        DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
        Fish and Wildlife Service
        50 CFR Part 17
        [FF09E21000 FXES11110900000212]
        Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Three Species

          AGENCY:
          Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

          ACTION:
          Notification of petition findings and initiation of status reviews.

          SUMMARY:

          We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce 90-day findings on two petitions to add species to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and one petition to remove a species (“delist”) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petitions to list the Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni) and western ridged mussel (Gonidea angulata) present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we announce that we plan to initiate status reviews of these species to determine whether the petitioned actions are warranted. We find that the petition to delist the golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted. Therefore, we are not initiating a status review of the species. To ensure that the status reviews are comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding the species and factors that may affect their status. Based on the status reviews, we will issue 12-month petition findings, which will address whether or not the petitioned actions are warranted, in accordance with the Act.

          DATES:
          These findings were made on July 27, 2021. As we commence our status reviews, we seek any new information concerning the status of, or threats to, the species or their habitats. Any information we receive during the course of our status reviews will be considered.

          ADDRESSES:

            Supporting documents: Summaries of the basis for the petition findings contained in this document are available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). In addition, this supporting information is available by contacting the appropriate person, as specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

            Status reviews: If you have new scientific or commercial data or other information concerning the status of, or threats to, the species for which we are initiating status reviews, please provide those data or information by one of the following methods:
          (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter the appropriate docket number (see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). Then, click on the “Search” button. After finding the correct document, you may submit information by clicking on “Comment Now!” If your information will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
          (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: [Insert appropriate docket number; see table under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION], U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

          We request that you send information only by the methods described above. We will post all information we receive on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

              Species common name
              Contact person

              Alexander Archipelago wolf

              Douglass Cooper, Ecological Services Branch Chief, Anchorage Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, 907-271-1467, Douglass_Cooper@fws.gov.

              Golden-cheeked warbler

              Adam Zerrener, Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 512-490-0057 x248, Adam_Zerrenner@fws.gov.

              Western ridged mussel

              Paul Henson, State Supervisor, Portland Ecological Services Field Office, 503-231-6179, paul_henson@fws.gov.

          If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, please call the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to, removing species from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists or List) in 50 CFR part 17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to add a species to the List (i.e., “list” a species), remove a species from the List (i.e., “delist” a species), or change a listed species' status from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered (i.e., “reclassify” a species) presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
        Our regulations establish that substantial scientific or commercial information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to credible scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be warranted (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i); before 2016, 50 CFR 424.14(b)).
        A species may be determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The five factors are:
        (a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
        (b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B);
        (c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
        (d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and
        (e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (Factor E).

        These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative effects or may have positive effects.
        We use the term “threat” to refer in general to actions or conditions that are known to, or are reasonably likely to, affect individuals of a species negatively. The term “threat” includes actions or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term “threat” may encompass—either together or separately—the source of the action or condition, or the action or condition itself. However, the mere identification of any threat(s) may not be sufficient to compel a finding that the information in the petition is substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The information presented in the petition must include evidence sufficient to suggest that these threats may be affecting the species to the point that the species may meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.

        If we find that a petition presents such information, our subsequent status review will evaluate all identified threats by considering the individual-, population-, and species-level effects and the expected response by the species. We will evaluate individual threats and their expected effects on the species, then analyze the cumulative effect of the threats on the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the threats in light of those actions and conditions that are expected to have positive effects on the species—such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts that may ameliorate threats. It is only after conducting this cumulative analysis of threats and the actions that may ameliorate them, and the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable future, that we can determine whether the species meets the definition of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.

        If we find that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the Act requires that we promptly commence a review of the status of the species, and we will subsequently complete a status review in accordance with our prioritization methodology for 12-month findings (81 FR 49248; July 27, 2016).
        Summaries of Petition Findings

        The petition findings contained in this document are listed in the table below, and the basis for each finding, along with supporting information, is available on http://www.regulations.gov under the appropriate docket number.

          Table—Status Reviews

            Common name
            Docket No.
            URL to docket on http://www.regulations.gov

            Alexander Archipelago wolf
            FWS-R7-ES-2020-0147

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R7-ES-2020-0147

            Golden-cheeked warbler
            FWS-R2-ES-2016-0062

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R2-ES-2016-0062

            Western ridged mussel
            FWS-R1-ES-2020-0150

              https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R1-ES-2020-0150

        Evaluation of a Petition To List Alexander Archipelago Wolf
        Species and Range
        Alexander Archipelago wolf (Canis lupus ligoni); Alaska and Canada.
        Petition History
        We received a petition on July 15, 2020, dated the same, from the Center for Biological Diversity, Alaska Rainforest Defenders, and Defenders of Wildlife, requesting that we list the Alexander Archipelago wolf as an endangered species or a threatened species and designate critical habitat for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding addresses the petition.
        Finding
        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for the Alexander Archipelago wolf due to potential threats associated with the following: Logging and road development (Factor A); illegal and legal trapping and hunting (Factor B); the effects of climate change (Factor E); and loss of genetic diversity and inbreeding depression (Factor E).

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2020-0147 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Evaluation of a Petition To Delist Golden-Cheeked Warbler
        Species and Range
        Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia = Setophaga chrysoparia); Texas, Mexico (Chiapas), and Central America (Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador).
        Petition History
        On December 27, 1990, the Service published in the Federal Register (55 FR 53153) a final rule to list the golden-cheeked warbler as an endangered species. On June 30, 2015, we received a petition dated June 29, 2015, from Nancie G. Marzulla (Marzulla Law, LLC—Washington, DC) and Robert Henneke (Texas Public Policy Foundation—Austin, TX) requesting that we remove the golden-cheeked warbler from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (“delist” the species) due to recovery or error in information. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at now 50 CFR 424.14(c) (before 2016, 50 CFR 424.14(a)).

