        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 73
        [MB Docket No. 21-52; RM-11877; DA 21-161; FR ID 17505]
        Television Broadcasting Services Amarillo, Texas

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          The Commission has before it a petition for rulemaking (Petition) filed by KVII Licensee, LLC, (Licensee), licensee of KVII-TV, Channel 7, Amarillo, Texas (KVII or Station), requesting the substitution of channel 20 for channel 7 at Amarillo in the DTV Table of Allotments. Licensee states that the proposed channel substitution for KVII from VHF channel 7 to UHF channel 20 would allow KVII to significantly improve its over-the-air service to the Station's viewers in the Amarillo, Texas, market. Licensee states that the proposed channel change from channel 7 to channel 20 would result in a substantial increase in signal receivability for KVII's core viewers and enable viewers to receive the Station's signal with a significantly smaller antenna. Licensee maintains that KVII, as a VHF channel station, has had a long history of dealing with severe reception problems exacerbated by the analog to digital conversion. The proposed migration of KVII from channel 7 to channel 20, Licensee contends, is in the public interest based on the enhanced signal levels that will be delivered to a large percentage of the Station's population without any predicted loss of coverage. Further, Licensee maintains that the change will result in an predicted increase of 9.44% in the Station's overall population and the staff has determined there is no loss of service. Licensee concludes by saying that the public interest would be best served by promptly granting its Petition with the specifications set forth therein so that Amarillo-area viewers may benefit from substantially improved over-the-air broadcast television service as soon as possible.

          DATES:
          Comments must be filed on or before May 3, 2021 and reply comments on or before May 17, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve counsel for petitioner as follows: Paul A. Cicelski, Esq., Lerman Senter PLLC, 2001 L Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Shaun Maher, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-2324; or Shaun.Maher@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 21-52; RM-11877; DA 21-161, adopted February 12, 2021, and released February 12, 2021. The full text of this document is available for download at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio recordings), please send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

        This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, do not apply to this proceeding.
        Members of the public should note that all ex parte contacts are prohibited from the time a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is issued to the time the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are, however, exceptions to this prohibition, which can be found in Section 1.1204(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1204(a).
        See Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the Commission's rules for information regarding the proper filing procedures for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

          List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
          Television.

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Thomas Horan,
          Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.

        Proposed Rule
        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

          PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICE

        1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
           47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.

        2. In § 73.622 in paragraph (i) amend the Post-Transition Table of DTV Allotments under Texas by revising the entry for Amarillo to read as follows:

          § 73.622
          Digital television table of allotments.

          (i) * * *

              Community
              Channel No.

              *    *    *    *    *

                Texas

              *    *    *    *    *

              Amarillo
              20

              *    *    *    *    *

      [FR Doc. 2021-06395 Filed 3-31-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 600
        [Docket No. 070920529-8571-02]
        RIN 0648-AW05
        Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Limited Access Privilege Programs; Individual Fishing Quota Referenda Guidelines and Procedures for the New England Fishery Management Council and Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed guidelines and procedures; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended (Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS proposes guidelines and procedures for the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) (collectively the Councils), and NMFS to follow in determining procedures and voting eligibility requirements for referenda on Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program proposals. The intended effect of these procedures and guidance is to ensure IFQ program referenda are fair and equitable.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted in writing on or before June 23, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for this action, may be obtained from the mailing address listed here or by calling Robert Gorrell, NMFS-SF, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. You may submit comments, identified by 0648-AW05, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Fax: 301-713-1193, Attn: Robert Gorrell.
          • Mail: Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, Attn: IFQ Referenda Guidelines, 1315 East-West Highway, SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Robert Gorrell, at 301-713-2341 or via e-mail at robert.gorrell@noaa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Act specifies general requirements for Limited Access Privilege (LAP) programs implemented in U.S. marine fisheries. A LAP is defined as a Federal limited access permit that provides a person the exclusive privilege to harvest a specific portion of a fishery's total allowable catch. This definition encompasses exclusive harvesting privileges allocated to participants under IFQ programs.

        Section 303A(c)(6)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act outlines specific requirements for IFQ program proposals developed by the NEFMC and GMFMC. Specifically, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires such program proposals be approved through referenda before they may be submitted for review and implementation by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). Additionally, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary publish guidelines and procedures to determine procedures and voting eligibility requirements for IFQ program referenda and to conduct such referenda in a fair and equitable manner.

        A referendum conducted on a NEFMC IFQ program proposal must be approved by more than 2/3 of those voting in the referendum among eligible permit holders and other eligible voters. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary promulgate criteria to determine whether additional fishery participants are eligible to vote in NEFMC IFQ program referenda in order to ensure that crew members who derive a significant percentage of their total income from a proposed IFQ fishery are eligible to participate in an IFQ referendum conducted in association with the program proposal.
        A referendum conducted on a GMFMC IFQ program proposal must be approved by a majority of those voting in the referendum. For Gulf of Mexico fisheries managed with multispecies permits, the Magnuson-Stevens Act limits eligible referenda voters to those permit holders who have substantially fished the species to be included in the proposed IFQ program.
        This action proposes procedures for initiating, conducting, and deciding IFQ program referenda, as well as guidelines for specifying referenda voting eligibility requirements. These procedures and guidelines are intended to ensure referenda conducted on IFQ program proposals are fair and equitable, while providing the NEFMC and GMFMC the flexibility to define IFQ program referenda voting eligibility requirements on a fishery-specific basis within the constraints of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
        These proposed procedures and guidelines also would apply to referenda conducted in association with any IFQ program proposal advanced through a Secretarial fishery management plan (FMP) or FMP amendment under the authority of Section 304(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for a New England or Gulf of Mexico fishery. Any Secretarial IFQ program proposal must be approved by a majority of the voting members, present and voting, of the appropriate Council before it can be included in a Secretarial FMP or FMP amendment.
        Initiating Referenda
        For the Council to initiate an IFQ referendum, these proposed guidelines and procedures would require the NEFMC or GMFMC to submit a request to NMFS by letter. The referendum initiation letter must include recommended eligibility criteria for voting in the referendum, rationale for the recommendation, and any other information that may be needed consistent with applicable law and the referenda guidelines and procedures; for example, alternatives to the recommendation and supporting analyses of the alternatives. Any referendum initiation letter submitted by the NEFMC must also include recommended criteria for determining whether additional fishery participants, including crew members, are eligible to vote in the referendum. Specifically, NEFMC's initiation letters must include a recommendation for the percentage of a crew member's total income that, if earned in the proposed IFQ fishery, would be considered significant. Any referendum initiation letter submitted by the GMFMC for a fishery managed with multispecies permits must also include recommended criteria for defining those permit holders who have substantially fished the species to be included in the proposed IFQ program.
        Following a referendum that has failed to approve the IFQ proposal, any request from a Council for a new referendum in the same fishery must include an explanation of the substantive changes to the proposed IFQ program or the changes of circumstances in the fishery that would warrant initiation of an additional referendum.
        A Council may not submit a referendum initiation letter to NMFS until: (1) The Council has held public hearings on the IFQ program proposal that is the subject of the referendum initiation letter; (2) the Council has considered public comments on the proposal; and (3) the Council has selected preferred alternatives for the proposal.
        NMFS is considering alternative approaches to the timing of the IFQ referendum initiation letter relative to a Council's procedure for development of the IFQ program proposal and FMP or FMP Amendment. The proposed action provides for a somewhat compressed referendum schedule by allowing the initiation request to be submitted after the Council has solicited and considered public input on an IFQ program proposal and selected preferred alternatives for the proposal. An alternative approach would require that the Council's FMP or FMP amendment document be complete, all public comment be considered and analyzed, and but for the requirement to conduct the referendum, the document be ready for submission to NMFS, before the referendum initiation request may be submitted.
        Voter Eligibility
        Voter eligibility requirements recommended by the Councils must provide for fair and equitable referenda. When developing recommended voter eligibility criteria, Councils must consider the following factors: (1) The full range of entities likely to be eligible for initial allocations under the proposed IFQ program; (2) current and historic harvest and participation in the proposed IFQ fishery; and (3) any other factors determined by the Council to be relevant.
        When determining whether certain crew members may be eligible to vote in NEFMC IFQ program referenda, the Council must consider, at least, the following factors: (1) A crew member's history of participation in the fishery aboard a referendum-eligible vessel; (2) the economic value of and employment practices in the proposed IFQ fishery and other economic and social factors that would help determine what percentage of a crew member's total income from the fishery should be considered significant; and (3) the availability of documentary proof of employment and income to validate eligibility. For the purposes of this action, “referendum-eligible vessel” means a vessel, the permit holder or owner of which has been determined to be eligible to vote in the referendum on the basis of such vessel's history or other characteristics meeting the prescribed voter eligibility criteria.
        To be eligible to vote in a NEFMC IFQ program referendum, crew members, at a minimum: (1) Must have worked aboard a referendum-eligible vessel at sea while engaged in fishing; (2) must produce documentary proof of income and employment or service as a crew member during the eligibility periods proposed by the NEFMC (if requested); (3) must have derived a percentage of his/her income from the fishery under the proposed IFQ program that is equal to or greater than the percentage determined to be significant relative to the economic value and employment practices of the fishery during the qualifying periods proposed by the NEFMC; and (4) must meet any additional eligibility criteria promulgated by NMFS. These criteria would limit eligibility of crew members to those who have worked aboard referendum-eligible vessels. If a vessel's activity in a fishery is considered by the NEFMC to be too little or dated to warrant the permit holder's participation in the referendum, it is unreasonable to allow crew members to derive eligibility from their work on that vessel. Also, this requirement would prevent the possibility of referendum-ineligible permit holders from influencing the referendum through their subordinate associates.

