        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 092402E]
        RIN 0648-AP87
        Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery; Amendment 10

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 10 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Secretarial review.  Amendment 10 addresses the two unrelated subjects of the transferability of limited entry permits and maximum sustainable yield (MSY) for market squid.  Only the subject of permit transfer requires regulatory action.  The purpose is to establish the procedures by which limited entry permits can be transferred to other vessels and/or individuals so that the holders of the permits have maximum flexibility in their fishing operations while the goals of the FMP are achieved.

          DATES:
          Comments on Amendment 10 must be received on or before December 2, 2002.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments on Amendment 10 should be sent to Rodney R. McInnis, Acting Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA  90802.

        Copies of Amendment 10, which includes an environmental assessment/regulatory impact review, and determination of the impact on small businesses are available from Donald O. McIssac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 224, Portland, OR, 97201.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          James Morgan, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, at 562-980-4036 or Daniel Waldeck, Pacific Fishery Management Council, at 503-326-6352.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires each Regional Fishery Management Council to submit a fishery management plan or plan amendment to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval.  The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan or plan amendment, immediately publish notification in the Federal Register that the fishery management plan or plan amendment is available for public review and comment.  NMFS will consider the public comments received during the comment period described above in determining whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve the fishery management plan or plan amendment.
        Amendment 10 would establish an optimum level of harvesting capacity for the limited entry fleet, provide for the transfer of limited entry permits according to specific criteria so that the harvesting capacity goal is not exceeded, and establish a process for the possible consideration of new limited entry permits under certain conditions in the future.  The purpose of these measures is to ensure that fishing capacity in the limited entry fishery is in balance with resource availability while giving the fishing industry flexibility in its business ventures.
        Amendment 10 to the FMP improves upon Amendment 8 to the FMP.  Amendment 10 provides a proxy for MSY for market squid, whereas Amendment 8 did not provide an MSY for market squid.  The proxy for MSY for market squid is based on a method of determining egg escapement of the species.  NMFS recommended using this approach to monitor the fishery, after NMFS examined the historical landings and the range of the species and determined that these data did not provide the desired information to monitor the harvest of market squid.

        Public comments on Amendment 10 must be received by December 2, 2002, to be considered by NMFS when NMFS decides whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 10.  A proposed rule to implement Amendment 10 has been submitted for Secretarial review and approval.  NMFS expects to publish and request public comment on the proposed regulation to implement Amendment 10 in the near future.

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

          Dated:  September 27, 2002.
          Virginia M. Fay,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 02-25171 Filed 10-2-02; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [I.D. 102903C]
        RIN 0648-AP42
        Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Highly Migratory Species; Correction

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

          ACTION:
          Correction to notice of availability of a fishery management plan.

          SUMMARY:
          This document corrects the phone number for the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) in the notice of availability of the Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan (FMP), which was published November 6, 2003.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The notice of availability of the Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan was published in the Federal Register on November 6, 2003 (68 FR 62763), and requested comments by January 5, 2004.  The interested public was directed to obtain a copy of the FMP) from the Council, but the Council's former phone number was cited, not its current phone number.
        Correction
        In the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the Notice of Availability FR Doc. 03-27994, in the issue of Thursday, November 6, 2003, (68 FR 62763), make the following correction.
        On page 62764, in the first column under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, delete the phone number for the Pacific Fishery Management Council and replace it with the following phone number:“503-820-2280”.

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

          Dated:  November 24, 2003.
          Bruce C. Morehead,
          Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 03-29830 Filed 11-28-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        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 TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 581
        [Docket Number NHTSA-2009-0047]
        Bumper Standard; Petition for Rulemaking

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

          ACTION:
          Request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          On July 1, 2008, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) petitioned the agency to amend the existing bumper standard, to require compliance by light trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs), which NHTSA often refers to collectively as LTVs. The agency had already begun re-evaluating the bumper standard in anticipation of the vote on a Global Technical Regulation on pedestrian safety. NHTSA requests comments and information to assist the agency in determining whether to grant or deny the IIHS petition.

          DATES:
          You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them not later than August 14, 2009.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments must refer to the docket notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted to Docket Management, Room W12-140, ground level, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590 by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 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.
          • Hand Delivery/Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Telephone: 1-800-647-5527.
          • Fax: (202) 493-2251.

            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 http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

            Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://docketsinfo.dot.gov/.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Hisham Mohamed, Consumer Standards Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building, Room W43-437, NVS-131, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Mohamed's telephone number is 202-366-0307; E-mail: hisham.mohamed@dot.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        Background
        The agency's bumper standard, set forth at 49 CFR part 581, establishes requirements for the impact resistance of vehicles in low speed front and rear collisions. The purpose of the standard is to reduce physical damage to the front and rear ends of a passenger motor vehicle from low speed collisions. The standard applies to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles and low speed vehicles.