        On December 11, 2015, we received supplemental information from the petitioners that included additional published studies and an unpublished report. These studies, as well as others known to the Service and in our files at the time the supplement was received, were considered, as appropriate. On June 3, 2016, we published in the Federal Register (81 FR 35698) our finding that the petition did not provide substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petition action may be warranted.
        The General Land Office of Texas (GLO) challenged our June 3, 2016, negative 90-day finding on the petition to delist. The District Court found in favor of the Service. The GLO appealed the June 3, 2016, 90-day finding that decision, and the Circuit Court vacated and remanded it to the Service. This finding addresses the petition in response to the court's decision.
        Finding

        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating the petitioned action may be warranted for the golden-cheeked warbler. Because the petition does not present substantial information indicating that delisting the golden-cheeked warbler may be warranted, we are not initiating a status review of this species in response to this petition. However, we ask that the public submit to us any new information that becomes available concerning the status of, or threats to, this species or its habitat at any time by contacting the appropriate person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

        The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0062 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Evaluation of a Petition To List Western Ridged Mussel
        Species and Range
        Western ridged mussel (Gonidea angulata); California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and the Canadian Province of British Columbia.
        Petition History
        On August 21, 2020, we received a petition dated August 18, 2020, from the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, requesting that we list the western ridged mussel as an endangered species and designate critical habitat for this species under the Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the requisite identification information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c).
        Finding

        Based on our review of the petition and sources cited in the petition, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted for the western ridged mussel due to potential threats associated with the following: Habitat destruction, modification, and curtailment of range; impacts to water quantity, water quality, and natural flow and temperature regimes; aquatic invasive species (Factor A); and disease (Factor C).

        We find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that regulatory mechanisms may be inadequate to ameliorate or reduce those threats (Factor D). We determined that the petition does not provide substantial documentation for the threats of overutilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes (Factor B) and loss of genetic diversity (Factor E). The basis for our finding on this petition, and other information regarding our review of the petition, can be found as an appendix at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2020-0150 under the Supporting Documents section.
        Conclusion
        On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the petitions under sections 4(b)(3)(A) and 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act, we have determined that the petitions summarized above for Alexander Archipelago wolf and western ridged mussel present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be warranted. We are, therefore, initiating status reviews of these species to determine whether the actions are warranted under the Act. At the conclusion of the status reviews, we will issue findings, in accordance with section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether the petitioned actions are not warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species. In addition, we have determined that the petition summarized above for the golden-cheeked warbler does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. We are, therefore, not initiating a status review of this species in response to this petition.
        Authors
        The primary authors of this document are staff members of the Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Authority

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

          Martha Williams,
          Principal Deputy Director Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

      [FR Doc. 2021-15497 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4333-15-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Parts 571 and 587
        [Docket No. NHTSA-01-10435]
        RIN 2127-AI05
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Side Impact Protection; Fuel System Integrity

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

          SUMMARY:
          Pursuant to the agency's grant of a petition for rulemaking from Mr. James E. Stocke, NHTSA proposes to update the Federal motor vehicle safety standards on side impact protection and fuel system integrity by requiring that radial tires of certain specifications, rather than bias ply tires, be used on the moving barriers specified in these standards. In conjunction with that proposal, NHTSA also proposes to delete certain outdated or incorrect specifications for the moving barriers in those standards.

          DATES:
          You should submit your written comments so that they are received by December 10, 2001.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit your comments in writing to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20590. Alternatively, you may submit your comments electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System (DMS) website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Help & Information” or “Help/Info” to view instructions for filing your comments electronically. Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the docket number of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

            For technical and policy issues: Dr. William Fan, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NPS-11, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-4922. Fax: (202) 366-4329.
          For legal issues: Nancy Bell, Attorney Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-20, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background
        Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 214, Side impact protection (49 CFR 571.214), and FMVSS No. 301, Fuel system integrity (49 CFR 571.301), specify impact tests using moving barriers. Paragraph S6.10 of FMVSS No. 214 contains specifications for a moving deformable barrier. FMVSS No. 301 contains specifications for two 1,814 kilogram (4,000 pound) rigid moving barriers, a flat rigid moving barrier (Paragraphs S7.2 and S7.3) 1
           and a contoured rigid moving barrier (Paragraph S7.5). Both FMVSS No. 301 barriers are used to assess vehicle fuel system integrity. The FMVSS No. 301 flat rigid moving barrier is used for testing passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less, and the FMVSS No. 301 contoured rigid barrier is used for testing large school buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). The FMVSS No. 214 barrier is a 1,367 kilogram (3,000 pound) moving deformable barrier used for testing passenger cars, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a GVWR of 2,722 kilograms (6,000 pounds) or less in side impact crashes. G78-15 bias ply tires are currently specified for the FMVSS No. 301 barriers.2

            1 The FMVSS No. 301 flat rigid moving barrier is identical to the moving barrier specified for the lateral moving barrier test in paragraph S8.2 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR 571.208). At this time, the tire specifications in S8.2 of FMVSS No. 208 will not be amended. FMVSS No. 208's lateral moving barrier crash test was part of an optional requirement for automatic restraint systems which can no longer be utilized by manufacturers to certify their vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers are currently required to fulfill a more stringent requirement by installing air bags and Type 2 seat belts in both front outboard designated seating positions.

            2 Paragraph S7.5.4 of FMVSS No. 301 specifies G78-15 bias ply tires for use on the contoured rigid moving barrier. The requirements for the FMVSS No. 301 flat rigid moving barrier do not specify bias ply tires, but, in practice, the flat rigid moving barrier utilizes the identical under-structure and G78-15 bias ply tires as the contoured rigid moving barrier.

        The tire specifications for the FMVSS No. 214 moving barrier are not set out in FMVSS No. 214. Rather, S6.10 of FMVSS No. 214 refers to the moving barrier specified in 49 CFR Part 587, Side Impact Moving Deformable Barrier. The tire specifications for that barrier are contained in Drawing DSL-1278, Sheet 2 of 2, Item -11 and Note 8. Item -11 specifies “Bias belted tire (BF Goodrich—G78-15 CLM).” On October 1991, Note 8 was added to drawing DSL-1278 that states “Bias belted tire, size P215/75B15, may be substituted for that specified in -11. Inflate to recommended pressure.”
        II. Petition for Rulemaking
        On February 3, 2000, Mr. James E. Stocke, a retired automotive safety engineer, submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 301 to require that the moving barrier assembly be equipped with P205/75R15 radial tires inflated to 207 kPa (30 psi), replacing the currently required G78-15 bias ply tires inflated to 165 kPa (24 psi).
        In his petition, Mr. Stocke stated that the bias tire size designation referenced in FMVSS No. 301 was outdated 15 years ago and that bias tires are no longer readily available because they have been replaced with radial tires. Mr. Stocke noted that the Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE) J972 Recommended Practice “Moving Barrier Collision Tests” was revised (in August 1997) to specify both P205/75R15 radial tires and G78-15 bias ply tires for use on moving barriers.3

            3 SAE is an organization which develops voluntary standards for aerospace, automotive and other industries. Many of SAE's recommended practices are developed using technical information supplied by vehicle manufacturers and automotive test laboratories.

