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

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

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

            Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

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

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

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

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

        I. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        V. Effective Date and Comment Period

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

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

        As noted above, NHTSA is providing a 15-day comment period for two principal reasons. First, the September 27, 2017 final rule's effective date is September 27, 2018. The proposed amendments provide flexibility to manufacturers in meeting the final rule's requirements, so NHTSA would like to issue a final rule based on this NPRM as soon as possible. Second, the proposed changes are merely corrective and clarifying in nature, and a review of them by the public can be done quickly.
        Executive Order 13771
        This proposed rule is E.O. 13771 titled “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” directs that, unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed. In addition, any new incremental costs associated with new regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law, be offset by the elimination of existing costs. Only those rules deemed significant under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” are subject to these requirements. This proposed rule is not expected to be an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this proposed rule is not significant under E.O. 12866.
        Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
        The policy statement in section 1 of E.O. 13609 provides that unnecessary differences in regulatory approaches between U.S. agencies and their foreign counterparts can negatively affect the international competitiveness of U.S. businesses. Accordingly, U.S. agencies should, where possible, engage with these foreign counterparts to identify regulatory approaches that are at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
        This rulemaking harmonizes FMVSS No. 305 with provisions that are in GTRs No. 13 and No. 20. Specifically, the primary clarification proposed by this document—that the use of connectors that cannot be separated without the use of tools is permissible under FMVSS No. 305—will bring FMVSS No. 305 into alignment with GTRs No. 13 and No. 20 requirements relating to high voltage connectors, and so will further the goals of E.O. 13609.
        Regulatory Flexibility Act
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity “which operates primarily within the United States.” (13 CFR 121.105(a)(1)). No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        I hereby certify that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The amendments proposed by this NPRM mostly clarify or correct text adopted by a September 27, 2017 final rule. This proposed rule would make clear that connectors that cannot be separated without the use of a tool are permitted under FMVSS No. 305 without having to have present “other components” needing a tool to separate.
        This action would not impose any additional restrictions that would affect small entities, and in fact, would give greater design flexibility to manufacturers of electric vehicles and HFCVs.
        Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
        NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Today's proposed rule would not have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
        NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision stating that, if NHTSA has established a standard for an aspect motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance a State may only prescribe or continue in effect a standard for that same aspect of performance if the State standard is identical to the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the same aspect of performance.
        The express preemption provision described above is subject to a savings clause under which “[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of NHTSA's rules—even if not expressly preempted.

        This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer—notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist—for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum standard—the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
        Pursuant to E.O. 13132, NHTSA has considered whether this proposed rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
        To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's proposed rule and finds that this proposed rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a minimum safety standard. Accordingly, NHTSA does not intend that this proposed rule preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's proposal. Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not conflict with the minimum standard proposed in this document. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of action.
        Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
        When promulgating a regulation, E.O. 12988 specifically requires that the agency must make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language the preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed, circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship of regulations.
        Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive effect of this proposed rule is discussed above in connection with E.O. 13132. NHTSA notes further that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in court.
        Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks)
        E.O. 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks,” (62 FR 19885; April 23, 1997) applies to any proposed or final rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant,” as defined in E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If a rule meets both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the rule on children, and explain why the rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
        This proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not economically significant.
        National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

        Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
        Pursuant to the above requirements, the agency conducted a review of voluntary consensus standards to determine if any were applicable to this proposed rule. NHTSA searched for but did not find voluntary consensus standards directly applicable to the amendments proposed in this NPRM.
        However, consistent with the NTTAA, this proposal is aligned with regulations developed globally on electric vehicle safety, namely GTR No. 13 and GTR No. 20.8
           The GTRs permit the use of high voltage connectors that cannot be separated without the use of tools. We believe that the proposed amendment to FMVSS No. 305 would promote harmonization of our countries' regulatory approaches on electric vehicles and HFCVs.