        The history of the Part 581 bumper standard has been long and complex. In its initial efforts in the field of bumper regulation, NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 215, Exterior Protection, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act), now codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301. FMVSS No. 215 was initially implemented on September 1, 1972.
        On October 20, 1972, Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (the Cost Savings Act). Title I of that Act, now codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 325, provided for promulgation of bumper standards to reduce the economic loss resulting from damage to passenger motor vehicles involved in motor vehicle accidents. The statute specifies that when prescribing a bumper standard, the agency must design the standard to obtain the maximum feasible reduction of costs to the public, considering the costs and benefits of carrying out the standard; the effect of the standard on insurance costs and legal fees and costs; savings in consumer time and inconvenience; and health and safety, including emission standards. 49 U.S.C. 32502(d).
        Pursuant to both the authority of the Cost Savings Act and the Safety Act, NHTSA established the Part 581 Bumper Standard in 1976. 41 RF 9346 (March 4, 1976). As adopted, this standard combined the safety features of FMVSS 215 with new damage resistance criteria intended to promote consumer cost savings. There have been a number of amendments to the bumper standard since that time.
        NHTSA's bumper standard does not apply to vehicles classified as trucks (because they are not passenger motor vehicles) or multipurpose passenger vehicles (because they are a type of passenger motor vehicles excluded by the agency when it established the bumper standard) the category which includes vehicles commonly referred to as SUVs. The Cost Savings Act specifically excludes trucks from any bumper standards and allows the agency to exempt multipurpose passenger vehicles from bumper standards. Both of these vehicle types could be regulated under the authority of the Safety Act. Since trucks are excluded from bumper standards under the Cost Saving Act, any bumper standard for these vehicles would need to be issued solely on the criteria included in the Safety Act.
        In the past NHTSA has denied petitions to extend the bumper standard to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. In August 1984, the agency denied two petitions for rulemaking, asking the agency to establish safety requirements for bumpers on vehicles other than passenger cars (49 FR 34049, Aug. 28, 1984). The first petitioner requested the agency to establish a bumper height requirement for all vehicles. The second petitioner requested the agency to require rear bumpers on pick-up trucks.
        NHTSA responded by stating that while it was conceivable that a bumper height requirement for vehicles other than passenger cars could result in some slight, non-quantifiable safety benefits relating to unrepaired damage, the agency was unaware of any data indicating any significant safety problem with bumpers (or lack of rear bumper) on pick-up trucks, vans or utility vehicles, relating to mismatch problems, crash energy management, or side impact intrusion. Neither petitioner provided any such data.
        In its response, NHTSA also stated that in considering possible rulemaking, the agency must consider both safety issues and whether a proposed requirement would be reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed. This is specifically required by the Safety Act.
        The agency concluded that establishing a bumper height requirement for vehicles other than passenger cars or requiring rear bumpers on pick-up trucks could significantly reduce the utility of the vehicle types in question. At that time, the agency did not have data showing that there was a safety problem that would justify rulemaking.
        In February 1991, the agency again denied a petition for rulemaking regarding bumper heights for small trucks and SUVs (56 FR 7826, Feb. 26, 1991). The petitioner was concerned that these vehicles could override the hood of passenger cars in crashes. In responding to the petition, the agency noted that the bumper standard did not apply to trucks or multipurpose passenger vehicles. NHTSA stated that it believed it would be inappropriate to require bumpers of these vehicles to be at the same height as those of passenger cars. The agency stated that these types of vehicles require greater ground clearance than passenger cars, to enable them to clear obstacles and hazards characteristic of commercial and occasional off-road operation. The agency stated that, for the same reason, requiring underride guards on trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles would be inappropriate. The requirement recommended by the petitioner would have significantly reduced the utility of the vehicle types in question. Therefore, the agency believed that such a requirement would not be reasonable, practicable or appropriate for these vehicle types.
        NHTSA also noted that while the agency recognized that many of these other vehicles were manufactured with bumpers mounted somewhat higher than passenger car bumpers, it did not have evidence of any significant safety problems resulting from those differences. Additionally, the agency analyzed data from the 1989 Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) file 1
          , a census of all fatal motor vehicle crashes on U.S. roads. The analysis indicated that there were no incidences of underride or override reported as a specific cause of the car occupant fatality, and the agency stated it was unaware of any data indicating a safety problem to be addressed by a rulemaking addressing bumper heights of pickup trucks, vans or sport utility vehicles. However, a review of the 2007 FARS data on “Deaths among Occupants of Passenger Cars with Underride or Override Reported” shows that the data includes 206 occupants who died in cars with underride or override reported, including 34 in crashes that involved at least one light truck or van. Thirteen of these fatalities occurred in two-vehicle crashes. All 13 involved a pickup truck, and 10 involved front damage to the car. The agency notes that although this data reflects that some fatalities have involved occupants who died in cars with underride or override reported, the data does not reflect the travel or crash speed for these crashes. We note that the crash or travel speed for these crashes could be above the speed requirements of the bumper standard.