        Additionally, Mr. Stocke stated that a P205/75R15 tire inflated to 207 kPa (30 psi) is equivalent to a G78-15 tire inflated to 165 kPa (24 psi). Also, he asserted that the tread width specification for the bias ply tire would not be necessary for a radial tire specification because the radial tire size designation (width to height ratio) is sufficient to define the tread width. Accordingly, Mr. Stocke suggested amending FMVSS No. 301 to read as follows: “The moving barrier assembly is equipped with P205/75R15 pneumatic tires inflated to 207 kPa.” In a letter dated August 16, 2000, NHTSA granted Mr. Stocke's petition for rulemaking.
        III. NHTSA's Response to Petition
        In reviewing Mr. Stocke's petition, we were guided by a number of considerations. First, with the increased use of the radial tire design over the past 30 years in the U.S., the bias ply tire design has become virtually obsolete.4
           The manufacture and use of bias ply tires has largely been replaced by the manufacture and use of radial tires. Consequently, bias tires are not readily available to testing laboratories at present and will become even more difficult for the laboratories to obtain in the future. Also, as the petitioner points out, the SAE Recommended Practice for “Moving Barrier Collision Tests” now includes specifications for radial tires as well as for bias ply tires. Both P205/75R15 and P215/75R15 radial tires are readily available at present and are widely recommended for use by vehicle manufacturers on passenger cars, small passenger vans, and small sport utility vehicles.

            4 According to the Rubber Manufacturers Association's “Factbook 2000,” original equipment radial tires shipment sales surpassed those of bias ply tires by a wide margin in the early 1970s. In 1999, radial tires shipments comprised 99.8% of the replacement market.

        Another consideration for the agency is the possible effect on ride height (the height at the center of gravity) and vertical motion (bounce) of a moving barrier if tires different from those currently specified in FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301 are used on those barriers. Bias ply tires and radial tires are different in design and construction, and they exhibit different performance characteristics. For instance, bias ply tires have their inner carcass cords laid at an angle of about 50 degrees to the center line of the tread, and cords in successive plies (two or four) usually run in a criss-cross fashion—an arrangement which serves to equalize cord tensions. On the other hand, radial tires have cords which run at right angles to the center line of the tread and parallel to the radius of the tire. The radial construction creates a tread which is stiffer and a sidewall which is more flexible than that of a bias ply tire. These factors may affect the performance of moving barriers as discussed below.
        The moving barrier tests in FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301 specify a static barrier ride height, an important impact parameter measurement. Further, the Laboratory Test Procedure in FMVSS No. 214 provides a guideline for barrier vertical displacement. Because a radial tire has a lower profile and a more flexible sidewall than a bias ply tire, the use of radial tires, rather than bias ply tires, on the moving barriers specified in FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301 could affect the barrier ride height (the center of gravity height and/or barrier contact height). Additionally, if an improper tire inflation pressure is used, it may affect the barrier's vertical motion as it is being towed during the test.
        IV. Related Barrier Tire Research
        P215/75R15 Radial Tires
        Recently, Ford Motor Company (Ford) conducted a barrier tire study (Ford Study) to better understand the effect of tires on testing done pursuant to FMVSS No. 214 and 96/27/EC, the European Union side impact directive.5
           This study included investigating vertical and horizontal displacements of the barriers, quantifying cart/barrier behavior at impact, and evaluating factors that may contribute to noncompliance with the requirements of the regulations.

            5 Ford engineers have provided a copy of their summary report to NHTSA. Test details are not currently available. A copy of the summary report is available in the docket for this Notice.

        The Ford Study was based on data derived from 34 U.S. side impact tests and 16 European side impact tests conducted in 1997.6
           Three principal variables in the study were (1) release mechanisms (pins/chains), (2) tire types (bias/radial) and (3) tire pressures (103 kPa (15 psi)/221 kPa (32 psi)). The study indicated that all 34 U.S. side impact tests were within the horizontal displacement specification of +/−50 mm (2 inches) and approximately three-fourths of the tests were within the vertical displacement guideline of +/−20 mm (0.8 inch). More specifically, the test data indicated that the barriers with the P215/75R15 radial tires inflated to 221 kPa (32 psi) were able to meet the +/−20 mm (0.8 inch) guideline in almost 100% of the tests. After careful review of this extensive study, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the P215/75R15 radial tire inflated to 221 kPa (32 psi) is an appropriate alternative to the G78-15 bias ply tire for use on the FMVSS No. 214 barrier.

            6 The Ford Study recommended conducting eight additional tests to measure the barrier motion. Ford did not conduct the additional tests because it concluded that no new information would be derived from resulting data. NHTSA concurs with Ford's decision that the 34 Ford side impact tests and the 16 European tests provide a sufficient data basis for analysis.

        P205/75R15 Radial Tires
        As mentioned previously, SAE J972 was recently revised to specify that P205/75R15 radial tires inflated to 207 kPa (30 psi), as well as G78-15 bias ply tires inflated to 165 kPa (24 psi), may be used on all 1,814 kilogram (4,000 pound) moving barriers. Because SAE will not issue a Recommended Practice that has not been approved by its test engineers and auto industry representatives, NHTSA believes that vehicle manufacturers and their test laboratories have already tested and accepted the revised SAE J972 Recommended Practice. NHTSA, following the SAE Recommended Practice, tentatively concludes that the P205/75R15 tires inflated to 207 kPa (30 psi) are appropriate for use on both of the 1,814 kilogram (4,000 pound) moving barriers specified in FMVSS No. 301. Accordingly, NHTSA has tentatively concluded that the P205/75R15 radial tires inflated to 207 kPa (30 psi) is an appropriate alternative to the G78-15 bias ply tire for use on the FMVSS No. 301 barriers.
        V. Agency Proposal
        A. Radial Tire Size and Inflation Pressure
        While NHTSA has tentatively made conclusions concerning the use of one tire (the P215/75R15 tire inflated to 221 kPa (32 psi)) for the FMVSS No. 214 moving barrier and another tire (the P205/75R15 tire inflated to 207 kPa (30 psi)) for the FMVSS No. 301 moving barriers, the agency recognizes that it would be easier for test laboratories to use only one size tires for FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301 moving barriers. The agency therefore proposes specifying either P215/75R15 tires inflated to 221 kPa (32 psi) for use on FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301 moving barriers or P205/75R15 tires inflated to 207 kPa (30 psi) for use on FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301 moving barriers. In other words, NHTSA plans to pick one of these tires and specify it in the final rule for both barriers.
        As discussed above, the ride height and vertical motion of a moving barrier determine the impact location and the height of the moving barrier can have an effect on test results. Prior to making a final decision, the agency will assess the extent to which the substitution of a single tire may have unintended effects on either (1) the ride height, or (2) the impact performance of the FMVSS Nos. 214 and 301 moving barriers. For example, in attempting to find a set of appropriate radial tires (tire size and inflation pressure) for use on the FMVSS No. 214 barrier, NHTSA is concerned that a set of four incorrectly inflated tires could result in excessive barrier vertical motion during the towing process, which could make it difficult to stay within the +/−20 mm (0.8 inch) vertical displacement guideline.7
           NHTSA solicits comments and laboratory test data concerning these matters.

