        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 635
        [Docket No. 210730-0156; RTID 0648-XT040]
        Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 2022 Atlantic Shark Commercial Fishing Year

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          This proposed rule would adjust quotas and retention limits and establish the opening date for the 2022 fishing year for the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries. Quotas would be adjusted as required or allowable based on any underharvests experienced during the 2021 fishing year. NMFS proposes the opening date and commercial retention limits to provide, to the extent practicable, fishing opportunities for commercial shark fishermen in all regions and areas. The proposed measures could affect fishing opportunities for commercial shark fishermen in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received by September 7, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2021-0056, by electronic submission. Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and enter “NOAA-NMFS-2021-0056” in the Search box. Click on the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

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

          Copies of this proposed rule and supporting documents are available from the HMS Management Division website at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/atlantic-highly-migratory-species or by contacting Lauren Latchford (lauren.latchford@noaa.gov) by phone at 301-427-8503.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Lauren Latchford (lauren.latchford@noaa.gov), Derek Kraft (derek.kraft@noaa.gov), or Karyl Brewster-Geisz (karyl.brewster-geisz@noaa.gov) at 301-427-8503.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background

        The Atlantic commercial shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. For the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries, the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments established default commercial shark retention limits, commercial quotas for species and management groups, and accounting measures for underharvests and overharvests. The retention limits, commercial quotas, and accounting measures can be found at 50 CFR 635.24(a) and 635.27(b). Regulations also include provisions allowing flexible opening dates for the fishing year (§ 635.27(b)(3)) and inseason adjustments to shark trip limits (§ 635.24(a)(8)), which provide management flexibility in furtherance of equitable fishing opportunities, to the extent practicable, for commercial shark fishermen in all regions and areas. In addition, § 635.28(b)(4) lists species and/or management groups with quotas that are linked. If quotas are linked, when the specified quota threshold for one management group or species is reached and that management group or species is closed, the linked management group or species closes at the same time (§ 635.28(b)(3)). Lastly, pursuant to § 635.27(b)(3), any annual or inseason adjustments to the base annual commercial overall, regional, or sub-regional quotas will be published in the Federal Register.
        2022 Proposed Commercial Shark Quotas

        NMFS proposes adjusting the quota levels for the various shark stocks and management groups for the 2022 Atlantic commercial shark fishing year based on underharvests that occurred during the 2021 fishing year, consistent with existing regulations at 50 CFR 635.27(b). Overharvests and underharvests are accounted for in the same region, sub-region, and/or fishery in which they occurred the following year, except that large overharvests may be spread over a number of subsequent fishing years up to a maximum of five years. If a sub-regional quota is overharvested, but the overall regional quota is not, no subsequent adjustment is required. Unharvested quota may be added to the quota for the next fishing year, but only for shark management groups that have shark stocks that do not have an unknown status or that have no overfishing occurring and are not overfished. No more than 50 percent of a base annual quota may be carried over from a previous fishing year.
        Based on 2021 harvests to date, and after considering catch rates and landings from previous years, NMFS proposes to adjust the 2022 quotas for certain management groups as shown in Table 1. All of the 2022 proposed quotas for the respective stocks and management groups will be subject to further adjustment in the final rule after NMFS considers landings submitted in the dealer reports through mid-October. NMFS anticipates that dealer reports received after that time will be used to adjust 2022 quotas, as appropriate, noting that, in some circumstances, NMFS re-adjusts quotas during the subject year.
        Because the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group and smoothhound shark management groups in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic regions are not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring, available underharvest (up to 50 percent of the base annual quota) from the 2021 fishing year for these management groups may be added to the respective 2022 base quotas. NMFS proposes to account for any underharvest of Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks by dividing underharvest between the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico sub-regional quotas based on the sub-regional quota split percentage implemented in Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (80 FR 50073; August 18, 2015).
        For the sandbar shark, aggregated large coastal shark (LCS), hammerhead shark, non-blacknose small coastal shark (SCS), blacknose shark, blue shark, porbeagle shark, and pelagic shark (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) management groups, the 2021 underharvests cannot be carried over to the 2022 fishing year because those stocks or management groups are overfished, are experiencing overfishing, or have an unknown status. There are no overharvests to account for in these management groups to date. Thus, NMFS proposes that quotas for these management groups be equal to the annual base quota without adjustment, although the ultimate decision will be based on current data at the time of the final rule.
        The proposed 2022 quotas by species and management group are summarized in Table 1 and the description of the calculations for each stock and management group can be found below. All quotas and landings are dressed weight (dw), in metric tons (mt), unless specified otherwise. Table 1 includes landings data as of July 9, 2021; final quotas are subject to change based on landings as of October 2021.

          Table 1—2022 Proposed Quotas and Opening Date for the Atlantic Shark Management Groups

            Region orsub-region

            Management group
            2021Annual quota

            Preliminary 2021landings 1

            Adjustments 2

            2022Base annual quota

            2022Proposed annual quota

            Season openingdates

            (A)
            (B)
            (C)
            (D)
            (D + C)

            Western Gulf of Mexico
            Blacktip Sharks 3

            347.2 mt (765,392 lb)
            210.7 mt (464,554 lb)
            115.7 mt (255,131 lb)
            231.5 mt (510,261 lb)
            347.2 mt (765,392 lb)
            January 1, 2022.