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

        Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). We note that as this proposed rule only makes minor adjustments and clarifications to FMVSS No. 305. Thus, it would not result in expenditures by any of the aforementioned entities of over $100 million annually.
        National Environmental Policy Act
        NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
        Paperwork Reduction Act
        Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. This proposed rule imposes no new reporting requirements on manufacturers.
        Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
        The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
        VII. Public Participation
        How do I prepare and submit comments?
        • To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket Number found in the heading of this document in your comments.
        • Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long.9
           NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments, and there is no limit on the length of the attachments.

            9 49 CFR 553.21.

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

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

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

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

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

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

        How can I be sure that my comments were received?
        If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
        How do I submit confidential business information?

        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to the docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512)
        Will the agency consider late comments?

        We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider comments that the docket receives after that date. If the docket receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
        How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

        You may read the comments received by the docket at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the docket are indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on the internet. To read the comments on the internet, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

        Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material. You can arrange with the docket to be notified when others file comments in the docket. See www.regulations.gov for more information.

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

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

          PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

        1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

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

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

          S4. Definitions.

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

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

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

          S9.2 * * *

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

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

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


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 665
        [Docket No. 141009847-5604-01]
        RIN 0648-XD558
        Pacific Island Fisheries; 2015 Annual Catch Limits and Accountability Measures

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed specifications; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes annual catch limits (ACLs) for Pacific Island bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem fisheries, and accountability measures (AMs) to correct or mitigate any overages of catch limits. The proposed ACLs and AMs would be effective in fishing year 2015. The fishing year for each fishery begins on January 1 and ends on December 31, except for precious coral fisheries, which begins July 1 and ends on June 30 the following year. The proposed catch limits and accountability measures support the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.

          DATES:
          NMFS must receive comments by August 5, 2015.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0130, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2014-0130, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Send written comments to Michael D. Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS Pacific Islands Region (PIR), 1845 Wasp Blvd., Bldg. 176, Honolulu, HI 96818.

            Instructions: NMFS may not consider comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period. 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 prepared environmental analyses that describe the potential impacts on the human environment that would result from the proposed annual catch limits and accountability measures. NMFS provided additional background information in the 2014 proposed and final specifications (78 FR 77089, December 20, 2013; 79 FR 4276, January 27, 2014). Copies of the environmental analyses and other documents are available at www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Jarad Makaiau, NMFS PIRO Sustainable Fisheries, 808-725-5176.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Fisheries in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ, or Federal waters) around the U.S. Pacific Islands are managed under archipelagic fishery ecosystem plans (FEP) for American Samoa, Hawaii, the Pacific Remote Islands, and the Mariana Archipelago (covering Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)). A fifth FEP covers pelagic fisheries. The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed the FEPs, and NMFS implemented them under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
        Each FEP contains a process for the Council and NMFS to specify ACLs and AMs; that process is codified at Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations Section 665.4 (50 CFR 665.4). The regulations require NMFS to specify, every fishing year, an ACL for each stock and stock complex of management unit species (MUS) included in an FEP, as recommended by the Council and considering the best available scientific, commercial, and other information about the fishery. If a fishery exceeds an ACL, the regulations require the Council to take action, which may include reducing the ACL for the subsequent fishing year by the amount of the overage, or other appropriate action.
        Annual Catch Limits
        NMFS proposes to specify ACLs for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem fishery MUS in American Samoa, Guam, the CNMI, and Hawaii. NMFS based the proposed specifications on recommendations from the Council at its 160th meeting held on June 24-27, 2014. The Council recommended 112 ACLs: 26 in American Samoa, 26 in Guam, 26 in the CNMI, and 34 in Hawaii. The Council recommended that NMFS specify multi-year ACL and accountability measures effective in fishing years 2015-2018. NMFS proposes to implement the specifications for fishing year 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 separately prior to each fishing year (January 1 through December 31 each year, except for precious coral fisheries, which is July 1 through June 30). The proposed ACLs are identical to those that NMFS specified for the 2014 fishing year for all crustaceans (except for spiny lobster), bottomfish (except Hawaii non-Deep 7 bottomfish), and precious corals. For spiny lobster, Hawaii non-Deep 7 bottomfish, and coral reef ecosystem species, the ACLs are based on new estimates of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and would be specified at five percent below ABC (95 percent of ABC). At the 161st meeting held October 20-23, 2014, the Council maintained its recommendations from the 160th meeting.
        NMFS is not proposing ACLs for MUS that are currently subject to Federal fishing moratoria or prohibitions. These MUS include all species of gold coral (78 FR 32181, May 29, 2013), the three Hawaii seamount groundfish (pelagic armorhead, alfonsin, and raftfish, 75 FR 69015, November 10, 2010), and deepwater precious corals at the Westpac Bed Refugia (75 FR 2198, January 14, 2010). The current prohibitions on fishing for these MUS serve as the functional equivalent of an ACL of zero.