            7 To control the impact height in the impact test in FMVSS No. 214, NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance specifies a vertical displacement guideline of +/−20 mm (0.8 inch) in its Laboratory Test Procedure. (This guideline only applies to NHTSA contractors conducting FMVSS No. 214 side impact compliance tests.)

        B. Other Issues
        Tread Width
        NHTSA concurs with petitioner's comments that the tread width specification for radial tires is not necessary since the radial tire size designation is sufficient to define tread width. For instance, the first three numbers in the P205/75R15 radial tire designation indicate that the tire width is 205 mm. The Tire and Rim Association, Inc. Yearbooks contain a chart to define the maximum dimensions of grown tires in service.8
           According to the chart, the maximum tire tread width of a 75 series aspect ratio tire is 80 percent of the overall width. Mr. Stocke is correct that the tread width of P205/75R15 tires (205 mm × 0.8 = 164 mm) is within the specification in FMVSS No. 301 for tire width of 152 mm +/−25 mm (6.0 in. +/−1.0 in.). Likewise, the P215/75R15 tires are within that specification (215 mm × 0.8 = 172 mm). In addition, FMVSS No. 214 does not specify any tire tread width. Therefore, NHTSA proposes that the tread width specification be deleted from the tire specifications in FMVSS No. 301.

            8 A “grown” tire means that a tire has experienced a growth or a stretch of its fabric during service. Some tire tables show an allowance on the maximum tire dimensions to compensate for this “growth.” To prevent the tire from rubbing the vehicle, vehicle manufacturers use this maximum number in their vehicle designs.

        Moments of Inertia
        Data received from NHTSA's contractors and from the Vehicle Research and Test Center at East Liberty, Ohio (VTRC) indicate that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to construct the FMVSS No. 301 contoured moving barrier in accordance with both the center of gravity and the moments of inertia specified in FMVSS No. 301.9

            9 The moment of inertia is the quantitative measure of the rotational inertia of a body, i.e., the opposition that the body exhibits to having its speed of rotation about an axis altered by the application of a torque (turning force).

        The FMVSS No. 301 moving contoured barrier test was initially based on an old SAE Recommended Practice which included specifications for moments of inertia, as well as dimensional drawings and a specified center of gravity. In its rulemaking for the FMVSS No. 301 contoured moving barrier (40 FR 18469, April 28, 1975; 40 FR 47790, October 15, 1975), NHTSA retained the SAE Recommended Practice specifications of measurement, but made modifications to the original SAE design by lowering the front face of the barrier design by 178 mm (7 inches). With this modification, the moments of inertia derived from the SAE Recommended Practice are difficult to achieve. However, there has been no reason to believe that the actual barriers utilized by the agency and by manufacturers have yielded inappropriate results.
        Based on the current measurements, excepting the moments of inertia, the FMVSS No. 301 contoured moving barrier can be constructed to the barrier specifications with the dimensional drawings and the specified center of gravity. There are no moments of inertia specified for the FMVSS No. 301 flat moving barrier. Therefore, NHTSA proposes that the moment of inertia specifications for the contoured moving barrier be removed from FMVSS No. 301.
        VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
        Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulation) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

        This notice has not been reviewed under E.O. 12866. After considering the impacts of this rulemaking action, we have determined that the action is not significant within the meaning of the Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. The intent of the rulemaking action is to update regulatory procedures that have been in effect for over 25 years. In most cases, the effect of the proposed amendments would be to relax or eliminate burdens on regulated entities. This action does not involve a substantial public interest or controversy. The rulemaking action would not have a substantial impact on any transportation safety program or on state and local governments. The impacts are so minimal as not to warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation. The tires specified in the proposed rule are more readily available than those currently specified, and they are already widely recommended by voluntary standards organizations for use by vehicle manufacturers for testing. Accordingly, there will be no increase in the cost of tires used for testing, and we do not anticipate any impact on the ability to conduct valid tests or any other impact on the cost or ease of testing.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have evaluated the effects of this rule on small entities. NHTSA certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action merely replaces an outdated tire specification for testing devices with an equivalent current tire specification.
        Paperwork Reduction Act

        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et. seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. NHTSA has reviewed this proposal and determined that it does not contain collection of information requirements.
        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

        This rule would not impose a Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
        Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)
        This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under section 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
        Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
        We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
        Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
        This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
        National Environmental Policy Act

        The agency has analyzed this action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that this action would not have any effect on the quality of the environment.
        Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), revokes and replaces E.O.'s 12612 “Federalism” and 12875 “Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership.” E.O. 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” E.O. 13132 defines the term “Policies that have federalism implications” to include regulations that 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.” Under E.O. 13132, NHTSA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implication, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or NHTSA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
        The 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 as specified in E.O. 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
        Plain Language
        E.O. 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. Application of the principles of plain language include consideration of the following questions:
        —Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
        —Are the requirements in the proposed rule clearly stated?
        —Does the proposed rule contain technical language or jargon that is unclear?
        —Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of heading, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
        —Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
        —Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
        —What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?
        If you have any responses to these questions, please include them in your comments on this document.
        VII. Comments
        How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?
        Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
        Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We 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. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

        Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES.

