request for comments and opportunity for public hearing.

          SUMMARY:
          This notice announces that on January 21, 2010, the State of North Carolina and on March 31, 2010, the State of Mississippi were deemed authorized under section 404(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2684(a), to administer and enforce requirements for a renovation, repair and painting program in accordance with section 402(c)(3) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), and a lead-based paint pre-renovation education program in accordance with 406(b) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2686(b). This notice also announces that EPA is seeking comment during a 45-day public comment period, and is providing an opportunity to request a public hearing within the first 15 days of this comment period, on whether these North Carolina and Mississippi programs are at least as protective as the Federal programs and provide for adequate enforcement. This notice also announces that the authorization of the North Carolina and Mississippi 402(c)(3) and 406(b) programs, which were deemed authorized by regulation and statute on January 21, 2010, and March 31, 2010, respectively, will continue without further notice unless EPA, based on its own review and/or comments received during the comment period, disapproves one or both of these North Carolina and Mississippi program applications.

          DATES:
          Comments, identified by Docket Control Number EPA-R04-OPPT-2010-0789, must be received on or before October 27, 2011. In addition, a public hearing request must be submitted on or before September 27, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:

          Comments and requests for a public hearing may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is important that you identify Docket Control Number EPA-R04-OPPT-2010-0789 in the subject line on the first page of your response.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Elizabeth Wilde, Technical Contact, Children's Health and Lead Section, Pesticides and Toxics Substances Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number where Ms. Wilde can be reached is: (404) 562-8998. Ms. Wilde can be contacted via electronic mail at wilde.liz@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Table of Contents

          I. General Information
          II. Background
          III. State Program Description Summaries
          IV. Federal Overfiling
          V. Withdrawal of Authorization

        I. General Information
        A. Does this action apply to me?

        This action is directed to the public in general, to entities offering Lead Safe Renovation courses, and to firms and individuals engaged in renovation and remodeling activities of pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities in the States of Mississippi and North Carolina. Individuals and firms falling under the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 231118, 238210, 238220, 238320, 531120, 531210, 53131, e.g., General Building Contractors/Operative Builders, Renovation Firms, Individual Contractors, and Special Trade Contractors like Carpenters, Painters, Drywall workers, and Plumbers, “Home Improvement” Contractors, as well as Property Management Firms and some Landlords are also affected by these rules. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed here could also be affected. The NAICS codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        B. How can I get additional information, including copies of this document or other related documents?
        1. Electronically: you may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/ or from http://www.regulations.gov/. You can also go directly to the Federal Register listings at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/.

        2. In person: you may read this document, and certain other related documents, by visiting the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, 1912 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1912, contact person, Mr. Donald Chaney, telephone number: (919) 707-5974, or by visiting the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, 101 W. Capitol St., Jackson, MS 39201, contact person, Mr. Jimmie Asbill, telephone number (601) 961-5164. You may also read this document, and certain other related documents, by visiting the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Office, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. You should arrange your visit to the EPA office by contacting the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Also, EPA has established an official record for this action under Docket Control Number EPA-R04-OPPT-2010-0789. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, this notice, the State of North Carolina and Mississippi 402(c)(3) and 406(b) program authorization applications, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action.
        C. How and to whom do I submit comments?
        You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is important that you identify Docket Identification Number EPA-R04-OPPT-2010-0789 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
        Submit your comments, by one of the following methods:
        1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
        2. By mail: Submit your comments and hearing requests to: Elizabeth Wilde, Technical Contact, Children's Health and Lead Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, Atlanta, GA 30303-8960.
        3. By person or courier: Deliver your comments and hearing requests to: Children's Health and Lead Section, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
        4. By fax: 404-562-8973.
        5. By e-mail: You may submit your comments and hearing requests electronically by e-mail to: wilde.liz@epa.gov, or mail your computer disk to the address identified above. Do not submit any information electronically that you consider Confidential Business Information (CBI). Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be accepted on standard disks in Microsoft Word or ASCII file format.

          Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID Number EPA-R04-OPPT-2010-0789. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

          Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy.
        D. How should I handle CBI information that I want to submit to the agency?

        Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark on each page the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA as CBI, and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the technical person identified under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
        E. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
        You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments.
        1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
        2. Describe any assumptions that you use.
        3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you use that support your views.
        4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrive at the estimate that you provide.
        5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
        6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.
        7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.

        8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the Docket Control Number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.
        II. Background
        A. What action is the agency taking?