            Aggregated Large Coastal Sharks
            72.0 mt (158,724 lb)
            66.6 mt (146,851 lb)

            72.0 mt (158,724 lb)
            72.0 mt (158,724 lb)

            Hammerhead Sharks
            11.9 mt (26,301 lb)
            <1.5 mt (<3,300 lb)

            11.9 mt (26,301 lb)
            11.9 mt (26,301 lb)

            Eastern Gulf of Mexico
            Blacktip Sharks 3

            37.7 mt (83,158 lb)
            8.6 mt (18,858 lb)
            12.6 mt (27,719 lb)
            25.1 mt (55,439 lb)
            37.7 mt (83,158 lb)
            January 1, 2022.

            Aggregated Large Coastal Sharks
            85.5 mt (188,593 lb)
            38.1 mt (84,047 lb)

            85.5 mt (188,593 lb)
            85.5 mt (188,593 lb)

            Hammerhead Sharks
            13.4 mt (29,421 lb)
            5.7 mt (12,458 lb)

            13.4 mt (29,421 lb)
            13.4 mt (29,421 lb)

            Gulf of Mexico
            Non-Blacknose Small Coastal Sharks
            112.6 mt (248,215 lb)
            23.1 mt (50,911 lb)

            112.6 mt (248,215 lb)
            112.6 mt (248,215 lb)

            Smoothhound Sharks
            504.6 mt (1,112,441 lb)
            —mt (—lb)
            168.2 mt (370,814 lb)
            336.4 mt (741,627 lb)
            504.6 mt (1,112,441 lb)

            Atlantic
            Aggregated Large Coastal Sharks
            168.9 mt (372,552 lb)
            38.7 mt (85,317 lb)

            168.9 mt (372,552 lb)
            168.9 mt (372,552 lb)
            January 1, 2022.

            Hammerhead Sharks
            27.1 mt (59,736 lb)
            10.2 mt (22,542 lb)

            27.1 mt (59,736 lb)
            27.1 mt (59,736 lb)

            Non-Blacknose Small Coastal Sharks
            264.1 mt (582,333 lb)
            32.8 mt (72,243 lb)

            264.1 mt (582,333 lb)
            264.1 mt (582,333 lb)

            Blacknose Sharks (South of 34 °N lat. only)
            17.2 mt (37,921 lb)
            4.8 mt (10,617 lb)

            17.2 mt (37,921 lb)
            17.2 mt (37,921 lb)

            Smoothhound Sharks
            1,802.6 mt (3,971,587 lb)
            192.8 mt (425,130 lb)
            600.9 mt (1,324,634 lb)
            1,201.7 mt (2,649,268 lb)
            1,802.6 mt (3,973,902 lb)

            No regional quotas
            Non-Sandbar LCS Research
            50.0 mt (110,230 lb)
            5.0 mt (11,129 lb)

            50.0 mt (110,230 lb)
            50.0 mt (110,230 lb)
            January 1, 2022.

            Sandbar Shark Research
            90.7 mt (199,943 lb)
            35.4 mt (78,074 lb)

            90.7 mt (199,943 lb)
            90.7 mt (199,943 lb)

            Blue Sharks
            273.0 mt (601,856 lb)
            <1.0 mt (<2,200 lb)

            273.0 mt (601,856 lb)
            273.0 mt (601,856 lb)

            Porbeagle Sharks
            1.7 mt (3,748 lb)
            0.0 mt (0 lb)

            1.7 mt (3,748 lb)
            1.7 mt (3,748 lb)

            Pelagic Sharks Other Than Porbeagle or Blue
            488.0 mt (1,075,856 lb)
            25.2 mt (55,566 lb)

            488.0 mt (1,075,856 lb)
            488.0 mt (1,075,856 lb)

            1 Landings are from January 1, 2021, through July 9, 2021, and are subject to change.

            2 Underharvest adjustments can only be applied to stocks or management groups that are not overfished and have no overfishing occurring. Also, the underharvest adjustments cannot exceed 50 percent of the base quota.

            3 This adjustment accounts for underharvest in 2021. This proposed rule would increase the overall Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark quota by 128.3 mt (282,850 lb). Since any underharvest would be divided based on the sub-regional quota percentage split, the western Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark quota would be increased by 115.7 mt, while the eastern Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark quota would be increased by 12.6 mt.