            1 The acronym “FARS” now stands for the “Fatality Analysis Reporting System.”

        The IIHS Petition

        In July 2008 the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) petitioned NHTSA to extend the bumper standard to light trucks, vans, and SUVs (collectively, LTVs). The IIHS stated that it is legal to sell new LTVs in the United States without any bumpers, and this produces several undesirable consequences. The IIHS stated that many LTVs provide virtually no protection for vital safety-related parts such as headlights and taillights, which often sustain damage in low-speed collisions. The IIHS stated that LTVs owners have to pay for expensive repairs to fenders, grilles, and other parts that sustain unnecessary damage in low-speed collisions. Further, IIHS stated that vehicle manufacturers which choose to equip their LTVs with bumpers do not have to make them compatible in height with passenger vehicle bumpers. IIHS stated that LTV bumpers can be much higher than car bumpers, which results in excessive damage to the passenger vehicles with which they collide at low speeds.

        The IIHS also stated that crash test results and data from insurance claims demonstrate the safety and property damage consequences of allowing inadequate bumpers, or none at all, on LTVs. The petitioner stated that by applying passenger vehicle bumper requirements to LTVs, NHTSA would make bumpers more compatible across the range of passenger vehicles. The petitioner also stated that this would enhance occupant safety and, at the same time, reduce costly damage to property in low-speed collisions, a subject which NHTSA and the automotive industry are addressing in the broader issue of vehicle compatibility. (Docket: NHTSA-2003-14623).
        We note that NHTSA had already begun re-evaluating the bumper standard in anticipation of a vote on the Global Technical Regulation (GTR) on pedestrian safety, (see notice at 73 FR 55201 for further discussion of the GTR). The agency is also aware that there has been a significant change in vehicle registration in the U.S. that has resulted from an increased market shift to light trucks since the most recent revision of the bumper standard in 1982. The IIHS petition on its own does not provide sufficient support for the requested action, but our evaluation leads us to think that it may be an appropriate time to reconsider past agency decisions on extending the bumper standard to other vehicles.
        NHTSA requests comments to assist the agency in deciding whether to grant or deny the IIHS petition. To inform the agency's decision, the following are key issues that the agency would like commenters to address. In particular, the agency requests that commenters include documents, studies, test protocols, data, or references which support their comments.
        Cost/Benefits
        (1) The petitioner reported that crash tests demonstrate that there are bumper height mismatches between SUVs and passenger cars based on four tested MY 2008 SUVs and five tested MY 2004 SUVs. The petitioner reported that crash tests with greater bumper mismatches tend to produce damage with higher repair costs. Are these results representative of the current SUV fleet? Are the results likely to reflect the future mix of SUVs? Are there any comparable data available for other LTVs?
        (2) Are there any estimates of the costs and benefits of extending the bumper standard to LTVs? Can these costs and benefits be estimated separately for SUVs, minivans, and pickups? Can these costs and benefits be estimated separately for unibody and body on frame SUVs, and for different SUVs by size? Can these costs and benefits be estimated separately for the front and rear bumpers? Also, what would be the specific safety benefits of extending the bumper standard to these vehicles (separate from other types of benefits)?
        (3) Should NHTSA consider a more-extensive upgrade to the bumper standard for all light vehicles? Does the current standard adequately protect passenger cars, given the current and projected mix of crash partners? What are the estimated repair costs for vehicles with matching and mismatching bumpers at various crash speeds (for example, 2.5 and 5 mph)? Can the benefits and costs be estimated separately for the front and rear bumpers?
        (4) Over the past decades, the passenger vehicle fleet has shifted from a fleet containing primarily cars to a fleet with a much higher percentage of light trucks. FHWA data show that growth in total miles driven by “Two-axle, four-tire trucks,” a category that includes most or all light trucks used as passenger vehicles, averaged 5.1% annually from 1985 through 2005.2

            2 Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0089.