        EPA is announcing that the State of North Carolina on January 21, 2010, and the State of Mississippi on March 30, 2010, were deemed authorized under section 404(a) of TSCA, and 40 CFR 745.324(d)(2), to administer and enforce requirements for a renovation, repair and painting program in accordance with section 402(c)(3) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), and a lead-based paint pre-renovation education program in accordance with section 406(b) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2686(b). This notice also announces that EPA is seeking comment and providing an opportunity to request a public hearing on whether both the States' programs are at least as protective as the Federal programs and provide for adequate enforcement. The 402(c)(3) program ensures that training providers are accredited to teach renovation classes, that individuals performing renovation activities are properly trained and certified as renovators, that firms are certified as renovation firms, and that specific work practices are followed during renovation activities. The 406(b) program ensures that owners and occupants of target housing are provided information concerning potential hazards of lead-based paint exposure before certain renovations are begun.

        On January 21, 2010, North Carolina submitted an application under section 404 of TSCA requesting authorization to administer and enforce requirements for a renovation, repair and painting program in accordance with section 402(c)(3) of TSCA, and a pre-renovation education program in accordance with section 406(b) of TSCA, and submitted a self-certification that these programs are at least as protective as the Federal programs and provides for adequate enforcement. Therefore, pursuant to section 404(a) of TSCA, and 40 CFR 745.324(d)(2), the North Carolina renovation program and pre-renovation education program are deemed authorized as of the date of submission and until such time as the Agency disapproves the program application or withdraws program authorization. Pursuant to section 404(b) of TSCA and 40 CFR 745.324(e)(2), EPA is providing notice, opportunity for public comment and opportunity for a public hearing on whether North Carolina's program application for both programs is at least as protective as the Federal programs and provides for adequate enforcement. If a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will issue a Federal Register notice announcing the date, time and place of the hearing. The authorization of the North Carolina 402(c)(3) and 406(b) programs, which were deemed authorized by EPA on January 21, 2010, will continue without further notice unless EPA, based on its own review and/or comments received during the comment period, disapproves one or both of these North Carolina program applications.

        On March 30, 2010, Mississippi submitted an application under section 404 of TSCA requesting authorization to administer and enforce requirements for a renovation, repair and painting program in accordance with section 402(c)(3) of TSCA, and a pre-renovation education program in accordance with section 406(b) of TSCA, and submitted a self-certification that these programs are at least as protective as the Federal programs and provides for adequate enforcement. Therefore, pursuant to section 404(a) of TSCA, and 40 CFR 745.324(d)(2), the Mississippi renovation program and pre-renovation education program are deemed authorized as of the date of submission and until such time as the Agency disapproves the program application or withdraws program authorization. Pursuant to section 404(b) of TSCA and 40 CFR 745.324(e)(2), EPA is providing notice, opportunity for public comment and opportunity for a public hearing on whether Mississippi's application for both programs is at least as protective as the Federal programs and provides for adequate enforcement. If a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will issue a Federal Register notice announcing the date, time and place of the hearing. The authorization of the Mississippi 402(c)(3) and 406(b) programs, which were deemed authorized by EPA on May 3, 2010, will continue without further notice unless EPA, based on its own review and/or comments received during the comment period, disapproves one or both of these Mississippi program applications.
        B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?