        1. Proposed 2022 Quotas for Shark Management Groups Where Underharvests Can Be Carried Over
        The Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group (which is divided between the two sub-regions) and smoothhound shark management groups in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic regions are not overfished, and overfishing is not occurring. Pursuant to § 635.27(b)(2)(ii), available underharvest (up to 50 percent of the base annual quota) from the 2021 fishing year for these management groups may be added to the respective 2022 base quotas.
        The 2022 proposed commercial quota for blacktip sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region is 347.2 mt dw (765,392 lb dw) and the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region is 37.7 mt dw (83,158 lb dw). As of July 9, 2021, preliminary reported landings for blacktip sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region were at 60.7 percent (210.7 mt dw) of their 2021 quota levels (347.2 mt dw), and blacktip sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region were at 22.7 percent (8.6 mt dw) of the sub-regional 2021 quota levels (37.7 mt dw). Reported landings in both sub-regions have not exceeded the 2021 quota to date. Pursuant to § 635.27(b)(1)(ii)(C), any underharvest would be divided between the two sub-regions, based on the percentages that are allocated to each sub-region. To date, the overall Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group is underharvested by 165.6 mt dw (365,138 lb dw). NMFS proposes to increase the western Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark quota by 115.7 mt dw which is 90.2 percent of the quota adjustment, while the eastern Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark sub-regional quota would increase by 12.6 mt dw, which is 9.8 percent of the quota adjustment (Table 1). Thus, the proposed western sub-regional Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark commercial quota is 347.2 mt dw (765,392 lb dw), and the proposed eastern sub-regional Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark commercial quota is 37.7 mt dw (83,158 lb dw).
        The 2022 proposed commercial quota for smoothhound sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region is 504.6 mt dw (1,112,441 lb dw) and in the Atlantic region is 1,802.6 mt dw (3,973,902 lb dw). As of July 9, 2021, there have been no smoothhound shark landings in the Gulf of Mexico region and 10.7 percent (192.8 mt dw) of their 2021 quota (1802.6 mt dw) in the Atlantic region. NMFS proposes to adjust the 2022 Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic smoothhound shark quotas for anticipated underharvests in 2021 to the full extent allowed. The proposed 2022 adjusted base annual quota for Gulf of Mexico smoothhound sharks is 504.6 mt dw (336.4 mt dw annual base quota + 168.2 mt dw 2021 underharvest = 504.6 mt dw 2022 adjusted annual quota) and the proposed 2022 adjusted base annual quota for Atlantic smoothhound sharks is 1,802.6 mt dw (1,201.7 mt dw annual base quota + 600.9 mt dw 2021 underharvest = 1,802.6 mt dw 2022 adjusted annual quota).
        2. Proposed 2022 Quotas for Shark Management Groups Where Underharvests Cannot Be Carried Over
        Consistent with the current regulations at § 635.27(b)(2)(ii), 2021 underharvests cannot be carried over to the 2022 fishing year for the following stocks or management groups because they are overfished, are experiencing overfishing, or have an unknown status: Sandbar shark, aggregated large coastal shark (LCS), hammerhead shark, non-blacknose small coastal shark (SCS), blacknose shark, blue shark, porbeagle shark, and pelagic shark (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) management groups.
        The 2022 proposed commercial quota for aggregated LCS in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region is 72.0 mt dw (158,724 lb dw), and the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region is 85.5 mt dw (188,593 lb dw). The 2022 proposed commercial quota for aggregated LCS in the Atlantic region is 168.9 mt dw (372,552 lb dw). For these stocks, the 2022 proposed commercial quotas reflect the codified annual base quotas, without adjustment for underharvest. At this time, no overharvests have occurred, which would require adjustment downward. As of July 9, 2021, preliminary reported landings for aggregated LCS in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region were 92.5 percent (66.6 mt dw) of the 2021 quota (72.0 mt dw), the aggregated LCS in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region were 44.6 percent (38.1 mt dw) of the 2021 quota (85.5 mt dw), and the aggregated LCS fishery in the Atlantic were 22.9 percent (38.7 mt dw) of the 2021 quota. Reported landings from both Gulf of Mexico sub-regions and the Atlantic region have not exceeded the 2021 overall aggregated LCS quota to date. Given the unknown status of some species in the aggregated LCS complex, the aggregated LCS quota cannot be adjusted for any underharvests. Based on both preliminary estimates and catch rates from previous years, NMFS proposes that the 2022 quotas for aggregated LCS in the western and eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-regions, and the Atlantic region be equal to their annual base quotas without adjustment.