        Additionally, NMFS is not proposing ACLs for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, or coral reef ecosystem MUS identified in the Pacific Remote Islands Area (PRIA) FEP. This is because fishing is prohibited in the EEZ within 12 nm of emergent land, unless authorized by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (78 FR 32996, June 3, 2013). To date, NMFS has not received fishery data for any such approvals. In addition, there is no suitable habitat for these stocks beyond the 12-nm no-fishing zone, except at Kingman Reef, where fishing for these resources does not occur. Therefore, the current prohibitions on fishing serve as the functional equivalent of an ACL of zero. However, NMFS will continue to monitor authorized fishing within the Monument in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and may develop additional fishing requirements, including Monument-specific catch limits for species that may require them.
        NMFS is also not proposing ACLs for pelagic MUS at this time, because NMFS previously determined that pelagic species are subject to international fishery agreements or have a life cycle of approximately one year and, therefore, are statutorily excepted from the ACL requirements.
        Proposed Annual Catch Limit Specifications
        The following four tables list the proposed ACL specifications for 2015.

          Table 1—American Samoa

            Fishery
            Management unit species
            Proposed ACLspecification
              (lb)

            Bottomfish
            Bottomfish multi-species stock complex
            101,000

            Crustacean
            Deepwater shrimp
            80,000

            Spiny lobster
            4,845

            Slipper lobster
            30

            Kona crab
            3,200

            Precious Coral
            Black coral
            790

            Precious corals in the American Samoa Exploratory Area
            2,205

            Coral Reef Ecosystem

              Selar crumenophthalmus—atule, bigeye scad
            37,400

            Acanthuridae—surgeonfish
            129,400

            Carangidae—jacks
            19,900

            Carcharhinidae—reef sharks
            1,615

            Crustaceans—crabs
            4,300

            Holocentridae—squirrelfish
            15,100

            Labridae—wrasses
            16,200

            Lethrinidae—emperors
            19,600

            Lutjanidae—snappers
            63,100

            Kyphosidae—rudderfishes
            2,000

            Mollusks—turbo snail; octopus; giant clams
            18,400

            Mugilidae—mullets
            4,600

            Mullidae—goatfishes
            11,900

            Scaridae—parrotfish
            272,000

            Serranidae—groupers
            25,300

            Siganidae—rabbitfishes
            200

              Bolbometopon muricatum—bumphead parrotfish
            235

              Cheilinus undulatus—Humphead (Napoleon) wrasse
            1,743

            All other CREMUS combined
            18,400

          Table 2—Mariana Archipelago—Guam

            Fishery
            Management unit species
            Proposed ACL specification(lb)

            Bottomfish
            Bottomfish multi-species stock complex
            66,800

            Crustaceans
            Deepwater shrimp
            48,488

            Spiny lobster
            3,135

            Slipper lobster
            20

            Kona crab
            1,900

            Precious Coral
            Black coral
            700

            Precious corals in the Guam Exploratory Area
            2,205

            Coral Reef Ecosystem

              Selar crumenophthalmus—atulai, bigeye scad
            50,200

            Acanthuridae—surgeonfish
            97,600

            Carangidae—jacks
            29,300

            Carcharhinidae—reef sharks
            1,900

            Crustaceans—crabs
            7,300

            Holocentridae—squirrelfish
            11,400

            Kyphosidae—chubs/rudderfish
            9,600

            Labridae—wrasses
            25,200

            Lethrinidae—emperors
            53,000

            Lutjanidae—snappers
            18,000

            Mollusks—octopus
            23,800

            Mugilidae—mullets
            17,900

            Mullidae—goatfish
            15,300

            Scaridae—parrotfish
            71,600

            Serranidae—groupers
            22,500

            Siganidae—rabbitfish
            18,600

              Bolbometopon muricatum—bumphead parrotfish
            797(CNMI and Guam combined)