        On October 28, 1992, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, became law. Title X of that statute was the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. That Act amended TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.) by adding Title IV (15 U.S.C. 2681-2692), entitled “Lead Exposure Reduction.” On April 22, 2008, EPA promulgated the final TSCA section 402(c)(3) regulations governing renovation activities. See 73 FR 21692. These regulations require that in order to do renovation activities for compensation, renovators must first be properly trained and certified, must be associated with a certified renovation firm, and must follow specific work practice standards, including recordkeeping requirements. In addition, the rule prescribes requirements for the training and certification of dust sampling technicians. On June 1, 1998, EPA promulgated the final TSCA section 406(b) regulations governing pre-renovation education requirements in target housing. See 63 FR 29908. This program ensures that owners and occupants of target housing are provided information concerning potential hazards of lead-based paint exposure before certain renovations are begun on that housing. In addition to providing general information on the health hazards associated with exposure to lead, EPA developed the lead hazard information pamphlet. This pamphlet advises owners and occupants to take appropriate precautions to avoid exposure to lead-contaminated dust and debris that are sometimes generated during renovations. EPA believes that regulation of renovation activities and the distribution of the pamphlet will help to reduce the exposures that cause serious lead poisonings, especially in children under age 6, who are particularly susceptible to the hazards of lead.
        Under section 404 of TSCA, a state may seek authorization from EPA to administer and enforce its own pre-renovation education program or renovation, repair and painting program in lieu of the Federal programs. The regulations governing the authorization of a state program under both sections 402 and 406 of TSCA are codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q. States that choose to apply for program authorization must submit a complete application to the appropriate regional EPA office for review. Those applications will be reviewed by EPA within 180 days of receipt of the complete application. To receive EPA approval, a state must demonstrate that its program is at least as protective of human health and the environment as the Federal program, and provides for adequate enforcement, as required by Section 404(b) of TSCA. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR Part 745, subpart Q, provide the detailed requirements a state program must meet in order to obtain EPA approval. A state may choose to certify that its own pre-renovation education program or renovation, repair and painting program meets the requirements for EPA approval, by submitting a letter signed by the Governor or Attorney General stating that the program is at least as protective of human health and the environment as the Federal program and provides for adequate enforcement. Upon submission of such a certification letter, the program is deemed authorized pursuant to TSCA section 404(a) and 40 CFR 745.324(d)(2). This authorization becomes ineffective, however, if EPA disapproves the application or withdraws the program authorization.
        III. State Program Description Summaries
        The following program summary is from North Carolina's self-certification application:
        Program Summary; State of North Carolina; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program/Lead-Safe Renovator Certification Program

        The State of North Carolina has implemented a lead-based paint hazard management program for renovation, repair, and painting in lieu of having a Federally administered program apply in the State. The Lead-Based Paint Hazard Management Program for Renovation, Repair and Painting (LHMP-RRP) is implemented through the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health, Health Hazards Control Unit (NCDHHS). The North Carolina Legislature ratified House Bill 1151 on August 11, 2009, granting the North Carolina Commission for Public Health (CPH) authority to establish Rules. The CPH approved the LHMP-RRP Temporary Rules on October 30, 2009. The LHMP-RRP Rules (10A NCAC 41C .0900-.0907) became effective date on January 1, 2010, and implementation of the Program was effective January 1, 2010.
        Requirements of the LHMP-RRP include the following: accreditation of renovation and dust sampling technician training providers and training courses; certification of renovation firms and individuals that perform renovations, cleaning verification and dust sampling in target housing or child occupied facilities; required work practice standards for lead-based paint renovation activities: record retention, information distribution and reporting requirements.
        The LHMP-RRP Rules are applicable to all persons engaged in renovation activities for compensation in target housing and child-occupied facilities built before 1978. However, an individual who performs renovations of a residential dwelling that is owned and occupied by that person, or that person's immediate family, is exempt from the requirements. Definitions are adopted from the EPA Federal regulation, contained in 40 CFR Part 745 subparts E and L. The Federal and LHMP regulations do not mandate the performance of renovation activities, but instead establish requirements and procedures to follow when renovation activities are conducted.
        The LHMP-RRP regulatory requirements for the accreditation of lead-based paint renovation activities training programs are consistent with the accreditation of the Federal program. Training providers conducting training in North Carolina must be accredited by the NCDHHS Program. All initial and refresher training courses conducted in North Carolina must be accredited by the NCDHHS Program.
        Several requirements of the state program that are not included in the Federal program include: a requirement that approval of the training program's course is contingent on submittal of an application and successfully completing an on-site audit, and training providers must submit a written notification of intent to teach the course in North Carolina ten working days prior to the start date of the course.
        The state certification requirements include the certification of firms and individual categories of renovator and dust sampling technician. Each individual certification category must submit an application for certification, meet required training course requirements and be employed by a certified renovation firm when conducting renovation activities for compensation.
        Work practice standards that are required for performing lead-based paint renovation activities for compensation in target housing or child-occupied facilities are equivalent to the work practice standards in the Federal regulations.
        The LHMP-RRP compliance and enforcement elements are comparable to the compliance and enforcement requirements of the Federal program. As in the Federal regulations, the Rules provide for the suspension and revocation of training provider accreditation, training course accreditation, firm certification and individual certification. Additionally, administrative and civil penalties may be assessed for violations. Criminal actions can also be pursued. The renovation firm and individual certification requirements assist in conducting an effective compliance and enforcement program.
        North Carolina's LHMP-RRP provides for establishing reciprocity agreements with other states, Tribes, or territories with authorized programs which have consistent requirements for certification of individuals and firms and accreditation of training courses and providers. The Federal regulations encourage states to establish reciprocity procedures.
        North Carolina's LHMP-RRP requires that information be provided to the person contracting for the renovation when an EPA-recognized test kit is used to determine the presence of lead-based paint prior to the start of renovation activities.
        Outreach activities have a high priority in the LHMP-RRP. The objective of the outreach program is to educate and make the public and regulated community aware of the hazards of lead-based paint and of the regulatory requirements applicable to lead-based paint renovation activities. The overall goal of the outreach program is to protect public health and the environment from the hazards of lead-based paint.
        The cost of the State program will be supported by available Federal grants and fees collected by NCDHHS. The LHMP-RRP provides for the collection of fees and allows for acceptance of Federal grants. Fees are assessed for the accreditation of training providers and training courses, certification of renovation firms and dust sampling technicians.
        The following program summary is from Mississippi's self certification application:
        Program Summary; State of Mississippi; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Lead-Safe Renovator Certification Program
        The State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), will implement the lead-based paint Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program and the Pre-Renovation Education Program. Requirements of the programs will include accreditation of lead-based paint renovation activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities, required work practice standards for conducting lead-based paint renovation activities, and pre-renovation education requirements that must be followed prior to performing a renovation.
        Regulations setting out the procedures and requirements for the accreditation of lead-based paint activities training programs, the certification of individuals and firms engaged in lead-based paint renovation activities, the work practice standards to be followed in performing lead-based paint renovation activities and required pre-renovation education requirements were adopted by the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality on December 10, 2009. Requirements under the regulations will be applicable beginning on the effective date of the regulations. Authority to administer and enforce a state program as protective as the Federal lead-based paint program was provided for in the amended “Lead-Based Activity Accreditation and Certification Act” which was passed by the Mississippi Legislature during its 2009 regular session.

