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

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

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Table of Contents

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

        I. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        V. Effective Date and Comment Period

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

            9 49 CFR 553.21.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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

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

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

          S4. Definitions.

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

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

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

          S9.2 * * *

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

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

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


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 050801213-5213-01; I.D. 072805B]
        RIN 0648-AT53
        Fisheries off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Control Date for Domestic Purse Seine and Longline Pelagic Fisheries in U.S. EEZ of Western Pacific Region

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; advance notice of proposed rulemaking; notification of control date.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS announces that persons who enter the pelagic purse seine and longline fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the western Pacific region after June 2, 2005 (“control date”) are not guaranteed future participation in the fishery if the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (WPFMC) recommends, and NMFS approves, a program limiting entry or effort.  This action does not commit the WPFMC or NMFS to limit entry, or prevent any other date from being selected for eligibility to participate in the pelagic purse seine or longline fisheries.  The WPFMC or NMFS may also use other criteria to limit fishing effort or participation in a limited entry program that is developed in the future.

          DATES:
          Comments must be submitted in writing by October 14, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this notice identified by I.D. 072805B by any of the following methods:
          • E-mail:   AT53-PSLLDate@noaa.gov.  Include I.D. 072805B in the subject line of the e-mail comment following document identifier:  Purse seine and longline control date.  Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10 megabyte file size.
          • Federal e-Rulemaking portal: www.regulations.gov.  Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Mail:   William L. Robinson, Administrator, NMFS Pacific
          Islands Region (PIR), 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814.
          • Fax:   808-973-2941

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Robert Harman, NMFS PIR, at 808-944-2271.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        On June 2, 2005, at its 127th meeting, the WPFMC recommended a “control date” of June 2, 2005, applicable to persons who are contemplating entering the pelagic purse seine (for tunas) and longline fisheries in the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around islands of the western Pacific region.  The WPFMC requested that this control date be published in the Federal Register to notify fishermen that if they enter these fisheries after June 2, 2005, they may not be assured of future access if the WPFMC and/or NMFS decide to limit entry or impose other measures to manage these fisheries.
        Establishment of a control date responds to NMFS' notice to the WPFMC, dated December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78397), that overfishing is occurring Pacific-wide on bigeye tuna, and that management action must be taken by the WPFMC to end this overfishing.  The WPFMC tentatively has determined that limited access programs for purse seine and longline fisheries in the U.S. EEZ of the western Pacific region might be one of the viable mechanisms to reduce fishing mortality in Pacific bigeye tuna, as a step toward ending overfishing in the pelagic fisheries.
        Domestic longline and purse seine vessels operate in the U.S. EEZ, on the high seas, and in foreign EEZs under specific arrangements.  Fishery access (in terms of both number of participants and geographical operations) is already limited in several of these fisheries.  There is a limited access program in the Hawaii longline fishery, and a similar program will limit access to the American Samoa longline fishery on December 1, 2005.  In Hawaii, the pelagic longline fishery is limited to 164 vessels, with about 120 active in recent years.  In American Samoa, participation will likely be limited to 138 vessels.  There are 65 additional general (open-access) longline permits in the region.  Some 64 of these are located in American Samoa, and many of these are expected to qualify under the American Samoa limited entry program.  One more general longline permit holder is located in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, but the vessel is inactive.  Currently, there are no domestic longline vessels operating out of Guam.  Domestic purse seine vessels have access to foreign EEZs under the arrangements of the South Pacific Tuna Treaty.  The treaty limits U.S. participation to 40 vessels, plus an additional five for joint ventures.  The number of active U.S. purse seine vessels has decreased gradually from 36 in 1999 to 17 in 2005.  There has been limited activity in recent years within the U.S. EEZ by purse seiners, specifically around the Pacific Remote Island Areas.
        Control dates are intended to discourage speculative entry into fisheries, as new entrants entering the fisheries after the control date are forewarned that they are not guaranteed future participation in the fisheries.

        Establishment of this control date does not commit the WPFMC or NMFS to any particular management regime or criteria for entry into the pelagic purse seine or longline fisheries.  Fishermen are not guaranteed future participation in the fisheries, regardless of their level of participation before or after the control date.  The WPFMC may recommend a different control date or it may recommend a management regime that does not involve a control date.  Other criteria, such as documentation of commercial landings and sales, may be used to determine eligibility for participation in a limited access fishery.  The WPFMC and/or NMFS also may choose to take no further action to control entry or access to the fisheries, in which case the control date may be rescinded.
        Classification
        This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

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

          Dated:  August 10, 2005.
          James W. Balsiger,
          Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

      [FR Doc. 05-16122 Filed 8-12-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 660
        [Docket No. 160614521-6999-01]
        RIN 0648-BF96
        Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Amendment to Regulations Implementing the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan; Change to Pacific Mackerel Management Cycle From Annual to Biennial

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          The Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) states that each year the Secretary will publish in the Federal Register the final specifications for all stocks in the actively managed stock category, which includes Pacific mackerel. NMFS is proposing to change the management framework for Pacific mackerel to set specifications biennially instead of on an annual basis from the 2017 fishing season forward.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received by February 3, 2017.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments on this document identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0053, by either of the following methods:
          • Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0053, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.
          • Mail: Submit written comments to Barry A. Thom, Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070; Attn: Joshua Lindsay.