              Cheilinus undulatus—humphead (Napoleon) wrasse
            1,960

            All other CREMUS combined
            185,000

          Table 3—Mariana Archipelago—CNMI

            Fishery
            Management unit species
            Proposed ACL specification (lb)

            Bottomfish
            Bottomfish multi-species stock complex
            228,000

            Crustacean
            Deepwater shrimp
            275,570

            Spiny lobster
            7,410

            Slipper lobster
            60

            Kona crab
            6,300

            Precious Coral
            Black coral
            2,100

            Precious corals in the CNMI Exploratory Area
            2,205

            Coral Reef Ecosystem

              Selar crumenophthalmus—Atulai, bigeye scad
            77,400

            Acanthuridae—surgeonfish
            302,600

            Carangidae—jacks
            44,900

            Carcharhinidae—reef sharks
            5,600

            Crustaceans—crabs
            4,400

            Holocentridae—squirrelfishes
            66,100

            Kyphosidae—rudderfishes
            22,700

            Labridae—wrasses
            55,100

            Lethrinidae—emperors
            53,700

            Lutjanidae—snappers
            190,400

            Mollusks—turbo snail; octopus; giant clams
            9,800

            Mugilidae—mullets
            4,500

            Mullidae—goatfish
            28,400

            Scaridae—parrotfish
            144,000

            Serranidae—groupers
            86,900

            Siganidae—rabbitfish
            10,200

              Bolbometopon muricatum—Bumphead parrotfish
            797(CNMI and Guam combined)

              Cheilinus undulatus—Humphead (Napoleon) wrasse
            2,009

            All other CREMUS combined
            7,300

          Table 4—Hawaii

            Fishery
            Management unit species
            Proposed ACL specification (lb)