        Mississippi's lead-based paint renovation program regulations are applicable to all persons engaged in lead-based paint activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities. However, persons who perform lead-based paint activities within residential dwellings they own are exempt from the regulations unless the residential dwelling is occupied by a person or persons other than the owner or owner's immediate family while these activities are being performed, or a child having an elevated blood lead level resides in the building. Also exempt from the required work practice standards of the regulations are renovations performed in target housing if the firm performing the renovation has obtained a statement signed by the owner that the renovation will occur in the owner's residence, no child under age 6 resides there, no pregnant woman resides there, the housing is not a child-occupied facility, and the owner acknowledges that the renovation firm will not be required to use the work practices applicable to renovation activities. Also, the regulations do not require the performance of lead-based paint renovation activities, but establish requirements and procedures to follow when lead-based paint renovations are performed.
        Pursuant to Mississippi's statute and regulations, each department, agency, and instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or engaged in any activity resulting, or which may result, in a lead-based paint hazard, and each officer, agent, or employee thereof shall be subject to, and comply with all of the requirements of these regulations regarding lead-based paint renovation activities.
        The State regulatory requirements for the accreditation of lead-based paint activities training programs are consistent with the accreditation requirements of the Federal program. The Federal model plan was followed in developing the State accreditation requirements. All initial and refresher lead-based paint activities training programs must be accredited. Several requirements of the State accreditation program which are not included in the Federal regulations are: (1) A requirement that the principal instructors and guest instructors teaching hands-on work practice standards must successfully complete the training course requirements of the accredited training course to be taught; (2) a requirement that training programs notify the MDEQ prior to conducting a training course; and (3) a requirement that approval of a training program's lead-based paint activities course is contingent on a satisfactory on-site course audit.
        The State renovation certification program requirements include the certification of firms, renovators and dust sampling technicians. The State program certification requirements are essentially equivalent to the Federal requirements. Each certification discipline must meet required academic and/or experience requirements of the State program regulations to be certified. The State program will require renovators and dust sampling technicians to be certified with the certification to be renewed annually. Certification will enable the program to ensure individuals performing as renovators and dust sampling technicians are properly trained and qualified to perform those activities. Yearly renewals will enable the State program to conduct a more effective certification program. The certification will assist the program inspectors in assuring qualified individuals are on the work site.
        The State program work practice standards that must be followed by persons performing lead-based paint renovation activities in target housing and child-occupied facilities are equivalent to the work practice standards in the Federal regulations. The work practice standards in the Federal regulations were followed in developing the State work practice standards. An additional requirement of the State program (which is not included in the Federal program) requires the filing of a project notification, in writing, prior to the commencement of any lead-based paint renovation activity. The project notification requirement will assist in conducting an effective compliance and enforcement program.
        The State program provides for establishing reciprocity arrangements with other states and/or Indian Tribes with authorized programs which have certification, educational, and experience requirements consistent with those of the State of Mississippi and which grants equal certificating and accreditation privileges to persons certified and training programs accredited in Mississippi. This provision is consistent with the Federal regulations which encourage states to establish reciprocity procedures.