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to provide for the possibility of other fishery participants, including crew members, to participate in NEFMC IFQ program referenda creates the challenge of verifying whether these individuals meet voter eligibility criteria. NMFS has records on the history of Federal fishery permits and landings, but has little information on crew member participation in fisheries. NMFS does have contact information for those crew members that have vessel operator permits, but NMFS does not collect information on individuals who serve aboard a fishing vessel as crew or in any other capacity or on the income of crew members. Nor does NMFS have historical data of this nature.
        To address this problem, NMFS is proposing to include the availability of employment and income documentation as a factor the NEFMC must consider when developing recommended referendum voter eligibility criteria. Specifically, the NEFMC must consider whether documentation of service onboard a vessel as crew or in other capacities exists, and to what extent the availability of documentation should affect voter eligibility. The NEFMC may consider similar documentation limitations when evaluating the percentage of an individual 's total income generated by the proposed IFQ fishery.
        NMFS acknowledges the dearth of information and the irregularity of documentation in this component of the fishery. While the NEFMC may recommend and NMFS may require crew members to provide verifiable documentation as proof of meeting the voter eligibility criteria established for any given IFQ program referendum, this proposed action provides for the possibility of allowing fishery participants to certify on referendum ballots that they meet the voter eligibility criteria. Self-certification would consist of a signature attesting to one's meeting the stated criteria, and participants would be subject to prosecution for any false statements made on official forms.
        NMFS interprets the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement to ensure that certain crew members engaged in NEFMC fisheries are eligible to vote in IFQ program referenda to mean that NEFMC IFQ program referenda must provide for participation by eligible crew members.
        A Council may consider criteria for weighting eligible referendum votes. Section 303A(c)(6)(D) does not explicitly mention vote weighting, but the sections's legislative history gives the example of weighting votes in Gulf of Mexico fisheries by the quantity of fish authorized to be harvested under the permits of those voting (e.g., 200 pounds per day or 2,000 pounds per day). If a Council recommends such criteria in a letter requesting initiation of a referendum, it should fully describe in the letter its rationale and the expected effects of such weighting on the referendum. NMFS will give consideration to the reasons for the proposed criteria to determine whether they are consistent with the National Standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, other provisions of the Act, and other applicable legal standards.
        Ensuring Referenda Are Fair and Equitable
        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary to conduct IFQ program referenda in a fair and equitable manner. Every component of these proposed procedures and guidelines supports NMFS's compliance with that requirement. Council recommendations for voter eligibility criteria would be developed through public processes, along with any alternatives and supporting analyses or other information required by applicable law and provided in the Councils' referendum initiation letters. If NMFS finds the referendum voter eligibility criteria recommended by a Council would not provide for a fair and equitable referendum, or that they would not be consistent with National Standards under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, other provisions of the Act, and other applicable legal standards, then NMFS would deny the Council's request to conduct an IFQ program referendum and would inform the Council of the agency's finding, including reasons for the finding. The Council could then modify the voter eligibility criteria and supporting analyses to address NMFS's finding, and submit another referendum initiation letter to NMFS.
        In assessing whether Council recommendations for referenda criteria are fair and equitable, NMFS, at a minimum, would be required to take into account: (1) Whether the criteria are rationally connected to or further the objectives of the proposed IFQ program; (2) whether the criteria are designed in such a way to prevent any person or other entity from obtaining an excessive share of voting privileges; (3) whether the criteria are reasonable relative to the availability of documentary evidence and the possibility of validating a participant's eligibility; and (4) whether the referendum can be administered and executed fairly and equitably within a reasonable amount of time and without subjecting industry members, the Council, or NMFS to administrative burdens, costs, or other requirements that would be considered onerous. No voting eligibility criteria may differentiate among U.S. citizens, nationals, resident aliens, or corporations on the basis of their state of residence. The Council should analyze the relative benefits and hardships imposed by the voter eligibility criteria, and compare their consequences with those of alternative voter eligibility criteria.
        Rulemaking to implement fishery-specific IFQ referenda must describe the internal measures NMFS shall use to ensure referenda ballots are properly distributed, evaluated, and counted, and the procedures used to conduct the referenda are fair and equitable. Referenda ballots would be considered by NMFS as fishery information submitted to NMFS and subject to the confidentiality provisions and limitations of section 402(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and regulations in 50 CFR 600 subpart E.
        Conducting Referenda

        NMFS would initiate rulemaking to implement an IFQ program referendum as soon as practicable after receiving a Council's referendum initiation letter and finding the referendum can be conducted in a fair and equitable manner. The proposed schedules, procedures, and voter eligibility requirements associated with fishery-specific referenda would be published as proposed rules in the Federal Register for public comment. Final fishery-specific referenda procedures and guidelines would be implemented through final rules published in the Federal Register.

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the Secretary to conduct referenda on NEFMC and GMFMC IFQ program proposals as ultimately developed. NMFS interprets this provision to mean that NMFS may not publish a final rule implementing fishery-specific referenda procedures and guidelines until the Council determines the IFQ proposal and supporting analyses are complete and ready for Secretarial review. NMFS would inform the Council and the public through the Federal Register if the agency decided not to conduct a referendum, as proposed, including reasons for the decision.

        NMFS would provide each eligible voter a referendum ballot and would make available associated explanatory information concerning the referendum schedule, procedures, and eligibility requirements. NMFS may require individuals who wish to vote as other fishery participants in NEMFC IFQ program referenda to provide certain documentation and certifications in order to receive a referendum ballot. Referenda ballots must be signed by eligible voters and received by NMFS by the specified deadline. Ballots received after the specified deadline would not be considered valid or evaluated in deciding the outcome of the referendum.
        NMFS interprets the Magnuson-Stevens Act to provide for permit holders to submit a ballot for each permit held.