        The 2022 proposed commercial quotas for hammerhead sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region and western Gulf of Mexico sub-region are 11.9 mt dw (26,301 lb dw) and 13.4 mt dw (29,421 lb dw), respectively. For these stocks, the 2022 proposed commercial quotas reflect the codified annual base quotas, without adjustment for underharvest. At this time, no overharvests have occurred, which would require adjustment downward. The 2022 proposed commercial quota for hammerhead sharks in the Atlantic region is 27.1 mt dw (59,736 lb dw). As of July 9, 2021, preliminary reported landings of hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region were less than 12 percent (<2.3 mt dw) of the 2021 quota (11.9 mt dw), landings of hammerhead sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region were at 42.3 percent (5.7 mt dw) of the 2021 quota (13.4 mt dw), and landings of hammerhead sharks in the Atlantic region were at 37.7 percent (10.2 mt dw) of the 2021 quota. Reported landings from the Gulf of Mexico sub-regions and the Atlantic region have not exceeded the 2021 overall hammerhead quota to date. Given the overfished status of the scalloped hammerhead shark, the hammerhead shark quota cannot be adjusted for any underharvests. Based on both preliminary estimates and catch rates from previous years, NMFS proposes that the 2022 quotas for hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico and eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-regions be equal to their annual base quotas without adjustment.
        The 2022 proposed commercial quota for blacknose sharks in the Atlantic region is 17.2 mt dw (37,921 lb dw). This quota is available in the Atlantic region only for those vessels operating south of 34 °N latitude. North of 34 °N latitude, retention, landing, or sale of blacknose sharks is prohibited. NMFS is not proposing any adjustments to the blacknose shark quota at this time. For these stocks, the 2022 proposed commercial quotas reflect the codified annual base quotas, without adjustment for underharvest. At this time, no overharvests have occurred, which would require adjustment downward. As of July 9, 2021, preliminary reported landings of blacknose sharks were at 28.0 percent (4.8 mt dw) of the 2021 quota levels in the Atlantic region. Reported landings have not exceeded the 2021 quota to date. NMFS proposes that the 2022 Atlantic blacknose shark quota be equal to the annual base quota without adjustment.
        The 2022 proposed commercial quota for non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf of Mexico region is 112.6 mt dw (248,215 lb dw). The 2022 proposed commercial quota for non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic region is 264.1 mt dw (582,333 lb dw). For these stocks, the 2022 proposed commercial quotas reflect the codified annual base quotas, without adjustment for underharvest. At this time, no overharvests have occurred, which would require adjustment downward. As of July 9, 2021, preliminary reported landings of non-blacknose SCS were at 20.5 percent (23.1 mt dw) of their 2021 quota level (112.6 mt dw) in the Gulf of Mexico region and were at 12.4 percent (32.8 mt dw) of the 2021 quota level in the Atlantic region. Reported landings have not exceeded the 2021 quota to date. Given the unknown status of bonnethead sharks within the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic non-blacknose SCS management groups, underharvests cannot be carried forward. Based on both preliminary estimates and catch rates from previous years, NMFS proposes that the 2022 quota for non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic regions be equal to the annual base quota without adjustment.
        The 2022 proposed commercial quotas for blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle or blue sharks) are 273.0 mt dw (601,856 lb dw), 1.7 mt dw (3,748 lb dw), and 488.0 mt dw (1,075,856 lb dw), respectively. For these stocks, the 2022 proposed commercial quotas reflect the codified annual base quotas, without adjustment for underharvest. At this time, no overharvests have occurred, which would require adjustment downward. As of July 9, 2021, there were no preliminary reported landings of blue sharks or porbeagle sharks, and landings of pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle and blue sharks) were at 5.2 percent (25.2 mt dw) of the 2021 quota level (488.0 mt dw). Given that these pelagic species are overfished, have overfishing occurring, or have an unknown status, underharvests cannot be carried forward. Based on preliminary estimates of catch rates from previous years, NMFS proposes that the 2022 quotas for blue sharks, porbeagle sharks, and pelagic sharks (other than porbeagle and blue sharks) be equal to their annual base quotas without adjustment.
        The 2022 proposed commercial quotas within the shark research fishery are 50 mt dw (110,230 lb dw) for research LCS and 90.7 mt dw (199,943 lb dw) for sandbar sharks. Within the shark research fishery, as of July 9, 2021, preliminary reported landings of research LCS were at 10.1 percent (5.0 mt dw) of the 2021 quota, and sandbar shark reported landings were at 39 percent (35.4 mt dw) of their 2021 quota. Because sandbar sharks and scalloped hammerhead sharks within the research LCS management group are either overfished or overfishing is occurring, underharvests for these management groups cannot be carried forward. Based on preliminary estimates, NMFS proposes that the 2022 quota in the shark research fishery be equal to the annual base quota without adjustment.
        Proposed Opening Date and Retention Limits for the 2022 Atlantic Commercial Shark Fishing Year

        In proposing the commercial shark fishing season opening dates for all regions and sub-regions, NMFS considered the “Opening Commercial Fishing Season Criteria,” which are the criteria listed at § 635.27(b)(3): The available annual quotas for the current fishing season, estimated season length and average weekly catch rates from previous years, length of the season and fishery participation in past years, effects of the adjustment on accomplishing objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, temporal variation in behavior or biology of target species (e.g., seasonal distribution or abundance), impact of catch rates in one region on another, and effects of delayed openings.
        In analyzing the criteria, NMFS examines the underharvests of the different management groups in the 2021 fishing year to determine the likely effects of the proposed commercial quotas for 2022 on shark stocks and fishermen across regional and sub-regional fishing areas. NMFS also examines the potential season length and previous catch rates to ensure, to the extent practicable, that equitable fishing opportunities will be provided to fishermen in all areas. Lastly, NMFS examines the seasonal variation of the different species/management groups and the effects on fishing opportunities. At the start of each fishing year, the default commercial retention limit is 45 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip in the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico sub-regions and in the Atlantic region, unless NMFS determines otherwise and files with the Office of the Federal Register for publication notification of an inseason adjustment. NMFS may adjust the retention limit from zero to 55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip if the respective LCS management group is open under § 635.27 and § 635.28, respectively.

        NMFS also considered the six “Inseason Trip Limit Adjustment Criteria” listed at § 635.24(a)(8). Those criteria are: The amount of remaining shark quota in the relevant area, region, or sub-region, to date, based on dealer reports; the catch rates of the relevant shark species/complexes in the region or sub-region, to date, based on dealer reports; the estimated date of fishery closure based on when the landings are projected to reach 80 percent of the quota given the realized catch rates and whether they are projected to reach 100 percent before the end of the fishing season; effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments; variations in seasonal distribution, abundance, or migratory patterns of the relevant shark species based on scientific and fishery-based knowledge; and/or effects of catch rates in one part of a region precluding vessels in another part of that region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the relevant quota.
        In analyzing the criteria, NMFS examines landings submitted in dealer reports on a weekly basis and catch rates based upon those dealer reports and have found that, to date, landings and subsequent quotas have not been exceeded. Catch rates in one part of a sub-region reached 80 percent have been closed, and have not reached 100 percent of the available quota. In addition, that closure did not preclude vessels in another part of that region or sub-region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the relevant quota. Given the pattern of landings over the previous years, seasonal distribution of the species and/or management groups has not had an effect on the landings within a region or sub-region.