        The State renovation program will include the pre-renovation education program requirements of the Federal Pre-Renovation Education (PRE) program. These program requirements were adopted by the legislature during the 2009 legislative session. The pamphlet, Renovate Right: Important Lead Hazard Information for Families, Child Care Providers and Schools, must be distributed per the regulations prior to the beginning of any renovation project by a firm. Outreach activities have a high priority in the State program. The objective of the outreach program is to educate and make the public and regulated community aware of the hazards of lead-based paint. The outreach program will also inform the public and regulated community of the regulatory requirements applicable to lead-based paint activities. The overall goal of the outreach program is to protect the environment and health of the people within the State.
        The cost of the State program will be supported by Federal grants and fees. The fees will be assessed for certification of individuals and firms, accreditation of training programs and renovations projects.
        The Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality have adequate authority to administer and enforce all regulatory requirements of the State program. The enforcement authorities provided by State statutes and regulations are adequate to ensure the State program is as protective as the Federal program. The compliance and enforcement elements of the State program are comparable to the compliance and enforcement elements of the Federal program. As provided for in the Federal program, the State program provides for the suspension, revocation, or modification of training program accreditation and certifications of individuals and firms.
        IV. Federal Overfiling
        Section 404(b) of TSCA makes it unlawful for any person to violate, or fail or refuse to comply with, any requirement of an approved State program. Therefore, EPA reserves the right to exercise its enforcement authority under TSCA against a violation of, or a failure or refusal to comply with, any requirement of an authorized State program.
        V. Withdrawal of Authorization
        Pursuant to section 404(c) of TSCA, the EPA Administrator may withdraw authorization of a State or Indian Tribal renovation, repair and painting program, and/or a lead-based paint pre-renovation education program, after notice and opportunity for corrective action, if the program is not being administered or enforced in compliance with standards, regulations, and other requirements established under the authorization. The procedures U.S. EPA will follow for the withdrawal of an authorization are found at 40 CFR 745.324(i).

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR 745
          Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Lead Poisoning, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: August 11, 2011.
          A. Stanley Meiburg,
          Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

      [FR Doc. 2011-23257 Filed 9-9-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        RIN 1018-AF92; RIN 1018-AF95
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of Public Hearing on Critical Habitat for the Spectacled Eider and Steller's Eider

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; notice of public hearing.

          SUMMARY:
          The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) provides notice that a public hearing will be held on the proposed rules designating critical habitat for spectacled eider (Somateria fischeri) and Steller's eider (Polysticta stelleri). The spectacled eider and Steller's eider are found in marine waters and coastal wetlands in Alaska. All interested parties are invited to submit comments on these proposals.

          DATES:
          The public hearing will begin at 7 p.m. Monday, August 28, 2000, in Barrow, Alaska.

          ADDRESSES:
          The public hearing will be held at the Inupiat Heritage Center. Written data or comments on the spectacled eider should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Ecological Services Field Office, Anchorage, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 605 W. 4th Ave. Rm G-62, Anchorage, AK 99501; Fax: 907/271-2786. Written data or comments on the Steller's eider should be submitted to the Field Supervisor, Northern Alaska Ecological Services, 101 12th Ave., Rm 110, Fairbanks, AK, 99701.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          For spectacled eiders contact Ann G. Rappoport, Field Supervisor, Ecological Services Field Office, Anchorage, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 605 W. 4th Ave. Rm G-62, Anchorage, AK 99501; phone: 907/271-2787 or toll-free 800/272-4174; Fax: 907/271-2786. For Steller's eiders contact Ted Swem, Endangered Species Branch, at Northern Alaska Ecological Services, 101 12th Ave., Rm 110, Fairbanks, AK, 99701; phone: 907/456-0203; fax: 907/456-0208.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        The spectacled eider is a large seaduck found in marine waters and coastal areas from the Nushagak Peninsula of southwestern Alaska north to Barrow and east nearly to the Canadian Border. The species may be threatened by habitat degradation, lead poisoning, increased predation rates, and hunting and other human disturbance. The Steller's eider is a seaduck found in coastal and marine waters from the eastern Aleutian Islands around the western and northern coasts of Alaska to the Canada border. The Alaska-breeding population of this species is thought to have decreased significantly, but the causes of the suspected decline are unknown.