          Deciding Referenda

        NMFS would evaluate and count referenda ballots and announce referenda results within 60 days of the date by which completed ballots must be received. For a NEFMC IFQ referendum to be approved, more than 2/3 of those voting in a referendum of eligible permit holders and others must vote in favor of the measure. For a GMFMC IFQ referendum to be approved, a majority of those voting must vote in favor of the referendum.
        If NMFS determines an IFQ referendum to be approved, then the Council may submit the associated FMP or FMP amendment for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. If NMFS determines an IFQ referendum to have failed, then the Council may not submit the FMP or FMP amendment for Secretarial review. However, the Council may modify its IFQ program proposal and request a new referendum on the modified proposal.
        Any changes made to an IFQ program proposal that was reviewed by eligible voters through a referendum may invalidate the referendum and require the modified IFQ program proposal to be reviewed and approved through a subsequent referendum before the Council could submit the proposal for Secretarial review and implementation.
        Classification
        These proposed guidelines and procedures are published under the authority of, and consistent with, the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
        This proposed action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that, for a proposed rule, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) be prepared unless it is determined that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS believes it may be appropriate to make a determination that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, but is interested in receiving comments on whether it would be appropriate to make such a certification to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared for this action, and NMFS will consider any comments received when deciding whether to make this certification at the final rule stage. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. Copies of this analysis are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

          The proposed action would establish guidelines and procedures mandated by Section 303A(c)(6)(D) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for referenda on all Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program proposals (with the exception of an IFQ program for the Gulf of Mexico commercial red snapper fishery) to be developed by the New England Fishery Management Council and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Those future IFQ program proposals must be approved by referenda before they may be submitted for review and approval by the Secretary of Commerce.
          The proposed action contains guidelines and procedures (1) to determine procedures and voting eligibility, and (2) to conduct such referenda in a fair and equitable manner. At the same time, it would provide the Councils the flexibility to define IFQ program referenda voting eligibility requirements on a fishery-specific basis within the constraints of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has defined small entities as all fish harvesting businesses that are independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and with annual receipts of $4 million or less. In addition, processors with 500 or fewer employees for related industries involved in canned and cured fish and seafood, or preparing fresh fish and seafood, are also considered small entities. Because it would apply to all entities affected by NE or GOM proposal for an IFQ fishery, regardless of size, the proposed rule imposes no disproportionate impacts between large and small entities.
          Using the best available information, the number and description of small entities that could be affected by the proposed action includes approximately 8,300 permit holders in Gulf of Mexico fisheries, including those who hold 1,800 commercial shrimp permits, 1,500 commercial king mackerel permits, 1,450 commercial Spanish mackerel permits, 1,350 for-hire coastal migratory pelagic permits, 9,00 commercial reef fish permits, and 1,310 for-hire reef fish permits. Approximately 14,200 captains or crew members were employed in New England states (ME, NH, MA, RI, and CT) in New England fisheries for the calendar year 2005. In addition, approximately 9,900 Mid-Atlantic residents (NY, NH, DE, MD, VA, and NC) were captains or crew members in New England fisheries for the calendar year 2005. In total, assuming future levels of employment are similar to employment in 2005, as many as 24,000 captains or crew members could be affected by this proposed rule.
          Given that the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that the agency provide this referenda guidance, NMFS was unable to identify any significant alternatives that could meet the statutory requirements, yet minimize burdens on small entities. NMFS specifically invites public comment on this aspect of the rule.
          This proposed action would merely provide guidance and set out procedures for subsequent rules and thus does not impose any direct economic impact. However, the intangible benefits of ensuring that IFQ referenda are conducted in a fair and equitable manner are believed considerable. On the other hand, because the proposed action stipulates that permit holders and other fishery participants must meet voter eligibility criteria recommended by the Council and promulgated by NMFS regulations, future referenda criteria may limit voter eligibility and would thereby adversely impact some small business entities (e.g., certain crew members may be ineligible to vote in a future NEFMC IFQ program referendum). While the program is expected to provide a net benefit, this is not quantifiable until fishery-specific IFQ referenda are proposed because the proposed action only conveys broad guidance. Detailed analysis of data and impacts on vessels, vessel revenues, port revenues, fish stock impacts, etc. are not possible in the absence of identifying specific fisheries and IFQ program proposal components. Estimated direct economic impacts would be evaluated in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and other applicable Federal law at the time fishery-specific program proposals are developed.

        IFQ program referenda conducted under section 303A(c)(6)(D)(iv) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act are exempt from the Paperwork Reduction Act.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 600
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: April 17, 2008.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 600 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT PROVISIONS
          1. Under part 600, add subpart O to read as follows:

              Subpart O—Limited Access Privilege Programs
              Sec.
              600.1300
              [Reserved]

              600.1301
              [Reserved]
              600.1302
              [Reserved]
              600.1303
              [Reserved]
              600.1304
              [Reserved]
              600.1305
              [Reserved]
              600.1306
              [Reserved]
              600.1307
              [Reserved]
              600.1308
              [Reserved]
              600.1309
              [Reserved]
              600.1310
              Referenda.

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

            Subpart O—Limited Access Privilege Programs

              § 600.1310
              Referenda.
              (a) Purpose and scope. This section establishes procedures and guidelines for referenda to be conducted on Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program proposals initiated by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC), and NMFS. This section provides guidance on developing voter eligibility criteria and establishes general procedures to ensure referenda are conducted in a fair and equitable manner.
              (b) Initiating IFQ Referenda. (1) The NEFMC and the GMFMC shall not submit, and the Secretary shall not approve, an FMP or FMP amendment that would establish an IFQ program until the IFQ program proposal, as ultimately developed, has been approved by a referendum of eligible voters. Paragraph (h) of this section provides criteria for determining the outcome of IFQ referenda.
              (2) To initiate a referendum on a proposed IFQ program:
              (i) The Council must have held public hearings on the FMP or FMP amendment in which the IFQ program is proposed;
              (ii) The Council must have considered public comments on the proposed IFQ program proposal;
              (iii) The Council must have selected preferred alternatives for the proposed IFQ program;
              (iv) The chair of the Council with jurisdiction over such proposed IFQ fishery must request a referendum on the proposed IFQ program in a letter to the appropriate NMFS Regional Administrator; and
              (v) The letter requesting initiation of a referendum must include, but is not limited to, recommended criteria for NMFS to use in determining who is eligible to vote in the referendum, and may also include recommended criteria for vote weighting. The letter must provide the rationale supporting the Council's recommendation, as well as such additional information and analyses as needed consistent with applicable law and these guidelines and procedures. If a Council recommends vote weighting criteria, the letter should fully describe the expected effects of such weighting on the referendum.
              (vi) In addition to the requirements specified at paragraphs (b)(2)(iv)-(v) of this section, NEFMC referenda initiation letters must also include recommended criteria for NMFS to use in determining the eligibility of other fishery participants to vote in the referendum, including a criterion setting the minimum percentage of a crew member's total income that must have been earned in the proposed IFQ fishery. Guidelines for developing such recommendations are provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
              (vii) In addition to the requirements specified at paragraphs (b)(2)(iv)-(v) of this section, GMFMC letters initiating referenda of multispecies permit holders in the Gulf of Mexico must include recommended criteria to be used in identifying those permit holders who have substantially fished the species proposed to be included in the proposed IFQ program, along with alternatives to the recommendation, and supporting analyses. Guidelines for developing such recommendations are provided at paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
              (3) Following a referendum that has failed to approve the IFQ proposal, any request from a Council for a new referendum in the same fishery must include an explanation of the substantive changes to the proposed IFQ program or the changes of circumstances in the fishery that would warrant initiation of an additional referendum.
              (c) Referenda voter eligibility.—(1) Permit holders and other fishery participants.— (i) To be eligible to vote in IFQ referenda, permit holders and other fishery participants must meet voter eligibility criteria recommended by the Council and promulgated by NMFS.
              (ii) Holders of multispecies permits in the Gulf of Mexico must be determined to have substantially fished the species proposed to be included in the IFQ program to be eligible to vote in a referendum on the proposed program.
              (iii) When developing recommended criteria for determining which permit holders may participate in an IFQ program. referendum, the Councils must consider, but are not limited to considering:
              (A) The full range of entities likely to be eligible to receive initial quota allocation under the proposed IFQ program;
              (B) Current and historical harvest and participation in the fishery; and
              (C) Other factors as may be determined by the Council to be relevant to the fishery and to the proposed IFQ program.
              (2) Crew member eligibility in NEFMC IFQ referenda.—(i) For the purposes of these procedures and guidelines, “referendum-eligible vessel” means a vessel, the permit holder or owner of which has been determined to be eligible to vote in the referendum on the basis of such vessel's history or other characteristics meeting the prescribed voter eligibility criteria.
              (ii) To be eligible to vote in an NEFMC IFQ referendum, crew members must meet the following eligibility requirements:
              (A) The crew member must have worked aboard a referendum-eligible vessel at sea while engaged in fishing.
              (B) If requested, the crew member must produce documentary proof of employment or service as a crew member and income during the eligibility periods established by the NEFMC. Documents may include, but are not limited to, signed crew contracts, records of payment, settlement sheets, income tax records, a signed statement from the permit holder, and other documents as evidence of the period and the vessel upon which the crew member worked.
              (C) During the qualifying periods established by the NEFMC, the crew member must have derived a percentage of his/her total income from the fishery under the proposed IFQ program that is equal to or greater than the percentage promulgated by NMFS and determined to be significant relative to the economic value and employment practices of the fishery.
              (D) Any additional eligibility criteria promulgated by the NMFS.
              (iii) When developing recommended criteria for determining whether other fishery participants, including crew members, may participate in a NEFMC IFQ referendum, the NEFMC must consider, but is not limited to considering:
              (A) The full range of entities likely to be eligible to receive initial quota under the proposed IFQ program;
              (B) A crew member's current and historical participation in the fishery aboard a referendum-eligible vessel;