        After considering both sets of criteria in § 635.24 and 635.28, NMFS is proposing to open the 2022 Atlantic commercial shark fishing season for all shark management groups in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, on January 1, 2022, after the publication of the final rule for this action (Table 2). NMFS proposes to open the season on January 1, 2022, but recognizes that the actual opening date is contingent on publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, and may vary accordingly. NMFS is also proposing to start the 2022 commercial shark fishing season with the commercial retention limit of 55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip in both the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico sub-regions, and a commercial retention limit of 55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip in the Atlantic region (Table 2). Proposed retention limits could change (as a result of public comments as well as updated catch rates and landings information submitted in dealer reports) in the final rule.

          Table 2—Quota Linkages, Season Opening Dates, and Commercial Retention Limit by Regional or Sub-Regional Shark Management Group

            Region or sub-region
            Management group
            Quota linkages *
            Season opening date
            Commercial retention limits for directed sharklimited access permit holders
              (inseason adjustments are possible)

            Western Gulf of Mexico
            Blacktip SharksAggregated Large Coastal Sharks.

            Not LinkedLinked.

            January 1, 2022
            55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip.

            Hammerhead Sharks

            Eastern Gulf of Mexico
            Blacktip SharksAggregated Large Coastal Sharks.

            Not LinkedLinked.

            January 1, 2022
            55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip.

            Hammerhead Sharks

            Gulf of Mexico
            Non-Blacknose Small Coastal Sharks
            Not Linked
            January 1, 2022
            N/A.

            Smoothhound Sharks
            Not Linked
            January 1, 2022
            N/A.

            Atlantic
            Aggregated Large Coastal Sharks
            Linked
            January 1, 2022
            55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip.

            Hammerhead Sharks

            Non-Blacknose Small Coastal Sharks
            Linked (South of 34 °N lat. only)
            January 1, 2022
            N/A.

            Blacknose Sharks (South of 34 °N lat. only)

            8 Blacknose sharks per vessel per trip (applies to directed and incidental permit holders).

            Smoothhound Sharks
            Not Linked
            January 1, 2022
            N/A.

            No regional quotas
            Non-Sandbar LCS Research
            Linked
            January 1, 2022
            N/A.

            Sandbar Shark Research

            Blue Sharks
            Not Linked
            January 1, 2022
            N/A.

            Porbeagle Sharks

            Pelagic Sharks Other Than Porbeagle or Blue

          * § 635.28(b)(4) lists species and/or management groups with quotas that are linked. If quotas are linked, when the specified quota threshold for one management group or species is reached and that management group or species is closed, the linked management group or species closes at the same time (§ 635.28(b)(3)).

        In the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico sub-regions, NMFS proposes opening the fishing season on January 1, 2022, for the aggregated LCS, blacktip sharks, and hammerhead shark management groups, with the commercial retention limits of 55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip for directed shark permits. This opening date and retention limit combination would provide, to the extent practicable, equitable opportunities across the fisheries management sub-regions. The season opening criteria listed in § 635.27(b)(3) requires NMFS to consider the length of the season for the different species and/or management groups in the previous years (§ 635.27(b)(3)(ii) and (iii)) and whether fishermen were able to participate in the fishery in those years (§ 635.27(b)(3)(v)). In addition, the criteria listed in § 635.24(a)(8) require NMFS to consider the catch rates of the relevant shark species/complexes based on landings submitted in dealer reports to date (§ 635.24(a)(8)(ii)). NMFS may also adjust the retention limit in the Gulf of Mexico region throughout the season to ensure fishermen in all parts of the region have an opportunity to harvest aggregated LCS, blacktip sharks, and hammerhead sharks (see the criteria listed at § 635.27(b)(3)(v) and § 635.24(a)(8)(ii), (v), and (vi)). Given these requirements, NMFS reviewed landings on a weekly basis for all species and/or management groups and determined that fishermen have been able to participate in the fishery, and landings from both Gulf of Mexico sub-regions and the Atlantic region have not exceeded the 2021 overall aggregated LCS quota to date. For both the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico sub-regions combined, landings submitted in dealer reports received through July 9, 2021, indicate that 66 percent (104.7 mt dw), 57 percent (219.3 mt dw), and almost 30 percent (<8 mt dw) of the available aggregated LCS, blacktip, and hammerhead shark quotas, respectively, have been harvested. Therefore, for 2022, NMFS is proposing opening both the western and eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-regions with a commercial retention limit of 55 sharks other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip.