        On February 8, 2000, the Service published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the spectacled eider under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. On March 13, 2000, the Service published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Alaska-breeding population of the Steller's eider under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act requires that a public hearing be held if requested within 45 days of the proposal's publication in the Federal Register. Public hearing requests were received within the allotted time period from George Ahmaogak, Sr., Mayor, North Slope Borough, P.O. Box 69, Barrow, Alaska, and Mr. Jacob Adams, President, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, P.O. Box 129, Barrow, Alaska.

        The Service has scheduled this hearing for August 28, 2000, 7:00 p.m., in Barrow, Alaska. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement for the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement to be presented to the Service at the start of the hearing. Legal notices announcing the dates, time, and location of the hearing are being published in newspapers concurrently with the Federal Register notice. The Service has also scheduled the following public meetings in Alaska: Nuiqsut (August 21, 2000), Wainwright (August 23, 2000), Point Lay (August 24, 2000), and Atqasuk (August 25, 2000). Meetings will begin at 7:00 p.m. Hearing and meeting dates are subject to change depending on weather, flight schedules, and other local conditions.

        Written comments may be submitted until August 31, 2000, to the appropriate Service office as specified 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 from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In certain circumstances, we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this request prominently at the beginning of your comment. 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.
        The deadline for requesting public hearings on the proposed rule regarding critical habitat for the spectacled eider was March 24, 2000. The deadline for requesting public hearings for the proposed rule regarding critical habitat for Steller's eider was April 27, 2000. We have not extended these deadlines. In order to be considered valid, requests for public hearings must have been submitted in writing and received at the appropriate office by the relevant deadline.
        Author
        The primary author of this notice is Susan Detwiler, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Endangered Species, 1011 E. Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK 99503.

          Authority:

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

          Dated: July 21, 2000.
          David B. Allen,
          Regional Director, Region 7, Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 00-19183 Filed 7-28-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4310-55-P


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [DA 00-188; MM Docket No. 99-108; RM-9511; MM Docket No. 99-112; RM-9540; MM Docket No. 99-147; RM-9555]
        Radio Broadcasting Services; Sawpit, CO; Thermal, CA; Congress, AZ

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; denials.

          SUMMARY:

          This document denies three petitions for rule making filed by Mountain West Broadcasting proposing the allotment of new FM channels to Sawpit, Colorado (MM Docket No. 99-108; RM-9511), 64 FR 17139, April 8, 1999; Thermal, California (MM Docket No. 99-112; RM-9540), 64 FR 17142, April 8, 1999; and Congress, Arizona (MM Docket No. 99-147; RM-9555), 64 FR 26717, May 17, 1999, for failure to demonstrate each locality's status as a bona fide community for allotment purposes. With this action, the referenced proceedings are terminated.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-108; MM Docket No. 99-112; and MM Docket No. 99-147, adopted January 27, 2000, and released February 4, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 857-3800.

          List of Subjects 47 CFR Part 73
           Radio broadcasting.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          John A. Karousos,
          Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. 00-4083 Filed 2-18-00; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        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 COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [I.D. 012401D]
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (SEISs) for the Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Components of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP

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

          ACTION:
          Notification of intent to prepare an SEIS; request for comments; extension of the comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS recently announced its intention to prepare SEISs in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for the EFH components for both the Northeast Multispecies FMP and Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP.  NMFS will accept written comments to determine the range of management alternatives to be addressed in the SEISs to describe and identify EFH, minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH.  NMFS is extending the comment period for the submission of written comments to ensure opportunity for public comment.

          DATES:
          Written comments on the intent to prepare the SEISs must be received on or before 5 p.m., local time, April 4, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:
          Written comments on the intent to prepare the SEISs and requests for the scoping document or other information should be directed to the National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, Attn: Louis A. Chiarella. Telephone (978) 281-9277.  Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9301.  NMFS will not accept comments by e-mail or Internet.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Louis A. Chiarella, Essential Fish Habitat Coordinator, (Lou.Chiarella@noaa.gov), (978) 281-9277, fax (978) 281-9301.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On February 1, 2001 (66 FR 8568), NMFS published notification of its intention to prepare SEISs for the EFH components of the Northeast Multispecies FMP and Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP.  See the February 1, 2001, Federal Register notification for background and scoping information related to the development of these SEISs.  NMFS is extending the comment period so that written comments will now be accepted through April 4, 2001, rather than through March 5, 2001.

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

          Dated: February 27, 2001.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 01-5258 Filed 3-2-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S