              (C) The economic value of the proposed IFQ fishery, employment practices in the proposed IFQ fishery, and other economic and social factors that would bear on a determination of what percentage of a crew member's total income from the fishery should be considered significant for the purposes of this section;

              (D) The availability of documentary proof of employment and income to validate eligibility; and
              (E) Any other factors as may be determined by the Council to be relevant to the fishery and the proposed IFQ program.
              (3) GMFMC's substantially fished criterion. When developing recommended criteria for identifying those multispecies permit holders who have substantially fished the species to be included in the IFQ program proposal, the GMFMC must consider, but is not limited to considering:
              (i) Current and historical harvest and participation in the fishery;
              (ii) The economic value of and employment practices in the fishery; and
              (iii) Any other factors determined by the Council to be relevant to the fishery and the proposed IFQ program.
              (d) Council-recommended criteria under (c) may include, but are not limited to, levels of participation or reliance on the fishery as represented by landings, sales, expenditures, or other considerations. A Council may also consider criteria for weighting eligible referendum votes. In its letter requesting initiation of a referendum, a Council should fully describe its rationale for any weighting recommendation and the expected effects of such weighting on the referendum.
              (e) Actions by NMFS: Review of Council referendum criteria and Secretarial IFQ plans. (1) NMFS shall determine whether Council recommended referendum criteria will provide for a fair and equitable referendum and will be consistent with National Standards under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, other provisions of the Act, and other applicable legal standards. The Secretary's considerations shall include, but shall not be limited to:
              (i) Whether the criteria are rationally connected to or further the objectives of the proposed IFQ program;
              (ii) Whether the criteria are designed in such a way to prevent any person or single entity from obtaining an excessive share of voting privileges;
              (iii) Whether the criteria are reasonable relative to the availability of documentary evidence and the possibility of validating a participant's eligibility; and
              (iv) Whether the referendum can be administered and executed in a fair and equitable manner in a reasonable time and without subjecting industry members, the Council, or NMFS to administrative burdens, costs, or other requirements that would be considered onerous.
              (2) If NMFS determines that referendum criteria would not provide for a fair and equitable referendum, would not be consistent with National Standards under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, other provisions of the Act, and other applicable legal standards, or, in the case of a referendum request subsequent to a failed referendum in the same fishery, that the Council has not substantively amended the IFQ proposal or circumstances have not changed sufficiently to warrant initiation of a new referendum, NMFS shall inform the Council of the agency's decision to deny the referendum request and of the reasons for the decision.
              (3) If NMFS determines that referendum criteria would provide for a fair and equitable referendum and would be consistent with National Standards under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, other provisions of the Act, and other applicable legal standards, then NMFS shall conduct the referendum in accordance with procedures and guidelines provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
              (4) In accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3), NMFS may initiate a referendum and promulgate referendum criteria for any IFQ program proposal advanced through a Secretarial fishery management plan (FMP) or FMP amendment under the authority of Section 304(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for a New England or Gulf of Mexico fishery. Such criteria must provide for a fair and equitable referendum and NMFS shall conduct the referendum in accordance with procedures and guidelines provided in paragraph (f) of this section.
              (f) Conducting IFQ referenda. (1) NMFS shall promulgate specific referenda procedural requirements, voter eligibility requirements, and any vote weighting criteria through appropriate rulemaking. A proposed rule shall seek public comment on the specific schedule, procedures, and other requirements for the referendum process.
              (2) For NEFMC IFQ program referenda, the proposed rule shall establish procedures for documenting or certifying that other fishery participants, including crew members, meet the proposed voter eligibility criteria.
              (3) For GMFMC IFQ program referenda of multispecies permit holders, the proposed rule shall include criteria to be used in identifying those permit holders who have substantially fished the species that are the subject of the proposed IFQ program.

              (4) If NMFS decides to proceed with the referendum after reviewing public comments, NMFS shall publish implementing regulations through a final rule in the Federal Register as soon as practicable after the Council determines the IFQ program proposal and supporting analyses are complete and ready for Secretarial review. Otherwise, NMFS shall publish a notice in the Federal Register to inform the Council and the public of its decision not to conduct the referendum, as proposed, including reasons for the agency's decision.
              (5) Upon implementation of the referendum through a final rule, NMFS shall provide eligible voters referenda ballots and shall make available information about the schedule, procedures, and eligibility requirements for the referendum process and the proposed IFQ program.
              (6) NMFS shall notify the public in the region of the subject fishery of the referendum eligibility criteria.
              (7) Individuals who wish to vote as other fishery participants in a NEFMC IFQ referendum must contact NMFS and produce all required documentation and certifications to receive a ballot. NMFS shall provide sufficient time in the referendum process to allow for crew members to request, receive, and submit referendum ballots.
              (g) Referenda ballots. (1) Ballots shall be composed such that voters will indicate approval or disapproval of the preferred IFQ program proposal.
              (2) NMFS may require voters to self-certify on referenda ballots that they meet voter eligibility criteria. To be considered valid, ballots that require such certification must be signed by the eligible voter.
              (3) Referenda ballots shall be numbered serially or otherwise designed to guard against submission of duplicate ballots.
              (4) NMFS shall allow at least 30 days for eligible voters to receive and return their ballots and shall specify a deadline by which ballots must be received. Ballots received after the deadline shall not be considered valid.
              (h) Determining the outcome of an IFQ referendum. (1) NMFS shall tally and announce the results of the referendum within 90 days of the deadline by which completed ballots must be received. NMFS may declare a referendum invalid if the agency can demonstrate the referendum was not conducted in accordance with the guidelines and procedures established in the final rule implementing the referendum.

              (2) A NEFMC IFQ program referendum shall be considered approved only if more than 2/3 of those voting submit valid ballots in favor of the referendum question.

              (3) A GMFMC IFQ program referendum shall be considered approved only if a majority of those voting submit valid ballots in favor of the referendum question.
              (i) Council actions. (1) If NMFS notifies a Council that an IFQ program proposal has been approved through a referendum, then the Council may submit the associated FMP or FMP amendment for Secretarial review and implementation.
              (2) Any changes that would modify an IFQ program proposal that was reviewed by referenda voters may invalidate the results of the referendum and require the modified program proposal to be approved through a new referendum before it can be submitted to the Secretary for review and implementation.
              (3) If NMFS notifies a Council that an IFQ referendum has failed, then the Council may modify its IFQ program proposal and request a new referendum pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.