        While the future mix of the fleet is uncertain, the agency seeks comment and data on the current usage patterns for light trucks. Since past agency decisions have focused on the utility of these vehicles, are there any data that provide the current usage patterns of light trucks? Are there vehicle features that distinguish light trucks which are primarily work vehicles from those that are used primarily as passenger vehicles?
        (5) For an LTV, what is the probability of being involved in low speed crashes over the vehicle's lifetime? And what is the difference in repair and inconvenience costs for matching and mismatching vehicle bumpers? Also what is the frequency of vehicle crashes at various low speed impacts (for example, 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10 mph)? Please provide data.
        Vehicle Compatibility
        Bumper mismatch represents one aspect of the broader issue of vehicle compatibility being addressed by NHTSA and the automotive industry. NHTSA is addressing self-protection in the near-term through improved side impact protection. On September 11, 2007 (72 FR 51908), the agency published a final rule upgrading the requirements of FMVSS No. 214, “Side impact protection,” to assure head and improved chest protection in side crashes. It will lead to the installation of new technologies such as side curtain air bags, which are capable of improving head and thorax protection to occupants of vehicles that crash into poles and trees and vehicles that are laterally struck by a higher-riding vehicle.
        To improve partner protection for occupants in struck vehicles, NHTSA has conducted research enabling the effect of matching height of the frontal structures and stiffness. NHTSA is also pursuing refinement of its data collection to enhance the better understanding of the fleet geometry during crashes.
        In addition to NHTSA's initiatives, the automobile industry has developed and committed to a set of voluntary design guidelines and performance criteria for enhancing vehicle-to-vehicle compatibility. One of the requirement options is for the light truck's primary frontal energy absorbing structure to geometrically overlap at least 50 percent of the zone established by NHTSA in its bumper standard (49 CFR part 581) for passenger cars. An alternative to this option is for a secondary structure to have a lower edge no higher than the bottom of the Part 581 bumper zone. By September 1, 2009, 100 percent of participating manufacturers' new light truck production intended for sale in the United States must comply with one of these approaches.
        (6) IIHS reported that Ford has reduced the bumper height mismatch for one of its popular SUVs without compromising vehicle function on loading ramps and off-road. What data are available to support this statement? How have the design changes on this vehicle changed its approach and departure angles? What were the trade-offs, if any, in reducing the bumper-height mismatch for this vehicle? Would there be problems in redesigning other LTVs to comply with the bumper standard and what would these problems be? What will be the cost of redesigning LTVs to comply with the bumper standard?

        (7) What data are available to indicate any significant safety problem with bumpers (or lack of rear bumper) on pick-up trucks, vans or utility vehicles, relating to mismatch problems, crash energy management, or side impact intrusion?

        (8) How much overlap in bumper height is needed between the front of one vehicle and the rear of another vehicle to eliminate or reduce bumper mismatch?
        (9) Is there a way to define vehicle characteristics that require a higher bumper, such that some LTVs could be exempt from a bumper height standard, while others would be required to supply bumpers of certain heights?
        (10) Please provide data to support incidences of underride or override reported as a specific cause of vehicle occupant injury or fatality. What is the availability of data indicating a safety problem that could have been addressed by a rulemaking addressing bumper heights of pickup trucks, vans or sport utility vehicles? Please provide specific details.
        (11) To what extent does the U.S. fleet of LTVs meet the bumper standard requirements? What are the bumper costs, weights and heights (i.e. measurements of the bumper structural element from the ground) of the different types of LTVs in the U.S. fleet?
        Pedestrian Safety
        (12) Ongoing work on the pedestrian safety GTR has shown that changes in the vehicle geometry can have a profound effect on pedestrian leg injuries when struck by the front bumper. Any decision to change the bumper standard should therefore consider, if not provide, an in-depth analysis of pedestrian injuries and fatalities related to the bumper standard. Are there any analyses on the effect of vehicle frontal geometry changes on pedestrian safety that could happen as a result if LTVs were required to comply with the existing bumper standard? Please provide information on these analyses.
        (13) What impact would a change to the bumper standard have on the potential for manufacturers to also meet the pedestrian safety GTR requirements? Please provide information on that data.
        New Technologies
        (14) Vehicle height could be adjusted for on or off-road usage, for example, by using air suspension. Recent development in materials and designs has helped introduce height adjustable suspension on some SUVs. What is the available data on the feasibility, costs and benefits of using vehicle height adjustment technologies to comply with a requirement for these vehicles to meet the current bumper standard? Are there any data on the extent to which SUVs operated on the public roads have their height adjusted to on-road position? Please provide information on these data.
        Statutory Criteria
        (15) As noted earlier, since trucks are excluded from bumper standards under the Cost Savings Act, any bumper standards for these vehicles would need to meet the criteria in the Safety Act. The current bumper standard was developed under the criteria of the Cost Savings Act. Could a straight forward extension of the bumper standard to trucks be justified under the criteria of the Safety Act alone? If so, how? If not, why not?
        Public Participation
        A. 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 primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary 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.

        Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
        B. How can I be sure 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.
        C. How do I submit confidential business information?
        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).

        In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES, or submit them electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

        D. 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.
        E. How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

        You may read the comments received by the Docket Management at the address given under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket.
        Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information on 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.

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 32502; 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

          Issued on: June 4, 2009.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. E9-13531 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P