            Bottomfish
            Non-Deep 7 bottomfish
            178,000

            Crustacean
            Deepwater shrimp
            250,773

            Spiny lobster
            15,000

            Slipper lobster
            280

            Kona crab
            27,600

            Precious Coral
            Auau Channel black coral
            5,512

            Makapuu Bed—Pink coral
            2,205

            Makapuu Bed—Bamboo coral
            551

            180 Fathom Bank—Pink coral
            489

            180 Fathom Bank—Bamboo coral
            123

            Brooks Bank—Pink coral
            979

            Brooks Bank—Bamboo coral
            245

            Kaena Point Bed—Pink coral
            148

            Kaena Point Bed—Bamboo coral
            37

            Keahole Bed—Pink coral
            148

            Keahole Bed—Bamboo coral
            37

            Precious corals in the Hawaii Exploratory Area
            2,205

            Coral Reef Ecosystem

              Selar crumenophthalmus—akule, bigeye scad
            988,000

              Decapterus macarellus—opelu, mackerel scad
            438,000

            Acanthuridae—surgeonfishes
            342,000

            Carangidae—jacks
            161,200

            Carcharhinidae—reef sharks
            9,310

            Crustaceans—crabs
            33,500

            Holocentridae—squirrelfishes
            148,000

            Kyphosidae—rudderfishes
            105,000

            Labridae—wrasses
            205,000

            Lethrinidae—emperors
            35,500

            Lutjanidae—snappers
            330,300

            Mollusks—octopus
            35,700

            Mugilidae—mullets
            19,200

            Mullidae—goatfishes
            165,000

            Scaridae—parrotfishes
            239,000

            Serranidae—groupers
            128,400

            All other CREMUS combined
            485,000

        Accountability Measures
        Each year, NMFS and local resource management agencies in American Samoa, Guam, the CNMI, and Hawaii collect information about MUS catches and apply them toward the appropriate ACLs. Pursuant to 50 CFR 665.4, when the available information indicates that a fishery is projected to reach an ACL for a stock or stock complex, NMFS must notify permit holders that fishing for that stock or stock complex will be restricted in Federal waters on a specified date. The restriction serves as the AM to prevent an ACL from being exceeded, and may include, closing the fishery, closing specific areas, changing to bag limits, or restricting effort.
        However, local resource management agencies do not have the personnel or resources to process catch data in near-real time, so fisheries statistics are generally not available to NMFS until at least six months after agencies collect and analyze the data. Although the State of Hawaii has the capability to monitor and track the catch of seven preferentially-targeted bottomfish species in near-real time, (78 FR 59626, September 27, 2013), these capabilities do not exist for other Hawaii bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem fisheries, or for fisheries in American Samoa, Guam, and the CNMI.
        Additionally, Federal logbook and reporting from fisheries in Federal waters is not sufficient to accurately monitor and track catches towards the proposed ACL specifications. This is because most fishing for bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem MUS occurs in state waters, generally 0-3 nm from shore. For these reasons, NMFS proposes to specify the Council's recommended AM, which is to apply a moving three-year average catch to evaluate fishery performance against the proposed ACLs. Specifically, NMFS and the Council would use the average catch of fishing year 2013, 2014, and 2015 to evaluate fishery performance against a particular 2015 ACL. This process would be repeated in future fishing years. At the end of each fishing year, the Council would review catches relative to each ACL. If NMFS and the Council determine the three-year average catch for the fishery exceeds the specified ACL, NMFS would reduce the ACL for that fishery by the amount of the overage in the subsequent year.

        NMFS will consider public comments on the proposed ACLs and AMs and will announce the final specifications in the Federal Register. NMFS must receive any comments by the date provided in the DATES heading, not postmarked or otherwise transmitted by that date. Regardless of the final ACL specifications and AMs, all other management measures will continue to apply in the fisheries.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator for Fisheries has determined that these proposed specifications are consistent with the applicable FEPs, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        Certification of Finding of No Significant Impact on Substantial Number of Small Entities
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that these proposed specifications, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A description of the proposed action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for it are contained in the preamble to these proposed specifications.
        The proposed action would specify annual catch limits (ACL) and accountability measures (AM) for Pacific Island bottomfish, crustacean, precious coral, and coral reef ecosystem fisheries for 2015. The 2015 ACLs and AMs for all crustaceans (except for spiny lobster), bottomfish (except Hawaii non-Deep 7 bottomfish), and precious corals are identical to those NMFS specified for the 2014 fishing year. For spiny lobster, Hawaii non-Deep 7 bottomfish, and coral reef ecosystem species, the ACL is based on new estimates of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and would be specified at 95 percent of acceptable biological catch (ABC).
        The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) based the proposed specifications on recommendations from the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) at the Council's 160th meeting held from June 24-27, 2014, and reaffirmed again at the 161st meeting held from October 20-23, 2014. For this action, the Council recommended 112 ACLs: 26 in American Samoa, 26 in Guam, 26 in CNMI, and 34 in Hawaii. NMFS would specify the ACLs for the 2015-2018 fishing years, which begin on January 1 and end on December 31, except for precious coral fisheries, which begin July 1 and end on June 30 the following year.