       [FR Doc. E8-8756 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
        49 CFR Part 571
        [Docket No. NHTSA-2003-15715]
        RIN 2127-AH73
        Request for Comments; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection

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

          ACTION:
          Request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This document is intended to inform the public about recent testing the agency has conducted in consideration of whether to propose a high speed frontal offset crash test requirement. NHTSA has been conducting research since the early to mid-1990s on developing a frontal offset crash test procedure. In fiscal year 1997, the U.S. House of Representatives directed the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to work toward “establishing a federal motor vehicle safety standard for frontal offset crash testing.” Since then, frontal offset crash tests have been adopted for New Car Assessment Programs in several countries worldwide. Additionally, in the U.S., the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety began a consumer crashworthiness ratings program in 1995 that included a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test.
          Over the past several years, NHTSA has conducted testing to evaluate the feasibility of adopting a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, “Occupant crash protection,” for improving frontal crash protection. It was preliminarily determined that the benefits from such a crash test could lead to an annual reduction in approximately 1,300 to 8,000 MAIS 2+ lower extremity injuries. NHTSA also conducted vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests to investigate the potential for disbenefits from a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test requirement. The testing demonstrated that, for some sport utility vehicles, design changes that improved their performance in high speed frontal offset crash tests may also result in adverse effects on the occupants of their collision partners. This notice discusses additional tests the agency plans to conduct to further evaluate the potential disbenefits, and poses some alternative strategies that could be coupled with a frontal offset crash test requirement. The agency invites the public to comment on this notice and share information and views with the agency.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by April 5, 2004.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments (identified by the docket number set forth above) by any of the following methods:
          • Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. Please note, if you are submitting petitions electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search and copy certain portions of your submissions.1

              1 Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.

          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
          • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

          Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. 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://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information provided.

          Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          The following persons at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 can be contacted.

          For non-legal issues: Mr. John Lee, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NVS-112. Telephone: (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202) 493-2739. Electronic mail: jlee@nhtsa.dot.gov.

          For legal issues: Rebecca MacPherson, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-20. Telephone: (202) 366-2992. Fax: (202) 366-3820.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

          Table of Contents
          I. Introduction
          II. Background
          A. European Frontal Offset Crash Test
          B. Other Countries
          C. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Crashworthiness Rating Program
          III. Crash Tests to Assess the Benefits of Adopting a Fixed Offset Deformable Barrier Crash Test Requirement as Part of FMVSS No. 208
          IV. Crash Tests to Assess Potential Disbenefits of Adopting a Fixed Offset Deformable Barrier Crash Test Procedure
          A. Chevrolet Blazer/Trailblazer Series
          B. Mitsubishi Montero Sport Series
          C. Future Vehicle Crash Tests
          V. Potential Alternative Strategies
          A. Exemption of Certain Vehicles
          B. Additional Performance Requirement
          VI. Solicitation of Comments
          VII. Public Participation

        I. Introduction
        Improving occupant protection in crashes is a major goal of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Frontal crashes are the most significant cause of motor vehicle fatalities. In 1972, NHTSA promulgated FMVSS No. 208 to improve the crash protection provided to motor vehicle occupants. This standard has been amended many times. The main dynamic performance requirements in this standard have been vehicle-to-rigid barrier crash tests, at angles between perpendicular and ±30 degrees with both belted and unbelted dummies.2
           Occupant protection is evaluated based on data acquired from anthropomorphic test dummies positioned in the driver and right front passenger seats. Data collection instrumentation is mounted in the head, chest, femur and, more recently, neck of the test dummies.

            2 In March of 1997, NHTSA temporarily amended FMVSS No. 208 so that passenger cars and light trucks had the option of using a sled test for meeting the unrestrained dummy requirements. This option will be phased out as part of the advanced air bag rulemaking schedule.

        With the mandated requirements for driver and right front passenger air bags in new vehicles, and the eventual disappearance of non-air bag equipped vehicles in the future, within a few years, nearly all passenger cars and light trucks on the road will have frontal air bags. However, NHTSA has estimated that over 8,000 fatalities and 100,000 moderate-to-severe injuries will continue to occur in frontal crashes even after all passenger cars and light trucks have frontal air bags. Consequently, NHTSA has focused on the development of performance tests not currently addressed by FMVSS No. 208, such as high severity frontal offset crashes that involve only partial engagement of a vehicle's front structure. These tests result in large amounts of occupant compartment intrusion and increased potential for lower leg injury.
        FMVSS No. 208 does not currently have provisions in place to fully assess the potential for lower extremity injury in frontal crashes, specifically knee ligament, tibia, and ankle injuries. The 5th and 50th percentile adult Hybrid III dummies prescribed for use in FMVSS No. 208 are limited to axial instrumentation on the left and right femurs. On May 3, 2003, NHTSA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [67 FR 22381] requesting comments on two versions of lower leg instrumentation for use in full frontal and offset frontal vehicle crashes. NHTSA is currently evaluating the comments and assessing the merits of the two devices.
        II. Background
        A. European Frontal Offset Crash Test
        In 1990, the European Experimental Vehicles Committee (EEVC) created a Working Group (WG-11) for the improvement of protection in frontal collisions. The EEVC is comprised of representatives from several European nations that jointly initiate research in automotive safety areas. In the interest of global harmonization, the EEVC invited NHTSA, the Japanese Ministry of Transport, Transport Canada, and the Australian Federal Office of Road Safety to participate in the WG-11 activities. Automotive experts from the U.S., Europe, and Japan also provided input to WG-11.
        After examining available crash data, the WG-11 concluded that the most effective way to reduce deaths and serious injuries in frontal impacts was to introduce a crash test that simulated the dynamic conditions of frontal car-to-car impacts at 60 km/h or greater. The committee concluded that frontal impacts were still a major cause of severe and fatal injuries even in countries with high rates of safety belt usage. The WG-11 also found that many car-to-car impacts were offset impacts involving only part of the vehicle's frontal structure, and resulted in a large degree of intrusion.
        The EEVC generally concurred with the WG-11's findings. However, the EEVC determined that the initial test speed should be 56 km/h until design methodologies were better understood at higher energies. The EEVC made a recommendation to the member states for a two-stage approach. The first stage was to be based on a 30-degree angled rigid barrier test with an anti-slide device, called ASD-30, and a future second stage was to be based on a fixed offset deformable barrier. Due to the high seat belt usage rates in Europe, the test dummies were tested in the restrained condition only, and new injury criteria were incorporated to address lower limb injury.
        In December of 1996, the European Union (EU) adopted the EU Directive 96/79 EC 3
           for frontal crash protection, which became effective in October of 1998 for new types and models of vehicles, and will become effective in October of 2003 for all new vehicles. The first stage angled rigid barrier test with ASD-30 was omitted and a 56 km/h, 40 percent offset, fixed deformable barrier test was required in the Directive.

            3 Directive 96/79 EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Protection of Occupants of Motor Vehicles in the Event of a Frontal Impact and Amending Directive 70/156/EEC, December 16, 1996.

        B. Other Countries
        Other countries and consumer rating programs have adopted the use of a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test procedure. Those that currently use a high speed offset deformable barrier (ODB) test include the European New Car Assessment Program (EuroNCAP), Australia (regulation and NCAP), and Japan (NCAP).