        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 two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management 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 that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
        How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

        You may read the comments received by Docket Management 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, take the following steps:
        (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
        (2) On that page, click on “search.”
        (3) On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number were “NHTSA-1999-1234,” you would type “1234.” After typing the docket number, click on “search.”
        (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments.
        You may download the comments. However, since the comments are imaged documents, instead of word processing documents, the downloaded comments are not word searchable.
        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.

          List of Subjects
          49 CFR Part 571
          Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.
          49 CFR Part 587
          Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety.

        In consideration of the foregoing, we propose to amend 49 CFR parts 571 and 587 as follows:

          PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
          1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30166 and 30177; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          2. Section 571.301 would be amended by revising S7.5.2, S7.5.4 and S7.5.5; by removing S7.5.6; and by adding S7.6 to read as follows:

            § 571.301
            Standard No. 301; Fuel system integrity.

            S7.5.2 The moving contoured barrier, including the impact surface, supporting structure, and carriage, has a mass of 1,814 kg ± 23 kg with the mass distributed so that 408 kg ± 11 kg is at each rear wheel and 499 kg ± 11 kg is at each front wheel. The center of gravity is located 1,372 mm ± 38 mm rearward of the front wheel axis, in the vertical longitudinal plane of symmetry, 401 mm above the ground.

            S7.5.4 The concrete surface upon which the vehicle is tested is level, rigid, and of uniform construction, with a skid number of 75 when measured in accordance with American Society of Testing and Materials Method E; 274-65T at 64 km/h, omitting water delivery as specified in paragraph 7.1 of that method.
            S7.5.5 The barrier assembly is released from the guidance mechanism immediately prior to impact with the vehicle.
            S7.6
            [Alternative 1]
            The moving barrier assemblies specified in S7.2, S7.3 and S7.5 are equipped with P215/75R15 pneumatic tires inflated to 221 kPa.
            [Alternative 2]
            The moving barrier assemblies specified in S7.2, S7.3 and S7.5 are equipped with P205/75R15 pneumatic tires inflated to 207 kPa.

            3. Figure 2 at the end of section 571.301 would be revised to read as follows: [blank page for figure 2]

            BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

              EP10OC01.010

            BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

          PART 587—DEFORMABLE BARRIERS
          4. The authority citation for part 587 would continue to read as follows:

            Authority:
            49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166 and 30177; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          5. Section 587.6 would be amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:

            § 587.6
            General description.

            (b)(1) The specifications for the final assembly of the moving deformable barrier are provided in the drawings shown in DSL-1278, dated [date of the final drawing change].

            Issued on: October 4, 2001.
            Stephen R. Kratzke,
            Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

      [FR Doc. 01-25428 Filed 10-9-01; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Railroad Administration
        49 CFR Part 299
        [Docket No. FRA-2019-0068, Notice No. 4]
        RIN 2130-AC84
        Texas Central Railroad High-Speed Rail Safety Standards

          AGENCY:
          Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; announcement of telephonic public hearings and comment period extension.

          SUMMARY:
          On March 10, 2020, FRA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would establish safety standards for the Texas Central Railroad (TCRR) high speed rail system. On March 12, 2020, FRA announced three public hearings to provide members of the public an opportunity to provide oral comments on the proposed safety requirements, which were subsequently postponed on March 30, 2020. FRA is now announcing the rescheduling of the public hearings. Additionally, FRA is extending the comment period to May 26, 2020, to afford members of the public time to comment on opinions and views expressed during these hearings, that will be captured in a transcript of the proceedings and placed in the rulemaking docket.

          DATES:
          The comment period for the proposed rule published on March 10, 2020 (85 FR 14036), is extended and now closes on May 26, 2020. Written comments in response to views or information provided at the public hearings must be received by May 26, 2020.
          The public hearings will be conducted on the following dates at the following times (members of the public will be able to call into each telephonic hearing 30 minutes prior to the start of each hearing):
          • Hearing 1: May 4, 2020, from 5 p.m. (EDT) to 10 p.m. (EDT).
          • Hearing 2: May 5, 2020, from 6 p.m. (EDT) to 10 p.m. (EDT).
          • Hearing 3: May 6, 2020, from 6 p.m. (EDT) to 10 p.m. (EDT).

          ADDRESSES:

          Written comments in response to views or information provided at the public hearings may be submitted by any of the methods listed in the NPRM. See 85 FR 14036.

          The public hearings will be held telephonically. For more logistical information on the public hearings please visit https://railroads.dot.gov/legislation-regulations/TCRR-NPRM. Please note that participation in each hearing will be limited to the first 300 callers.
          Dial-in phone numbers and participant access codes for each hearing are as follows:
          • Hearing 1: Phone number: 844-721-7241; participant access code: 6322460.
          • Hearing 2: Phone number: 844-721-7241; participant access code: 6441451.
          • Hearing 3: Phone number: 844-291-5491; participant access code: 8976262.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Mr. Kenton Kilgore, Program Analyst, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Safety (telephone: (202) 493-6286; email: Kenton.Kilgore@dot.gov); or Mr. Michael Hunter, Attorney Adviser, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief Counsel, (telephone: (202) 493-0368; email: Michael.Hunter@dot.gov).

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Prior Public Engagement as Part of the Environmental Review Process

        In its March 12, 2020, announcement of the public hearings, FRA briefly discussed prior public engagement that was part of the environmental review process. See 84 FR 14449. While not repeating that discussion here, FRA still wishes to draw attention to those prior opportunities, reiterate that it is considering all comments received, and make clear that it will provide responses to the comments submitted during the public comment period for the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) in the final EIS. FRA anticipates releasing the final EIS in late Spring of this year.
        Public Hearings To Receive Oral Comment on the NPRM—Purpose and Scope

        As stated above, FRA published the NPRM proposing safety requirements specific to the TCRR high-speed rail system, and opened the public comment period on March 10, 2020. See 85 FR 14036. On March 12, 2020, FRA announced it had scheduled three public hearings to be conducted in Dallas, Navasota, and Houston, Texas, between March 31 and April 2, 2020. See 85 FR 14449.
        However, in light of the President's March 13, 2020, Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance to cancel mass gatherings of people,1

           FRA postponed the three public hearings in a March 30, 2020 Federal Register publication (85 FR 17527). FRA is now announcing the rescheduling of those hearings to provide an opportunity for additional public participation. Consistent with CDC guidelines advising against in-person gatherings,2
           FRA has decided to convene three telephonic public hearings. The choice to conduct these hearings telephonically represents merely a change in the manner of public engagement. As the medium of these hearings is telephonic (there is no web-based application being used as part of these hearings), members of the public, regardless of phone technology used, will be able to participate.3
           FRA anticipates being able to accommodate the same number of participants at each telephonic hearing as during the in-person hearings, and does not believe there will be any degradation in the quality of the opinions and views expressed during a telephonic hearing, as compared to an in-person hearing. Further, FRA will consider all comments received during these telephonic hearings just as it would if the comments were received at an in-person hearing.