        The vessels impacted by this action are federally permitted to fish under the Fishery Ecosystem Plans for American Samoa, the Marianas Archipelago (Guam and the CNMI) and Hawaii. The numbers of vessels permitted under these Fishery Ecosystem Plans affected by this action are as follows: American Samoa (0), Marianas Archipelago (3), and Hawaii (11). Based on available information, NMFS has determined that all impacted entities are small entities under the SBA definition of a small entity, i.e., they are engaged in the business of fish harvesting, are independently owned or operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have annual gross receipts not in excess of $20.5 million if fishing for finfish (NAICS code 114111), $5.5 million if fishing for shellfish (NAICS code: 114112), or $7.5 million if fishing for other marine life such as precious corals (NAICS code: 114119). Therefore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts between large and small entities. Furthermore, there would be no disproportionate economic impacts among the universe of vessels based on gear, home port, or vessel length.
        Even though this proposed action would apply to a substantial number of vessels, the implementation of this action should not result in significant adverse economic impact to individual vessels. For active fisheries, the ACLs are the same as, or greater than, the current annual yields. The Council and NMFS are not considering in-season closures in any of the fisheries to which these ACLs apply because fishery management agencies are not able to track catch relative to the ACLs during the fishing year. As a result, fishermen would be able to fish throughout the entire year. In addition, the ACLs, as proposed, would not change the gear types, areas fished, effort, or participation of the fishery during the 2015 fishing year. A post-season review of the catch data would be required to determine whether any fishery exceeded its ACL by comparing the ACL to the most recent 3-year average catch for which data is available. If an ACL is exceeded, the Council and NMFS would take action in future fishing years to correct the operational issue that caused the ACL overage. NMFS and the Council would evaluate the environmental and social and economic impacts of future actions, such as changes to future ACLs or AMs, after the required data are available. Specifically, if NMFS and the Council determine that the three-year average catch for a fishery exceeds the specified ACL, NMFS would reduce the ACL for that fishery by the amount of the overage in the subsequent year.
        The proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and is not expected to have significant impact on small entities (as discussed above), organizations, or government jurisdictions. The proposed action also will not place a substantial number of small entities, or any segment of small entities, at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities. As such, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
        This action has been determined to be exempt from review under E.O. 12866.

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

          Dated: July 15, 2015.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2015-17778 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 679
        [Docket No. 030314059-3173-02; I.D. 062003A]
        RIN 0648-AQ48
        Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Off Alaska; Salmon Fisheries off the Coast of Alaska

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:

          NMFS proposes to correct the definition of the area in which salmon fishing regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off the Coast of Alaska (Salmon FMP) apply, to remove the words “high seas” wherever they appear in the salmon fishing regulations, and to remove an obsolete reference to the North Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954 from the salmon fishing regulations.  This action is necessary to make the regulations consistent with the area definition approved by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) in Amendment 3 to the Salmon FMP.  The intended effect of this action is regulatory consistency with the provisions of Amendment 3 to the Salmon FMP and improved conservation and management of the salmon fisheries off the coast of Alaska.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than August 22, 2003.

          ADDRESSES:
          Comments may be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, (Attn:  Lori Durall).  Hand or courier deliveries of comments may be sent to NMFS, Alaska Region, 709 West 9th Street, Room 420, Juneau, AK 99801.  Comments also may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 907-586-7557.  Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

        Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR) may be obtained from the Alaska Region, NMFS, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802 1668, Attn:  Lori Gravel-Durall.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Patsy A. Bearden, 907-586-7228 ore-mail at patsy.bearden@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The salmon fishery in the EEZ off the Coast of Alaska is managed pursuant to the Salmon FMP prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Implementing regulations originally appeared at 50 CFR part 674.
        The original Salmon FMP provided for the management of the salmon fisheries throughout the EEZ off the coast of Alaska except for the extreme western part of the EEZ west of 175° E. long., near Attu Island.  The Council excluded this extreme western part of the EEZ because this area was under the jurisdiction of the International Convention for the High Sea Fisheries of the North Pacific Ocean.  The original name of the salmon FMP was the “Fishery Management Plan for the High Seas Salmon Fishery off the Coast of Alaska East of 175 Degrees East Longitude.”
        Over time, the international regime affecting salmon fisheries changed and the Council revisited its salmon management policies.  In 1989, the Council adopted Amendment 3 to the FMP which, among other things, renamed the FMP to “Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off the Coast of Alaska,” deferred regulation of the salmon fisheries in the EEZ to the State of Alaska, and extended the geographic jurisdiction of the Salmon FMP over waters of the EEZ west of 175° E. long.  The Secretary approved Amendment 3 to the FMP in 1990 and published a final rule on November 15, 1990 (55 FR 47773) implementing associated measures and removing all the specific management measures from 50 CFR part 674.  The 1990 implementing regulations unintentionally omitted the new title of the FMP and the extension of the geographic jurisdiction of the FMP.  No public comment was received on this or on any of the other changes made by Amendment 3, and the entire amendment was non-controversial.
        In compliance with required consolidation of all Federal fishery regulations pursuant to President Clinton's Regulatory Reform Initiative, NMFS Alaska Region combined all existing fisheries regulations for the EEZ off Alaska, including part 674, into a new 50 CFR part 679 (62 FR 19686, April 23, 1997).  This final rule recodified the two regulatory provisions that NMFS erroneously failed to revise in its 1990 rulemaking that  implemented Amendment 3.  Moreover, NMFS erred again in the regulatory consolidation by redefining the “High Seas Salmon Management Area” as “the portion of the EEZ off Alaska east of 175° E. long.”  This new error reinstated the definition of the Salmon FMP management area effective prior to approval of Amendment 3 by eliminating waters west of 175 degrees east longitude from the management area.  Consequently, the current regulations implementing the Salmon FMP fail to give regulatory effect to the expansion of geographic jurisdiction adopted in Amendment 3.
        A correction notice was published (67 FR 44093, July 1, 2002) to change the name of the Salmon FMP as it appears in 50 CFR 679.1(i) to be consistent with the Salmon FMP as amended and approved by the Secretary.
        This action proposes to correct the second omission in the regulations in order to completely implement Amendment 3, by revising the language that describes the geographic jurisdiction of the Salmon FMP as described in Amendment 3.
        This action also incorporates other changes.  The specific changes proposed by this action are as follows:
        Section 679.1 Purpose and Scope
        Section 679.1(h) would be revised to remove the reference to 175° E. long., and to restate the application of State of Alaska regulations consistent with the approved Salmon FMP, as shown in the following table.

          Table 1.  Proposed changes to regulatory text.

            Existing text
            Proposed text

            (i) Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fishery in the EEZ off the Coast of Alaska (Salmon FMP).Regulations in this part govern fishing for salmon by fishing vessels of the United States in the EEZ seaward of Alaska east of 175° E. long., referred to as the High Seas Salmon Management Area.
            (i) Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fishery in the EEZ off the Coast of Alaska (Salmon FMP)(1) Regulations in this part govern fishing for salmon by fishing vessels of the United States in the Salmon Management Area.
              (2) State of Alaska laws and regulations that are consistent with the Salmon FMP and with the regulations in this part apply to vessels of the United States that are fishing for salmon in the Salmon Management Area.

        Section 679.2 Definitions
        The definitions of “High Seas Salmon Management Area,”  “Commercial fishing,” paragraph (1),”  “personal use fishing,” and  “Optimum yield,” paragraph (1)  would be revised to remove the term “high seas” which was made obsolete by approval of Amendment 3.
        Section 679.3 Relation to Other Laws
        The heading of § 679.3(f), § 679.3(f)(1), and § 679.3(f)(3) would be revised to remove “High Seas Salmon” and add in its place “Salmon.”
        Section 679.4 Permits
        Section 679.4 would be revised to remove the term “High Seas Salmon” in 26 places where the term occurs in headings and paragraphs.
        Section 679.7 Prohibitions
        The heading for § 679.7(h) would be revised to remove the term “High Seas Salmon” and add in its place “Salmon.”  Section 679.7(h)(1) would be removed because it refers to the North Pacific Fisheries Act of 1954, 16 U.S.C. 1021-1035, which is no longer in effect.  Paragraph (h)(2) would be redesignated as introductory paragraph (h) and would be revised to remove the term “High Seas Salmon” and add in its place “Salmon.”
        Figure 23 to 50 CFR part 679 would be added to present a map showing the location of the Salmon Management Area.