        EuroNCAP was developed in the United Kingdom with the aim of bringing about vehicle improvements throughout the European Union. EuroNCAP has grown with sponsorship from other European countries, the European Commission, European consumer groups, and international motoring organizations. The frontal offset test is based on the EU Directive 96/79 EC, except that the impact speed is 64 km/h instead of 56 km/h. The impact speed of 64 km/h was chosen based on crash data analyses conducted for the EEVC WG-11.
        In 1992 Australia began a consumer information program called the Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP). In 1994, ANCAP added the draft EU Directive 96/79 EC frontal offset crash test procedure, except that the impact speed was specified at 60 km/h; however, the impact speed was later increased to 64 km/h in 1995. In 1998, the Australians introduced a frontal offset occupant protection regulation for new passenger car model approvals starting from January 1, 2000. The impact speed was established at 56 km/h.
        Japan does not currently have a high speed frontal offset crash test regulation. However, the National Organization for Automobile Safety has been conducting high speed fixed offset deformable barrier crash tests at 64 km/h for the New Car Assessment Program in Japan since 2000.
        C. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Crashworthiness Rating Program
        In 1995, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) began a vehicle crashworthiness evaluation program that included a 64 km/h, 40 percent offset deformable barrier crash test. The IIHS essentially adopted the EU offset crash test procedure, but raised the impact speed to 64 km/h. The purpose of the program is to provide consumer information about the safety potential of the subject vehicles in frontal offset crashes, particularly related to intrusion-induced lower leg injuries.
        In the IIHS vehicle crashworthiness evaluations, three aspects of performance are rated: (1) Vehicle structure, (2) dummy injury measures, and (3) restraint system performance and dummy kinematics. To evaluate the first component, vehicle structure, the post-test vehicle is evaluated based on how well the front-end crush zone manages the crash energy and limits the damage to the occupant compartment. Pre-crash and post-crash measurements are taken at several points on the instrument panel and in the footwell area. Movement of the steering column and closure of the driver door opening is also monitored.
        For the second component, the dummy injury criteria evaluation is based on the measurements obtained from the instrumentation mounted on the dummy head, neck, chest, left and right leg and left and right foot. The dummy is instrumented with Denton Hybrid III lower legs.
        For the last component, restraint system and dummy kinematics, IIHS utilizes a number of observational criteria that monitor how well the driver dummy loads the seat belt and air bag, and rebounds into a normal seated position. For example, how well the air bag stayed between the occupant and the hard surfaces of the front structure is considered a performance criterion that is subjective. Door openings, partial head ejections, or head strikes with the door frame can also lead to lower ratings.
        IIHS has evaluated the crashworthiness of more than 150 vehicle models using the 64 km/h, 40 percent ODB crash test since 1995. According to their results, many of the models originally tested have been redesigned and retested, with the majority producing better structural performance than their predecessors. They have also stated that in the past, fewer than one of every four model year (MY) 1995-1998 cars and passenger vans tested by IIHS earned a “good” overall crashworthiness evaluation based primarily on their performance in the offset test, whereas about half of all 1999-2001 models tested earned good ratings. IIHS researchers have stated that the large improvements in performance are principally due to the fact that vehicle structures have been redesigned to prevent major collapse of the occupant compartment.
        III. Crash Tests To Assess the Benefits of Adopting a Fixed Offset Deformable Barrier Crash Test Requirement as Part of FMVSS No. 208
        NHTSA initiated research in the early to mid-1990s to develop a frontal offset crash test procedure. Given the world-wide focus placed on the fixed offset deformable barrier crash test procedure, in fiscal year (FY) 1997, the U.S. House of Representatives directed NHTSA to work “toward establishing a federal motor vehicle safety standard for frontal offset crash testing.” NHTSA was further directed to consider the harmonization potential with other countries and to work with interested parties, including the automotive industry, under standard rulemaking procedures.
        In 1997, NHTSA submitted a Report to Congress 4
           on this program, providing a status report on the agency's efforts toward establishing a high speed frontal offset crash test standard. The agency made a preliminary assessment that the adoption of the EU 96/79 EC frontal offset test procedure, in addition to the current requirements of FMVSS No. 208, could yield benefits in terms of a reduction in lower limb injuries. To further assess this, a proposed matrix of tests was presented in the report.

            4 Report to Congress “Status Report on Establishing a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for Frontal Offset Crash Testing,” April 1997.

        In 1998, NHTSA completed the crash tests discussed in the Report to Congress. Tests were conducted with restrained 5th and 50th percentile dummies instrumented with Denton lower legs. The tests followed the EU 96/79 EC frontal offset test procedure, but the vehicle impact speed was increased to 60 km/h, since, at that time, the agency had thought that Europe would eventually increase their impact speed to 60 km/h. Occupant responses in the frontal offset crash tests were compared to those resulting from 48 km/h belted rigid barrier crash tests using the same vehicle model.
        For the 5th percentile female dummy, it was found that the head and chest readings were approximately the same, or slightly greater in the full frontal rigid barrier crash tests. However, for the lower limb and neck areas, higher injury measures were found in the frontal offset crash tests. Overall, the 5th percentile dummy was also found to be more likely to experience higher normalized injury measures than the 50th percentile dummy in the same crash configuration. This was particularly true for neck injury.5
           The test results with the 50th percentile dummy suggested that additional safety benefits might be provided for the lower extremities using the frontal offset crash test configuration.

            5 Docket NHTSA-1998-3332.

        In 1999-2002, NHTSA conducted another 25 tests to support an assessment of benefits and feasibility of a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test. The trends in dummy injury measurements were similar to that observed in the previous series of tests. Therefore, it was preliminarily determined that the benefits from a high speed fixed offset deformable barrier crash test standard would lead to a reduction in leg injuries for all occupants, and potentially a reduction in neck injuries for those of small stature. Consequently, in a notice published July 18, 2000 (65 FR 44565), NHTSA proposed that frontal offset be one of its highest priority harmonization recommendations under the 1998 Global Agreement, and announced its adoption of full/offset frontal as an agency recommendation in a notice published on January 18, 2001 (66 FR 4893).

        In the 2001-2002 timeframe, the agency continued research by comparing the response of two types of lower leg instrumentation in eight high speed fixed offset deformable barrier crash tests with the 50th percentile adult male dummy. The two types of instrumentation included: the Hybrid III Denton legs and the Thor-Lx Hybrid III retrofit (Thor-Lx/HIIIr). Both lower leg instrumentation packages have been designed to fit the existing 50th percentile adult male Hybrid III dummy and to predict injury to the lower extremities. [Further discussion on the merits of the two types of lower leg instrumentation can be found in NHTSA Docket No. NHTSA-2002-11838].
        In the test series, four vehicle models were crash tested twice, once with each of the two types of lower leg instrumentation, for comparison. The results showed that both the Denton legs and the Thor-LX/HIIIr legs were durable in the offset crash environment. The driver dummy head and chest injury measures with the two types of lower leg instrumentation were generally within the realm of crash test variability in the paired tests. The head and chest measures were, again, generally below the limits prescribed in FMVSS No. 208. However, the lower leg injury measures were exceeded in many of the tests, particularly with the Thor-LX.
        IV. Crash Tests To Assess Potential Disbenefits of Adopting a Fixed Offset Deformable Barrier Crash Test Procedure
        On December 7, 2001, John D. Graham, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote a letter to the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) asking DOT and NHTSA to consider giving greater priority to modifying its frontal occupant protection standard by establishing a high speed, frontal offset crash test requirement. If consideration was given, the letter suggested that refinements would need to be made in the estimates of the specific safety benefits that a new offset test would generate. This assessment would also need to include potential losses in existing safety benefits due to possible changes in vehicle structure and design. In response to this letter, NHTSA further examined the benefits and disbenefits of adopting a high speed frontal offset crash test procedure. Data from the 1995-2001 National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System indicated that approximately 84,811 front seat vehicle occupants annually experience AIS 2+ skeletal and joint injuries to the lower extremities and hip in frontal offset crashes. Of these 84,811 vehicle occupants, 67,848 (80 percent) were drivers and 16,963 (20 percent) were front outboard passengers. Based on evaluating the agency's fixed offset deformable barrier crash tests conducted to date and those from IIHS, it was preliminarily determined that such a test requirement would have the potential of annually reducing 1,300 to 8,000 MAIS 2+ lower extremity injuries. The dummy head, chest, and femur injury measures were typically meeting the injury criteria in the fixed offset deformable barrier crash tests, so no additional benefits were projected in these areas beyond those already achieved through the FMVSS No. 208 advanced air bag final rule.
        However, the high speed frontal offset crash test procedure did demonstrate that benefits could be achieved in the lower leg region. Many vehicles exceeded the provisional injury criteria for the lower legs, particularly with the Thor-Lx/HIIIr instrumentation. A test that led to new vehicle designs with improved crash protection to the lower extremities could result in substantial benefits, since NHTSA has found that lower leg injuries are typically associated with long-term recovery and significant economic cost.
        The agency also conducted a few tests to assess the potential for any disbenefits that such a regulation might cause. Since the IIHS frontal offset crash test procedure has been conducted on vehicles of the U.S. fleet for over eight years, NHTSA has tried to assess the effect that vehicle design changes leading to better performance in the high speed offset test have had on overall benefits and disbenefits. For example, if a vehicle model was rated “poor” in the IIHS test in 1997, but improved its rating to “good” in 2002, NHTSA sought to understand how those design changes affected the injuries received by not only the vehicle's occupants, but also the occupants of the vehicle's collision partner.
        To assess potential disbenefits, NHTSA used the vehicle-to-vehicle crash test configuration from the agency's vehicle compatibility program.6