        In the Atlantic region, NMFS proposes opening the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups on January 1, 2022. The criteria listed in § 635.27(b)(3) consider the effects of catch rates in one part of a region precluding vessels in another part of that region from having a reasonable opportunity to harvest a portion of the different species and/or management quotas (§ 635.27(b)(3)(v)). The 2021 data indicate that an opening date of January 1, coupled with inseason adjustments to the retention limit if later considered and needed, would provide a reasonable opportunity for fishermen in every part of each region to harvest a portion of the available quotas (§ 635.27(b)(3)(i)), while accounting for variations in seasonal distribution of the different species in the management groups (§ 635.27(b)(3)(iv)). Because the quotas we propose for 2022 are the same as the quotas in 2021, NMFS proposes that the season lengths, and therefore, the participation of various fishermen throughout the region, would be similar in 2022 (§ 635.27(b)(3)(ii) and (iii)). Additionally, the January 1 opening date appears to meet the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments (§ 635.27(b)(3)(vi)). In the recent past, NMFS has managed the fishery by opening the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark management groups on January 1 with a relatively high retention limit. Once a certain percentage threshold was reached, the retention limit was reduced to a low limit, such as 3 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip, and then the retention limit was increased again in mid-July. This approach allowed the fishery in the Atlantic region to remain open throughout the year, consistent with conservation and management measures for the stocks and requests from fishermen and states. However, landings data from 2016 to present indicate a decrease in annual landings in the aggregated LCS management group. As a result, in 2021 NMFS opened with a retention limit of 45 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip, anticipating that it might later reduce the trip limit when landings reached approximately 40 percent of the quota and after considering appropriate factors. Instead, on March 23, 2021, NMFS increased the retention limit from 36 to the maximum limit of 55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip for all directed permit holders due to low landings (86 FR 16075; March 26, 2021). As of July 9, 2021, landings data indicate that, despite increasing the retention limit to the maximum, only 22.9 percent of the aggregated LCS and 37.7 percent of the hammerhead shark commercial quotas have been landed. Considering this experience and the recent reduced landings compared to past years, NMFS proposes to open on January 1, 2022, with a retention limit of 55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per vessel per trip. Starting with the highest retention limit available could allow fishermen in the Atlantic region to more fully utilize the available science-based quota. As needed, NMFS may adjust the retention limit throughout the year to ensure equitable fishing opportunities throughout the region and ensure the quota is not exceeded (see the criteria at § 635.24(a)(8)). For example, if the quota is harvested too quickly, NMFS could consider reducing the retention limit as appropriate to ensure enough quota remains until later in the year. NMFS would publish in the Federal Register notification of any inseason adjustments of the retention limit.

        All of the shark management groups would remain open until December 31, 2022, or until NMFS determines that the landings for any shark management group are projected to reach 80 percent of the quota given the realized catch rates, and are projected to reach 100 percent before the end of the fishing season, or until a quota-linked species or management group is closed. If NMFS determines that a non-quota-linked shark species or management group must be closed, then, consistent with § 635.28(b)(2) for non-linked quotas (e.g., eastern Gulf of Mexico blacktip, western Gulf of Mexico blacktip, Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS, pelagic sharks, or the Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico smoothhound sharks), NMFS will publish in the Federal Register a notice of closure for that shark species, shark management group, region, and/or sub-region that will be effective no fewer than four days from the date of filing. For the blacktip shark management group, regulations at § 635.28(b)(5)(i) through (v) authorize NMFS to close the management group before landings have reached or are projected to reach 80 percent of applicable available overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota and are projected to reach 100 percent of the relevant quota by the end of the fishing season, after considering the following criteria and other relevant factors: Season length based on available sub-regional quota and average sub-regional catch rates; variability in regional and/or sub-regional seasonal distribution, abundance, and migratory patterns; effects on accomplishing the objectives of the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments; amount of remaining shark quotas in the relevant sub-region; and regional and/or sub-regional catch rates of the relevant shark species or management groups. The fisheries for the shark species or management group would be closed (even across fishing years) from the effective date and time of the closure until NMFS announces, via the publication of a notice in the Federal Register, that additional quota is available and the season is reopened.

        If NMFS determines that a quota-linked species and/or management group must be closed, then, consistent with § 635.28(b)(3) for linked quotas, NMFS will publish in the Federal Register a notice of closure for all of the species and/or management groups in a linked group that will be effective no fewer than four days from the date of filing. In that event, from the effective date and time of the closure until the season is reopened and additional quota is available (via the publication of another NMFS notice in the Federal Register), the fisheries for all quota-linked species and/or management groups will be closed, even across fishing years. The quota-linked species and/or management groups are Atlantic hammerhead sharks and Atlantic aggregated LCS; eastern Gulf of Mexico hammerhead sharks and eastern Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS; western Gulf of Mexico hammerhead sharks and western Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS; and Atlantic blacknose and Atlantic non-blacknose SCS south of 34 °N latitude.
        Request for Comments

        Comments on this proposed rule and on NMFS' determination that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (as discussed below in the Classification section), may be submitted via www.regulations.gov. NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule by September 7, 2021 (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
        Classification
        The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        These proposed specifications are exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