            1 See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/mass-gatherings-ready-for-covid-19.html.

            2 Id.

            3 Please note that FRA is not making any representations about the connection of any one member of the public's individual phone. Technical issues that arise between a member of the public and their individual phone provider are outside of FRA's control.

        As with the in-persons hearings, members of the public are invited to present oral statements, and to offer information and views about the technical safety requirements proposed in the NPRM at the upcoming hearings. Unlike the public hearings conducted for the environmental review, the purpose and scope of these hearings is to receive oral comments only on the technical safety requirements proposed in the NPRM and its associated economic analysis. The NPRM public hearings are not a forum for debate on the merits of the project as a whole, or to provide comment on proceedings outside of the NPRM, such as the environmental review process. Rather, the NPRM hearings are meant to help inform FRA's decisions regarding the technical safety requirements proposed in the NPRM and its associated economic analysis. The hearings on the NPRM will be conducted by representatives of FRA designated under FRA's Rules of Practice (49 CFR 211.25). The rules of evidence will not apply. The hearings will be informal, which means that they are non-adversarial proceedings and there will be no cross examination of persons presenting statements or offering evidence. These hearings are an opportunity to provide relevant technical information to FRA regarding the proposed requirements and associated economic analysis, and a mechanism to place that information in the record for review and consideration by FRA.
        Exemption for Technological Improvements—Proceedings Under 49 U.S.C. 20306
        As a part of only Hearing 1, FRA will conduct proceedings under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to determine whether to invoke its discretionary authority to provide relief to TCRR from certain requirements of 49 U.S.C. ch. 203 for its planned operation of new high-speed trainsets built to the proposed requirements contained in the NPRM. FRA will conduct these proceedings during the first hour of the hearing.
        Under 49 U.S.C. 20306, FRA may exempt TCRR from the above-identified statutory requirements based on evidence received and findings developed at a hearing demonstrating that the statutory requirements “preclude the development or implementation of more efficient railroad transportation equipment or other transportation innovations under existing law.” Accordingly, to receive such evidence and develop findings to determine whether FRA should invoke its discretionary authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306 in this instance, proceedings will be conducted as part of Hearing 1 scheduled for Monday, May 4, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. (EDT). Interested parties are invited to present oral statements at the hearing regarding the technical information presented in the NPRM addressing the application of 49 U.S.C. ch. 203. Again, as mentioned above, this part of the proceedings will be an informal hearing limited in scope to the technical information presented regarding the proposed requirements concerning safety appliances, and is not a forum to generally debate the project or other proceedings outside of the rulemaking.

        In its rulemaking petition, submitted April 16, 2016, TCRR requested FRA exercise its authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to exempt its high-speed passenger rail trainsets from the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 20302, mandating that railroad vehicles be equipped with (1) secure sill steps and efficient hand brakes; (2) secure grab irons or handholds on vehicle ends and sides for greater security to individuals coupling and uncoupling vehicles; and (3) the standard height of drawbars. See 49 U.S.C. 20302(a)(1)(B), (a)(2), and (a)(3).

        In support of its request for an exemption, TCRR noted in its petition that safety appliances such as sill steps or end or side handholds are typically used in conventional North American practice by maintenance personnel who ride the side of trainsets in yards or maintenance facilities for marshalling operations. The N700 series trainset, as proposed in the NPRM, is a fixed-consist trainset where trainset make-up only occurs in defined locations where maintenance personnel can safely climb on, under, or between the equipment, consistent with the protections afforded under 49 CFR part 218. Additionally, the leading and trailing ends of the N700 series trainset are equipped with an automatic coupler located behind a removable shroud. These couplers, as proposed by TCRR, will only be used for rescue operations in accordance with TCRR's operating rules, and provide for the safe coupling of one trainset to another (i.e., each end will have automatic self-centering couplers that couple to other trainsets on impact and uncouple by mechanisms that do not require a person to go between trainsets or the activation of a traditional uncoupling lever). Further, as proposed, level boarding will be provided at all locations in trainset maintenance facilities where crew and maintenance personnel are normally required to access or disembark trainsets. Moreover, because the equipment is a fixed-consist trainset in which individual vehicles are semi-permanently coupled and, as noted above, individual vehicles can only be disconnected in repair facilities where personnel can work on, under, or between units under protections consistent with 49 CFR part 218, TCRR asserts that having drawbars at the statutorily prescribed height is unnecessary.

        As such, TCRR believes there is not a functional need to equip the ends of the trainsets with sill steps, end or side handholds, or uncoupling levers. As this technology is intended to operate at high-speeds, the inclusion of these appurtenances would have a significant and detrimental impact on the aerodynamics of the trainset. This increase in the aerodynamic footprint would negatively impact both efficiency and aerodynamic noise emissions according to TCRR.
        TCRR also noted that trainset securement will be provided using wheel chocks in addition to stringent operating rules and procedures, which will be consistent with the service-proven procedures utilized on the Tokaido Shinkansen. Additionally, as proposed in the NPRM, TCRR will be required to demonstrate, as part of its vehicle qualification procedures, that the procedures effectively secure the trainset (see proposed § 299.607).
        In sum, TCRR asserted that requiring compliance with the identified statutory requirements would serve to preclude the development or implementation of more efficient railroad transportation equipment or other transportation innovations under existing law.
        Procedures for Public Participation in the Hearings on the NPRM
        At each NPRM hearing, FRA representatives will make opening statements reiterating the scope of the hearing as described above, and any relevant procedures to be followed at the hearing. Following FRA's opening statements, there will be an opportunity for members of the public to present a brief oral comment on the record. Time permitting, FRA will allow everyone who desires to provide an oral comment at a hearing the opportunity to do so. Those members of the public wishing to make a statement at the hearing will be required to follow those procedures announced at the hearings to indicate a desire to make a statement.
        FRA will generally limit the duration of individual presentations, as necessary, to afford all persons who wish to speak the opportunity to do so. However, during the proceedings under 49 U.S.C. 20306, conducted as part of Hearing 1, TCRR may be afforded additional time to present information to support its request for FRA to invoke its discretionary authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306.
        At each hearing, FRA will announce additional procedures that may be necessary for the conduct of the hearing, including the specific time limit for individual presentations. FRA reserves the right to limit participation in the hearing of persons who exceed their allotted time, or who discuss topics or issues outside the scope of the proposed rulemaking.
        The proceedings will be recorded, with transcripts prepared. FRA will add the transcripts of the hearings to the public docket in this rulemaking proceeding.