           In this test configuration, both vehicles are moving at 56.3 km/h such that the subject vehicle impacts the left front corner of its collision partner at an offset of 50 percent and an impact angle of 30 degrees. Two vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests were conducted for each vehicle model under study, one from several years ago and one newer vehicle that had been redesigned. Both vehicles struck a MY 1997 Honda Accord. The two sets of dummy injury measurements for the driver of the MY 1997 Honda Accord were compared to determine which MY of the subject vehicle (i.e., the new or old) imparted the higher injury numbers.

            6 Summers, Prasad, Hollowell, “NHTSA's Vehicle Compatibility Research Program,” Society of Automotive Engineers Paper No. 1999-01-0071, March 1999.

        A. Chevrolet Blazer/Trailblazer Series
        The first vehicle NHTSA examined was the General Motors (GM) Chevrolet Blazer sport utility vehicle (SUV). The 1997 MY Chevrolet Blazer received a “poor” overall crashworthiness rating in the IIHS frontal offset crash test program. However, in MY 2002, GM redesigned the Blazer, as the Chevrolet Trailblazer, and received an “acceptable” rating for its vehicle structure, but a “marginal” rating overall.
        In June of 2002, NHTSA conducted two vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests.7
           The first used an older MY 1997 Chevrolet Blazer impacting a MY 1997 Accord. The second used a redesigned 2002 Chevrolet Trailblazer impacting a MY 1997 Honda Accord. The occupant of interest, the driver of the MY 1997 Honda Accord, was a Hybrid III 50th percentile adult male dummy with Denton lower leg instrumentation.

            7 Docket NHTSA-1998-3332.

        In the first crash test of the MY 1997 Chevrolet Blazer, the Honda Accord driver dummy slightly exceeded the head and leg injury criteria specified in FMVSS No. 208. However, the chest and neck injury criteria were met (See Table 1).

          Table 1.—Driver Injury Measures for 1997 Honda Accord
          [Blazer/Trailblazer Series]

            HIC15
            Chest Gs
            Chest deflection (mm)

            Nij
            Max. femur (N)

            FMVSS No. 208 Injury Criteria Perf. Limits
            700
            60
            63
            1.0
            10,008

            1997 Chevrolet Blazer Test
            738
            53
            24
            0.39
            12,114

            2002 Chevrolet TrailBlazer Test
            3,310
            81
            85
            0.85
            16,859

        In the second crash test, involving the MY 2002 Chevrolet Trailblazer, all FMVSS No. 208 injury criteria for the Honda Accord driver were exceeded with the exception of Nij. (The Nij was marginally below the performance limits, but was still higher than in the MY 1997 Chevrolet Blazer test). All other injury measures for the head, chest and femurs of the Honda Accord driver increased substantially when struck by the later MY vehicle. The driver head injury measurement for the Honda driver in the MY 2002 Chevrolet Trailblazer crash test was four times higher than that in the MY 1997 Chevrolet Blazer crash test.
        NHTSA examined force-deflection profiles of the MY 1997 Blazer and MY 2002 Trailblazer vehicles to provide insight on how the vehicles crushed when impacting a rigid barrier under NCAP conditions. Due to the sharp-rising slope of the force-deflection profile and the reduced crush space in the MY 2002 Trailblazer, the vehicle model exhibited stiffer characteristics when compared to its predecessor. The MY 2002 Trailblazer also increased in mass by 227 kg (500 lbs).
        On the other hand, the MY 2002 Chevrolet Trailblazer exhibited notable improvements in structural integrity, as demonstrated in the IIHS frontal offset crash test. The MY 1997 Blazer, in contrast, had a large amount of structural deformation to the A-pillar and driver door frame.
        Overall, the crash test results showed that the MY 2002 Chevrolet Trailblazer slightly improved the crash protection provided to its own occupants in frontal offset crashes; however, it reduced the injury protection provided to its collision partner. The newer vehicle had increased stiffness and mass, and different geometry. It was difficult to assess how much of a contribution each of these factors made toward increasing the injury measures experienced by the Honda driver.
        B. Mitsubishi Montero Sport Series
        Following the Blazer/Trailblazer tests, the agency decided to conduct a second pair of tests to better assess the influence of structural stiffness versus mass and geometric effects. The vehicle model selected for study was the Mitsubishi Montero Sport SUV. In MY 1999, IIHS rated the crashworthiness of this vehicle as “poor.” However, after a redesign in MY 2001, the Montero Sport improved its rating to “good.” This vehicle had virtually no change in mass, and minimal change in front end geometry, during the course of the subject model years. Force-deflection measurements for the MY 1999 and MY 2001 vehicles were not available.
        The Mitsubishi Montero Sport test series was conducted in November of 2002.8
           NHTSA used the same 30 degree frontal oblique test configuration from the Blazer/Trailblazer series. As before, the target vehicle was a 1997 Honda Accord with a 50th percentile male Hybrid III driver dummy with Denton lower leg instrumentation (Table 2).

            8 Docket NHTSA-1998-3332.

          Table 2.—Driver Injury Measures for 1997 Honda Accord
          [Montero Sport Series]

            HIC15
            Chest Gs
            Chest deflection (mm)

            Nij
            Max. femur (N)

            FMVSS No. 208 Injury Criteria Perf. Limits
            700
            60
            63
            1.0
            10,008

            1999 Mitsubishi Montero Sport Test
            323
            58
            32
            0.65
            9,744

            2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport Test
            480
            71
            58
            0.61
            10,903

        The results demonstrated that injury measures for the head, chest, and femurs of the Honda Accord driver increased when struck by the redesigned MY 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Sport. Although, the increases in the injury measures were not as large in this test series, the test series exhibited the same trend toward increased injuries to the driver occupant of the crash partner from the later MY striking vehicle as was found in the Chevrolet Blazer/Trailblazer series.
        C. Future Vehicle Crash Tests
        The two series of vehicle-to-vehicle crash tests were indicative of the same general trend, but the magnitude of differences observed were very different. The later model year striking vehicle generally imparted higher injury numbers to the struck vehicle's driver dummy. Furthermore, the greatest increase in injury measures were in the body regions of the head and chest, which could largely offset any potential benefits gained by reducing injuries to lower legs of occupants of the striking vehicle. Consequently, NHTSA's two test series have raised questions about whether or not these results are representative of the effects on collision partner protection in the current fleet, and the extent to which disbenefits to crash partners are associated with design changes made to improve performance in a high speed frontal offset crash test.

        Because of this, the agency has decided to study the performance of four additional vehicle models that have improved their IIHS crashworthiness rating from “poor” (or “marginal” in one case) to “good” over the course of a vehicle redesign. The vehicle models selected are the Cadillac Seville, the Toyota Avalon, the Dodge Ram 1500 and the Toyota Previa. Generally, these vehicle models received a “poor” or “marginal” crashworthiness rating in the 1993-1998 MY time period. However, more recently, these vehicle models improved their rating to “good.” While we previously studied two SUV models, we are now conducting the tests of other vehicle types to see if a similar trend is observed. We have broadened our selection to include two vehicle models from the other light truck and van (LTV) classes, specifically a pickup truck and a minivan. We have also selected two passenger cars, since load cell data collected in NHTSA's New Car Assessment Program has suggested that passenger cars have generally been getting stiffer during the past five years.9

            9 Swanson, J., Rockwell, T., Beuse, N., Summers, L., Summers, S., Park, B., “Evaluation of Stiffness Measures from the U.S. New Car Assessment Program,” Proceedings of the 18th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles, Nagoya, Japan, Paper 527.