        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  The proposed rule would extend the jurisdiction of the Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to the EEZ waters west of 175° E. long, so that it is consistent with the provisions of Amendment 3 to the FMP.  This proposed rule will have no effect on any small entities because there is no domestic salmon fishery in these waters, there has not been any domestic salmon fishing in these waters for 40 years, and NMFS expects no salmon fishing to develop in these waters in the forseeable future.  As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis was not prepared.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 679
          Alaska, Fisheries, International organizations, Recordkeeping and reporting.

          Dated:  July 17, 2003.
          Rebecca Lent,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA

        1.  The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 773 et. seq., 1801 et. seq., and 3631 et. seq.

        2. In § 679.1, paragraph (i) is revised to read as follows:

          § 679.1
          Purpose and scope.

          (i) Fishery Management Plan for the Salmon Fisheries in the EEZ off the Coast of Alaska (Salmon FMP).  (1) Regulations in this part govern fishing for salmon by fishing vessels of the United States in the Salmon Management Area.
          (2) State of Alaska laws and regulations that are consistent with the Salmon FMP and with the regulations in this part apply to vessels of the United States that are fishing for salmon in the Salmon Management Area.

        3.  In § 679.2 , the definition for “High Seas Salmon Management Area” is removed; the definitions for  “Commercial fishing,” paragraph (1);  “Optimum yield” paragraph (1); and “Personal use fishing,” are revised and the definition for “Salmon Management Area” is added, alphabetically to read as follows:

          § 679.2
          Definitions.

            Commercial fishing means:
          (1) For purposes of the salmon fishery, fishing for salmon for sale or barter.

            Optimum yield means:
          (1) With respect to the Salmon Fishery, that amount of any species of salmon that will provide the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, with particular reference to food production and recreational opportunities, as specified in the Salmon FMP.

            Personal use fishing means, for purposes of the salmon fishery, fishing other than commercial fishing.

          Salmon Management Area means the waters of the EEZ off the coast of Alaska (see Figure 23 to part 679), including parts of the North Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea.  The Salmon Management Area is divided into a West Area and an East Area with the border between the two at the longitude of Cape Suckling (143 53′36″ W):
          (1) The West Area is the area of the EEZ off the coast of Alaska west of the longitude of Cape Suckling (143°53′36″ W.)  It includes the EEZ in the Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea, as well as the EEZ in the North Pacific Ocean west of Cape Suckling.
          (2) The East Area is the area of the EEZ off the coast of Alaska east of the longitude of Cape Suckling (143°53′36″ W.).

        4.  In § 679.7, paragraph (h) is revised to read as follows:

          § 679.7
          Prohibitions.

          (h) Salmon fisheries. (1) Fish for, take, or retain any salmon in violation of this part.(2) Engage in fishing for salmon in the Salmon Management Area defined at § 679.2 and Figure 23 to this part, except to the extent authorized by § 679.4(h).

          § § 679.3 and 679.4
          [Amended]
          5. In addition to the amendment set out above, in 50 CFR part 679, remove the words “High Sea Salmon” and add in their place the word “Salmon” in the following places:
          a.  In § 679.3:
          The heading for paragraph (f), introductory text, (f)(1), and (f)(3).
          b.  In § 679.4:
          Paragraph (a)(1)(v),
          The heading and paragraph (h) introductory text,
          Paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(1)(iii), (h)(3), (h)(4), (h)(5)(i), (h)(5)(i)(A), (h)(5)(i)(B), (h)(5)(i)(C), (h)(5)(ii), (h)(6) introductory text, (h)(6)(iv), (h)(7)(i), (h)(8), (h)(10),
          The heading for paragraph (h)(13) introductory text,
          Paragraphs (h)(13)(i), (h)(13)(ii)(A), (h)(13)(ii)(E), (h)(14)(i), (h)(15)(i), (h)(15)(iii), (h)(15)(vii), (h)(16)(i).

          § 679.4
          [Amended]

        6. In § 679.4(h)(2), remove the words “High Seas Management Area” and add in their place the words “Salmon Management Area.”
        7.  In part 679, Figure 23 is added to read as follows:
        BILLING CODE 3510-22-S

          EP23JY03.005

      [FR Doc. 03-18734 Filed 7-22-03; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-C