        For information on services for persons with disabilities, please contact FRA Program Analyst, Mr. Kenton Kilgore, at least 5 working days before the date of the hearing by one of the means listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
        Extension of Comment Period
        As the comment period for the NPRM published on March 10, 2020, closes on May 11, 2020, and the public hearings are scheduled for May 4-6, 2020, FRA is extending the comment period so that it now closes on May 26, 2020. FRA is extending the comment period so that members of the public have adequate time to review and provide written comments on the transcripts of the three public hearings conducted. All written comments must now be submitted by May 26, 2020. Written comments submitted after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
        FRA notes that it received numerous requests not to hold “virtual hearings,” due to concerns over the lack of reliable high-speed internet access, and/or to indefinitely postpone hearings until they can be safely held in person. In response, FRA has shifted these hearings to telephone-only hearings, which will be able to accommodate the same number of participants as the previously scheduled in-person hearings, in a manner that is consistent with ensuring public health, and that does not require any technology beyond a telephone. We have also extended the comment period to ensure the opportunity to comment on any safety issues raised in the hearing. However, given the extensive public outreach already conducted related to this proposed rule, and the supplementary nature of the public hearings as related to the opportunity to provide detailed written comments on the proposed rule, in consultation with Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, FRA has determined that there is no need to further postpone the public hearings or further extend the comment period.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on April 13, 2020.
          John Karl Alexy,
          Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.

      [FR Doc. 2020-08015 Filed 4-13-20; 4:15 pm]
      BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 395
        [Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0248]
        RIN 2126-AC19
        Hours of Service of Drivers

          AGENCY:
          Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

          ACTION:
          Notice of public listening sessions.

          SUMMARY:
          The FMCSA announces that it will hold two public listening sessions concerning potential changes to its hours-of-service rules for truck drivers. On August 19, 2019, FMCSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on proposed changes to its hours-of-service (HOS) requirements to provide greater flexibility for drivers who are subject to the HOS rules without adversely affecting safety. The listening sessions will be held in Dallas, TX, and Washington, DC. The listening sessions will allow interested persons to present comments, views, and relevant research on topics mentioned above. All comments will be transcribed and placed in the rulemaking docket for the FMCSA's consideration. The sessions will be webcast to allow interested parties to participate remotely.

          DATES:

          The first listening session will be held on August 23, 2019, in Dallas, TX, at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center, 650 S Griffin St., Dallas, TX 75202. A subsequent listening session will be held in September 2019, at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Media Center in Washington, DC. FMCSA will publish a separate notice announcing the headquarters session in the Federal Register. All listening sessions will begin at 10:00 a.m. local time and end at 12:00 noon or earlier, if all participants wishing to express their views have done so.

          DATES:
          The August 23, 2019, session will be held at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center, 650 S Griffin St. Dallas, TX 75202. The September 2019, session will be held at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Media Center (date TBD), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
          You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2018-248 using any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
          • Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
          • Fax: 202-493-2251.
          • Submissions Containing Confidential Business Information (CBI): Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

          To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments, including collection of information comments for the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          For special accommodations for any of these HOS listening sessions, such as sign language interpretation, contact Shannon L. Watson, Senior Policy Advisor, (202) 385-2395 or at FMCSAregs@dot.gov to allow us to arrange for such services. For information concerning the hours-of-service rules, contact Ms. La Tonya Mimms, Chief, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, (202) 366-4325, mcpsd@dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        A. Submitting Comments

        If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0248), indicate the specific section of this document to which each section applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
        To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, put the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0248, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
        If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
        FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period for the ANPRM. Late comments will be considered to the extent practicable.
        Confidential Business Information
        Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your submission contains commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the listening session, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark any page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM and associated listening sessions. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Any commentary that FMCSA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
        FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period for the NPRM.
        B. Viewing Comments and Documents

        To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0248, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
        C. Privacy Act

        In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking 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.dot.gov/privacy.

        II. Background
        On August 14, 2019, FMCSA issued an NPRM concerning amendments to its hours-of-service (HOS) requirements to provide greater flexibility for drivers who are subject to the HOS rules without adversely affecting safety. First, the Agency proposed to change the short-haul exception to the record of duty status (RODS) requirement available to certain commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers by lengthening the drivers' maximum on-duty period from 12 to 14 hours and extending the distance limit within which the driver may operate from 100 air miles (115.08 statute miles) to 150 air miles (172.6 statute miles). Second, the Agency proposed to modify the adverse driving conditions exception by extending by 2 hours the maximum window during which driving is permitted. Third, the Agency proposed to increase flexibility for the 30-minute break rule by requiring a break after 8 hours of driving time (instead of on-duty time), and allowing the requirement to be satisfied by an on-duty break from driving, rather than requiring an off-duty break. Fourth, the Agency proposed to modify the sleeper-berth exception to allow drivers to split their required 10-hours off duty into two periods: One period of at least 7 consecutive hours in the sleeper berth and the other period of not less than 2 consecutive hours, either off duty or in the sleeper berth. Neither period would count against the driver's 14-hour driving window. Fifth, the Agency proposed to allow one off-duty break of at least 30 minutes, but not more than 3 hours, that would pause a truck driver's 14-hour driving window, provided the driver takes 10 consecutive hours off-duty at the end of the work shift. The NPRM also posed questions about other HOS-related topics the Agency is considering as part of this rulemaking.
        The listening sessions will provide interested persons the opportunity to share their views on these topics with representatives of the Agency.
        III. Meeting Participation
        The listening sessions are open to the public. Speakers' remarks will be limited to 10 minutes each. The public may submit material to the FMCSA staff at each session for inclusion in the public docket, FMCSA-2018-0248.