        Three of the vehicle models, the Cadillac Seville, the Dodge Ram 1500 and the Toyota Previa, improved their IIHS overall crashworthiness rating from “poor” to “good” during the course of a redesign without a significant increase in vehicle weight (less than 59 kg or 130 lb). The fourth vehicle, the Toyota Avalon, improved its rating from “marginal” to “good,” but had a 110 kg (243 lb.) increase in vehicle weight. Therefore, with the exception of the Avalon, increased mass should not be a relevant factor.
        NHTSA plans to docket the results of these tests in Docket Number NHTSA-1998-3332, as they become available. We anticipate this will occur during the comment period for this notice. NHTSA does not know at this time what conclusions, if any, can be reached regarding potential benefits and disbenefits of a high speed frontal offset crash test requirement. Therefore, in addition to the tests described above, we would like to consider data and views from others in deciding on the next steps for our high speed frontal offset rulemaking. We will then proceed with a proposal or pursue potential alternative strategies, depending on the outcome of these tests and the comments received.
        V. Potential Alternative Strategies
        If there appears to be a trend of higher partner vehicle injury measures for new vehicles that have been redesigned to perform better in an offset frontal crash test, NHTSA may consider potential alternative strategies aimed at preserving the potential lower leg benefits from a high speed frontal offset crash test requirement, while minimizing the risk of increasing vehicle aggressivity in the fleet. The alternative strategies discussed in this section do not constitute an exhaustive list of options. NHTSA is seeking comments on others as well.
        A. Exemption of Certain Vehicles
        One strategy to reduce the potential disbenefits of a frontal offset crash test requirement would be to limit the vehicle classes or gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the vehicles to which the potential regulation would apply. For example, NHTSA's initial disbenefits assessment tests were conducted on SUVs only. If tests with the Cadillac DeVille and Toyota Avalon passenger cars do not show the same trend as observed for the Blazer/Trailblazer and Montero Sport, one potential strategy would be to apply the high speed frontal offset requirement only to passenger cars. Excluding SUVs (or all LTVs) from the proposed frontal offset crash test requirement would not contribute to encouraging vehicle manufacturers to stiffen their front structures to comply with the test procedure. However, this option is not a panacea since it would exempt LTV manufacturers from being required to improve their compartment integrity. This is of particular concern since LTVs are a growing proportion of the U.S. passenger vehicle fleet.
        Passenger car occupants, on the other hand, could benefit from a frontal offset crash test requirement since their vehicles would be required to maintain compartment integrity and provide better lower leg protection. Since passenger cars typically incur more intrusion when involved in frontal crashes with larger, stiffer LTVs, their occupants would largely be the benefactors from such a frontal offset regulation. NHTSA estimates that approximately 77 percent of the benefits of a high speed frontal offset regulation would accrue to passenger car occupants. In addition, passenger car occupants may also benefit from the LTV exclusion, since the LTVs striking them by may not be designed to be as stiff.
        Overall, this approach would increase the self protection (i.e., the protection a vehicle provides to its own occupants) of passenger cars, but would not address the self protection needs of LTV occupants. The approach may also create disbenefits to LTV occupants if future passenger car collision partners become significantly stiffer as a result of a frontal offset crash test requirement. LTVs could alternatively be addressed in a future rulemaking when a more comprehensive strategy for addressing fleet compatibility is developed.
        B. Additional Performance Requirement
        Another alternative under consideration would be to include a loading requirement that would limit the stiffness and/or energy management such that LTV/SUV's structural properties were more similar to those of passenger cars. There are a number of long term strategies to accomplish this. The potential strategies could include a fleet-representative moving deformable barrier-to-vehicle test, a fixed offset deformable barrier test with a mass-dependent impact speed, or a fixed offset deformable barrier test (with a constant impact speed) and either a load limit or a height requirement on the average force applied to the barrier face. However, NHTSA has collected only a very limited amount of load cell data in its frontal offset deformable barrier crash tests. A similar effort is described for partner protection in NHTSA's vehicle compatibility report,10
           but test results from the compatibility initiative will not be available for about a year, and do not include fixed offset deformable barrier testing. Thus, pursuing this alternative is viewed as a longer term effort, and is not consistent with establishing a high speed frontal offset crash test requirement in the near future. Comments on alternative loading requirements that have been developed and could be used in the near term are sought.

            10 “Initiatives to Address Vehicle Compatibility,” June 2003, 68 FR 36534, and Docket NHTSA-2003-14622.

        VI. Solicitation of Comments
        To assist the agency in acquiring the information it needs, NHTSA is including a list of questions and requests for comments and data in this notice. For easy reference, the questions are numbered consecutively. NHTSA encourages commenters to provide specific responses for each question for which they have information or views. In order to facilitate tabulation of the written comments in sequence, please identify the number of each question to which you are responding.

        NHTSA requests that the rationale for positions taken by commenters be very specific, including analysis of safety consequences. NHTSA encourages commenters to provide scientific analysis and data relating to materials, designs, testing, manufacturing, and field experience.
        The following is a list of questions for which the agency is requesting feedback. NHTSA also encourages commenters to provide any other data, analysis, arguments or views they believe are relevant.
        1. Are NHTSA's anticipated safety benefits associated from a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test requirement provided in Section IV realistic? Please provide data to support any views.
        2. In addition to potential disbenefits to the occupants of collision partners described in this notice, are there other potential disbenefits NHTSA should consider? Please provide data to support any views.
        3. Is it necessary to stiffen the front corners of vehicles to do well in a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test? Please explain the answer. Also, is the answer to this question different for different vehicle classes? If so, please explain the answer for each vehicle class.
        4. If stiffening the front corners of vehicles to do well in a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test is just one alternative for improving performance, what other types of countermeasures are available to achieve good performance in a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test? What are the costs and required lead-time associated with these countermeasures?
        5. What are the constraints vehicle manufacturers must face in designing a vehicle to meet a high speed fixed offset deformable barrier crash test requirement? Which are the most difficult to overcome? What types of vehicles have the most constraints?
        6. Is it necessary for the agency to consider alternative strategies to prevent vehicles from being too stiff or aggressively designed as a result of a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test requirement?
        7. Are there certain vehicle classes or vehicle weights that should be exempted from a frontal offset crash test requirement? If so, please state the rationale for each vehicle class exemption or vehicle weight limitation.
        8. This notice discussed one potential alternative strategy establishing an additional performance requirement to limit stiffness and/or energy management. Is this an appropriate strategy to pursue? If so, what requirement should be established?
        9. Are there other alternative strategies, beyond those mentioned in this notice, which the agency should consider in conjunction with a fixed offset deformable barrier crash test requirement?
        10. What optimum test speed should be employed in the fixed offset deformable barrier test so as to maximize occupant compartment integrity and at the same time ensure no undue stiffening of the fronts of large vehicles? What are the trade-offs between test speed and front-end stiffness of vehicles? Are the countermeasures dependent upon the test speed? If so, please explain the dependence.
        VII. 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 comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage the preparation of comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.

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

        Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by logging onto the Dockets Management System website at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on “Help & Information” or “Help/Info” to obtain instructions for filing the document electronically.
        B. 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.
        C. How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

        If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management. 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.)
        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. If Docket Management receives a comment too late for us to consider it in developing a proposed rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
        E. How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

        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 April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

        You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are indicated above in the same location.
        You may also review the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:

        (1) Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (http://dms.dot.gov/).
        (2) On that page, click on “Simple Search.”
        (3) On the next page, type in the five-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number were “NHTSA-1998-12345,” you would type “12345.” After typing the docket number, click on “search.”
        (4) On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You can then download the comments.

        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.

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

          Issued: January 28, 2004.
          Stephen R. Kratzke,
          Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.

      [FR Doc. 04-2206 Filed 2-2-04; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-59-P