        NMFS determined that the final rules to implement Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (June 24, 2008, 73 FR 35778; corrected on July 15, 2008, 73 FR 40658), Amendment 5a to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (78 FR 40318; July 3, 2013), Amendment 6 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (80 FR 50073; August 18, 2015), and Amendment 9 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (80 FR 73128; November 24, 2015) are consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved coastal management program of coastal states on the Atlantic, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, as required under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Pursuant to 15 CFR 930.41(a), NMFS provided the Coastal Zone Management Program of each coastal state a 60-day period to review the consistency determination and to advise NMFS of their concurrence. NMFS received concurrence with the consistency determinations from several states and inferred consistency from those states that did not respond within the 60-day time period. This proposed action to establish an opening date and adjust quotas for the 2022 fishing year for the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries does not change the framework previously consulted upon. Therefore, no additional consultation is required.
        This rulemaking would implement previously adopted and analyzed measures with adjustments, as specified in the 2006 Consolidated HMSFMP and its amendments, and the Environmental Assessment (EA) that accompanied the 2011 shark quota specifications rule (75 FR 76302; December 8, 2010). Impacts have been evaluated and analyzed in Amendments 2, 3, 5a, 6, and 9 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which include Final Environmental Impact Statements (FEISs) for Amendments 2, 3, and 5a, and EAs for Amendments 6 and 9. The final rule for Amendment 2 implemented base quotas and quota adjustment procedures for sandbar shark and non-sandbar LCS species/management groups, and Amendments 3 and 5a implemented base quotas for Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark, aggregated LCS, hammerhead shark, blacknose shark, and non-blacknose SCS management groups and quota transfers for Atlantic sharks. The final rule for Amendment 6 implemented a revised commercial shark retention limit, revised base quotas for sandbar shark and non-blacknose SCS species/management groups, new sub-regional quotas in the Gulf of Mexico region for blacktip sharks, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead sharks, and new management measures for blacknose sharks. The final rule for Amendment 9 implemented management measures, including commercial quotas, for smoothhound sharks in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. In 2010, NOAA Fisheries prepared an EA with the 2011 quota specifications rule (75 FR 76302; December 8, 2010) that describes the impact on the human environment that would result from implementation of measures to delay the start date and allow for inseason adjustments. NMFS has determined that the quota adjustments and season opening dates of this proposed rule and the resulting impacts to the human environment are within the scope of the analyses considered in the FEISs and EAs for these amendments, and additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis is not warranted for this proposed rule.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The factual basis for this determination is as follows.
        The proposed rule would adjust quotas and retention limits and establish the opening date for the 2022 fishing year for the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries. NMFS would adjust quotas as required or allowable based on any overharvests and/or underharvests from the 2021 fishing year. NMFS has limited flexibility to otherwise modify the quotas in this proposed rule. In addition, the impacts of the quotas (and any potential modifications) were analyzed in previous regulatory flexibility analyses, including the initial regulatory flexibility analysis and the final regulatory flexibility analysis that accompanied the 2011 shark quota specifications rule. NMFS proposes the opening date and commercial retention limits to provide, to the extent practicable, fishing opportunities for commercial shark fishermen in all regions and areas.

        The proposed measures could affect fishing opportunities for commercial shark fishermen in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. However, the effects this proposed rule would have on small entities would be minimal. Section 603(b)(3) of the RFA requires agencies to provide an estimate of the number of small entities to which the rule would apply. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size criteria for all major industry sectors in the United States, including fish harvesters. SBA's regulations include provisions for an agency to develop its own industry-specific size standards after consultation with SBA and providing an opportunity for public comment (see 13 CFR 121.903(c)). Under this provision, NMFS may establish size standards that differ from those established by the SBA Office of Size Standards, but only for use by NMFS and only for the purpose of conducting an analysis of economic effects in fulfillment of the agency's obligations under the RFA. To utilize this provision, NMFS must publish such size standards in the Federal Register, which NMFS did on December 29, 2015 (80 FR 81194; 50 CFR 200.2). In this final rule effective on July 1, 2016, NMFS established a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for RFA compliance purposes. NMFS considers all HMS permit holders to be small entities because they had average annual receipts of less than $11 million for commercial fishing.
        As of June 13, 2021, this proposed rule would apply to the approximately 207 directed commercial shark permit holders, 253 incidental commercial shark permit holders, 164 smoothhound shark permit holders, and 90 commercial shark dealers. Not all permit holders are active in the fishery in any given year. Active directed commercial shark permit holders are defined as those with valid permits that landed one shark based on HMS electronic dealer reports. Of the 460 directed and incidental commercial shark permit holders, to date, only 10 permit holders landed sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region, and only 65 landed sharks in the Atlantic region. Of the 164 smoothhound shark permit holders, to date, only 63 permit holders landed smoothhound sharks in the Atlantic region, and 1 landed smoothhound sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region. As described below, NMFS has determined that all of these entities are small entities for purposes of the RFA.

        Based on the 2020 ex-vessel price (Table 3), fully harvesting the unadjusted 2021 Atlantic shark commercial base quotas could result in total fleet revenues of $8,481,742. For the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group, NMFS is proposing to adjust the base sub-regional quotas upward due to underharvests in 2021. The increase for the western Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group could result in a $206,656 gain in total revenues for fishermen in that sub-region, while the increase for the eastern Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark management group could result in a $21,066 gain in total revenues for fishermen in that sub-region. For the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic smoothhound shark management groups, NMFS is proposing to increase the base quotas due to the underharvest in 2021. This would cause a potential gain in revenue of $281,819 for the fleet in the Gulf of Mexico region, and a potential gain in revenue of $1,217,953 for the fleet in the Atlantic region. Since a small business is defined as having annual receipts not in excess of $11.0 million, and total Atlantic shark revenue for the entire fishery is $9 million, each individual shark fishing entity would fall within the small business definition. NMFS has also determined that the proposed rule would not likely affect any small governmental jurisdictions.
        All of these changes in gross revenues are similar to the gross revenues analyzed in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and Amendments 2, 3 5a, 6, and 9 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. The final regulatory flexibility analyses for those amendments concluded that the economic impacts on these small entities from adjustments such as those contemplated in this action are expected to be minimal. In accordance with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, as amended, and consistent with NMFS' statements in rules implementing Amendments 2, 3 5a, 6, and 9, and in the EA for the 2011 shark quota specifications rule, NMFS now conducts annual rulemakings in which NMFS considers the potential economic impacts of adjusting the quotas for underharvests and overharvests.