          Issued on: August 14, 2019.
          Raymond P. Martinez,
          Administrator.

      [FR Doc. 2019-17837 Filed 8-15-19; 11:15 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 697
        [Docket No.  010918229-1229-01; I.D.  022301A]
        RIN 0648-AP15
        American Lobster Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of the comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          In a document published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2002, NMFS requested comments on proposed regulations to implement proposed management measures for the American lobster fishery in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) from Maine through North Carolina on or before February 19, 2002.  This proposed rule document considers revisions to Federal American lobster regulations that are designed to be compatible with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster.  The intent of this document is to announce an extension of the public comment period from February 19, 2002, to February 28, 2002.

          DATES:
          Receipt of comments on the proposed rule is extended from February 19, 2002, to February 28, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on the proposed rule should be sent to, and copies of supporting documents, including a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Regulatory Impact Review and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, are available from the Director, State, Federal and Constituent Programs Office, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.  Comments regarding the collection-of-information requirements contained in the proposed rule should be sent to Harry Mears at the above address, and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 (ATTN: NOAA Desk Officer).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Robert Ross, NMFS, Northeast Region, 978-281-9234.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        As announced in the Federal Register on January 3, 2002 (67 FR 282), NMFS requested comments on proposed regulations to implement proposed management measures for the American lobster fishery in the EEZ from Maine through North Carolina on or before February 19, 2002.  In a letter to the NMFS Northeast Regional Administrator dated January 7, 2002, the Commission requested an extension of the public comment period to allow for full discussion and public comment on the proposed Federal American lobster regulations at a public meeting of the Commission’s American Lobster Board scheduled to occur during the week of February 18, 2002.  Therefore, by this document, NMFS is extending the public comment period from February 19, 2002, to February 28, 2002.  There were no changes from the proposed rule previously published.

          Dated: January 25, 2002.
          Jon Kurland,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-2404 Filed 1-30-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE  3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 697
        [Docket No. 130705590-3590-01]
        RIN 0648-BD45
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act Provisions; American Lobster Fishery

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

          ACTION:
          Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          Based on Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) recommendations, the NMFS is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to provide background information and request public comment on potential changes to Federal American lobster regulations. The proposed measures for the lobster trap fishery are intended to address the Commission's recommendations for Federal action to address the poor condition of the Southern New England (SNE) lobster stock and foster stock rebuilding. The rulemaking action considers management measures that would reduce lobster exploitation by 10 percent and reduce trap fishing effort in the SNE lobster management areas.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before September 19, 2013.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2013-0110, by any of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2013-0110, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope: “Comments on American Lobster ANPR.”
          • Fax: 978-281-9135; Attn: Allison Murphy

            Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Allison Murphy, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9122, fax (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The American lobster fishery is managed by the Commission under Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster (ISFMP). Since 1997, the Commission has coordinated the efforts of the states and Federal Government toward sustainable management of the American lobster fishery. We, NMFS, manage the portion of the fishery conducted in Federal waters from 3 to 200 miles offshore, based on management recommendations made by the Commission.

        The American lobster management unit is divided between three lobster stocks and seven lobster conservation management areas (Areas). Recent data indicate that the SNE American lobster stock, which includes all or part of six Areas, is at a low level of abundance and is experiencing persistent recruitment failure, caused by a combination of environmental factors and continued fishing mortality. The Commission opted to address the poor condition of the SNE stock in two phases: First by reducing lobster exploitation by 10 percent through the adoption of multiple management measures in Addendum XVII in February 2012; and, second, by scaling the fishery to the size of the SNE stock through lobster trap reductions as mandated in Addendum XVIII, adopted in August 2012. Copies of the Addenda are available on the Commission's Web site at: http://www.asmfc.org/.

        To achieve a 10-percent reduction in exploitation of the SNE American lobster stock under Addendum XVII, the Commission recommended several effort control measures for Areas 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 to reduce the amount of American lobsters harvested from these Areas. We plan to develop proposed and final rules to implement these measures, which include: Minimum size increases; mandatory v-notching of egg-bearing female lobsters; and seasonal closures. See Table 1 for specific management measures by Area.

          Table 1—Addendum XVII Management Measure Changes

            Management measures
            Area 2
            Area 3
            Area 4
            Area 5
            Area 6

            V-Notching*
            Mandatory for legal-sized egg-bearing females
            n/a
            Mandatory for legal-sized egg-bearing females
            Mandatory for legal-sized egg-bearing females
            n/a.

            New Minimum Size
            n/a
            3 17/32 in (8.97 cm)
            n/a
            n/a
            n/a.

            Seasonal Closure
            n/a
            n/a
            February 1-March 31
            February 1-March 31
            September 8-November 28.

          * If v-notching is deemed insufficient to meet the conservation objectives, additional seasonal closures may be implemented.

        Under Addendum XVIII, the Commission proposed trap reductions for Areas 2 and 3, following separate trap reduction schedules. Specifically, measures for Area 2 would reduce a Federal lobster permit holder's trap allocation in Area 2 by 25 percent in the first year and by 5 percent each year over a 5-year period, ultimately reducing allocations by a total of 50 percent. Measures for Area 3 would reduce a Federal lobster permit holder's Area 3 allocation by 5 percent each year for 5 years, for a total reduction of 25 percent. We intend to include these trap reductions in the proposed and final rules mentioned above.
        In addition to these upcoming measures, we recently published a proposed rule (78 FR 35217; June 12, 2013), based on Commission recommendations, seeking comment on establishing a limited access program in two lobster conservation management areas, Area 2 and the Outer Cape Area, and implementing a Lobster Trap Transfer Program in Areas 2 and 3, and the Outer Cape Area. Because the Lobster Trap Transfer Program may ease economic impacts of trap reductions, we would attempt to time the implementation of the Lobster Trap Transfer Program with the implementation of the trap reduction program to mitigate any negative economic effects, and provide permit holders with operational flexibility.
        Public Comments
        To help determine the scope of issues to be addressed and to identify significant issues related to this action, we are soliciting written comments on this ANPR. The public is encouraged to submit comments related to the specific ideas mentioned in this ANPR, and the timing of the upcoming actions that are currently under development.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.

          Dated: August 15, 2013.
          Alan D. Risenhoover,
          Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, performing the functions and duties of the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2013-20298 Filed 8-19-13; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P