          Table 3—Average Ex-Vessel Prices per lb dw for Each Shark Management Group, 2020

            Region
            Species
            Averageex-vessel
              meat price

            Averageex-vessel fin
              price

            Western Gulf of Mexico
            Blacktip Shark
            $0.81

            Aggregated LCS
            0.80

            Hammerhead Shark
            0.74

            Eastern Gulf of Mexico
            Blacktip Shark
            0.76

            Aggregated LCS
            0.79

            Hammerhead Shark

            Gulf of Mexico
            Non-Blacknose SCS
            0.71

            Smoothhound Shark
            0.76

            Atlantic
            Aggregated LCS
            1.13

            Hammerhead Shark
            0.57

            Non-Blacknose SCS
            1.12

            Blacknose Shark
            1.29

            Smoothhound Shark
            0.92

            No Region
            Shark Research Fishery (Aggregated LCS)

            Shark Research Fishery (Sandbar only)
            1.30

            Blue shark

            Porbeagle shark

            Other Pelagic sharks
            1.31

            All
            Shark Fins

            $5.15

            Atlantic
            Shark Fins

            1.58

            GOM
            Shark Fins

            9.44

        In conclusion, as discussed above, this proposed rule would adjust quotas and retention limits and establish the opening date for the 2022 fishing year for the Atlantic commercial shark fisheries. Based on available data on commercial catch of sharks in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea, it appears that shark fishing is conducted by fishermen who already possess Federal permits and are adhering to Federal reporting requirements for all catch as well as other Federal shark regulations, whether they are in Federal or state waters. Given these factors, this action would not have an effect, practically, on the regulations that shark fishermen currently follow. Furthermore, this action is not expected to affect the amount of sharks caught and sold or result in any change in the ex-vessel revenues those fishermen could expect. Therefore, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared. NMFS invites comments from the public on the information in this determination that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

          Dated: August 2, 2021.
          Samuel D. Rauch, III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 2021-16770 Filed 8-5-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


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

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

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

        I. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        V. Effective Date and Comment Period

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            9 49 CFR 553.21.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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

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

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

          S4. Definitions.

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

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

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

          S9.2 * * *

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

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

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


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 76
        [MB Docket No. 07-198; DA 08-113]
        Review of the Commission's Program Access Rules and Examination of Programming Tying Arrangements

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; extension of reply comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          The Media Bureau extends the reply comment deadline on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on revisions to the Commission's program access and retransmission consent rules and whether it may be appropriate to preclude the practice of programmers to tie desired programming with undesired programming. To facilitate the development of a thorough record, the deadline for filing reply comments in response to the NPRM is extended to February 12, 2008.

          DATES:
          Reply comments are due on or before February 12, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 07-198, by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

          For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          David Konczal, David.Konczal@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Order in MB Docket No. 07-198, DA 08-113, released on January 17, 2008. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
        Summary of the Order

        1. On October 1, 2007, the Commission released an NPRM on revisions to the Commission's program access and retransmission consent rules and whether it may be appropriate to preclude the practice of programmers to tie desired programming with undesired programming. The NPRM set deadlines for filing comments and reply comments at 30 and 45 days, respectively, after publication of a summary of the NPRM in the Federal Register. A summary of the NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2007, 72 FR 61590, October 31, 2007. Accordingly, the filing dates were initially established as November 30, 2007 for comments and December 17, 2007 for reply comments. On November 20, 2007, the Media Bureau released a Public Notice extending the time for filing comments to January 4, 2008, and the time for filing reply comments to January 22, 2008 (72 FR 73744, December 28, 2007).
        2. The Walt Disney Company (Disney), Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. and Fox Television Holdings, Inc. (Fox), and Viacom Inc. (Viacom) filed motions seeking a 30-day extension of the reply comment deadline. The parties argue that the instant proceeding is complex, fact-intensive, and requires parties to review over a thousand pages of comments. The parties contend that the eighteen-day period between the comment and reply comment deadlines does not provide sufficient time for parties to respond effectively. The parties submit that additional time to prepare reply comments will cause no hardship or prejudice to other interested parties or to the Commission and will facilitate the development of a meaningful record.
        3. As set forth in § 1.46 of the Commission's rules, the Commission's policy is that extensions of time for filing comments in rulemaking proceedings shall not be routinely granted. 47 CFR 1.46. In this case, however, an extension of the reply comment period is warranted to enable commenters to adequately review and respond to the extensive comments filed in response to the NPRM. We decline, however, to grant the full extension requested by the parties. With the additional extension granted herein, interested parties will now have a total of 39 days to prepare reply comments. As the parties note, this is longer than the 30-day reply period provided in other recent proceedings. We believe that this provides parties with ample time to respond to the comments filed in response to the NPRM.
        4. Accordingly, to the extent described above, we hereby grant the Motions for Extension of Time filed in MB Docket No. 07-198 by Disney, Fox, and Viacom. The time for filing reply comments is extended to February 12, 2008.
        5. This action is taken pursuant to authority found in sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and 303(r), and §§ 0.61, 0.283, and 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.61, 0.283, and 1.46.

        6. Specific instructions for filing comments are located at paragraphs 26-27 of the item as published in the Federal Register and at paragraphs 139-142 of the item as released by the Commission and that appears on the Commission's Web site: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-169A1.doc

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Steven A. Broeckaert,
          Senior Deputy Chief, Policy Division, Media Bureau.

      [FR Doc. E8-2566 Filed 2-11-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P