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        NMFS manages the Pacific mackerel fishery in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off the Pacific coast (California, Oregon, and Washington) in accordance with the CPS FMP. The FMP states that each year the Secretary will publish in the Federal Register the specifications for all stocks in the actively managed stock category, which includes Pacific mackerel. In 2013 the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) recommended that the harvest specification process for Pacific mackerel move from a 1-year management cycle to a 2-year management cycle beginning in 2015. The Council recommended this revision to the management cycle under the CPS FMP's framework mechanism, which allows such changes by rulemaking without formally amending the fishery management plan itself. NMFS published the annual specifications for Pacific mackerel for the 2015-16 and 2016-17 fishing seasons to keep pace with the schedule of the fishery, and is now proposing to change the annual notice requirement under the framework mechanism of the CPS FMP. This change will allow 2 years of harvest specifications to be implemented with one rulemaking, beginning with the 2017 fishing season.

        The CPS FMP and its implementing regulations require NMFS to set annual catch levels for the Pacific mackerel fishery based on the annual specification framework and control rules in the FMP. These control rules include the harvest guideline (HG) control rule, which in conjunction with the overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC) and annual catch limit (ACL) rules in the FMP are used to manage harvest levels for Pacific mackerel, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Annual estimates of biomass are an explicit part of these various harvest control rules, therefore, annual stock assessments are currently conducted for Pacific mackerel to provide annual estimates of biomass. Then, during public meetings each year, the estimated biomass for Pacific mackerel from these assessments is presented to the Council's CPS Management Team (Team), the Council's CPS Advisory Subpanel (Subpanel) and the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and the biomass and the status of the fishery are reviewed and discussed. The biomass estimate is then presented to the Council along with recommendations and comments from the Team, Subpanel and SSC. Following review by the Council and after hearing public comment, the Council adopts a biomass estimate and makes its catch level recommendations to NMFS. Based on these recommendations, NMFS implements these catch specifications for each fishing year and publishes the specifications annually.
        Little new information is available for informing Pacific mackerel stock assessments from one year to the next. Therefore, stock assessment scientists at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center along with the SSC determined that conducting stock assessments annually is not necessary to manage Pacific mackerel sustainably; conducting assessments every 2 years can provide the necessary scientific information to continue to manage the stock sustainably. Annual landings of Pacific mackerel have also remained at historically low levels with landings averaging 5,000 mt over the last 10 years, well below the annual quotas over this time period. This highlights that the biomass of this stock is not being greatly impacted by fishing pressure. Low landings since 2011 are also one of the limitations of the recent stock assessments because they result in limited fishery-dependent sample information to feed into the stock assessment.
        This proposed action would change the review and implementation schedule for setting Pacific mackerel harvest specifications as well as the stock assessment cycle, allowing NMFS to implement 2 years of catch specifications with a single notice and comment rulemaking. The Council would also review the Pacific mackerel biomass estimates every 2 years. Reviewing biomass estimates and implementing catch specifications for 2 years at a time instead of 1 would allow NMFS and the Council to use available time and resources in a more efficient manner, while still preserving the conservation and management goals of the FMP, and using the best available science. If this proposal is approved, NMFS would set biennial specifications from the 2017 fishing season forward.
        Classification
        Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Assistant Administrator, NMFS, has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, for the following reasons:
        For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
        The small entities that would be affected by the proposed action are the vessels that harvest Pacific mackerel as part of the West Coast CPS finfish fleet and are all considered small businesses under the above size standards. Pacific mackerel are principally caught off southern California within the limited entry portion (south of 39 degrees N. latitude; Point Arena, California) of the fishery. Currently there are 56 vessels permitted in the Federal CPS limited entry fishery off California of which about 25 to 39 vessels have been annually engaged in harvesting Pacific mackerel in recent years (2009-2015). For those vessels that caught Pacific mackerel during that time, the average annual per vessel revenue has been about $1.25 million. The individual vessel revenue for these vessels is well below the threshold level of $11 million; therefore, all of these vessels are considered small businesses under the RFA. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule is considered to equally affect all of these small entities in the same manner.
        This proposed action changes the management schedule for Pacific mackerel to allow 2 years of specifications to be set at one time. The general procedures for setting specifications as described in the CPS FMP (public meetings, periodic reviews of the estimates of stock biomass, tracking catch, etc.) remain unchanged. This action is not expected to have significant direct or indirect socioeconomic impacts because harvest limits and management measures influencing ex-vessel revenue and personal income, such as the general harvest control rules for actively managed species in the CPS FMP remain unchanged by this proposed action. Instead, the proposed action only changes the timing the specifications are set from an annual to biennial process.
        Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, will 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.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660
          Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: December 28, 2016.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 660 as follows:

          PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

        2. In § 660.508, add paragraph (e) to read as follows:

          § 660.508
          Annual specifications.

          (e) Pacific mackerel. Every 2 years the Regional Administrator will determine, and publish in the Federal Register, harvest specifications for 2 consecutive fishing seasons for Pacific mackerel.

      [FR Doc. 2016-31900 Filed 1-3-17; 8:45 am]
       BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Parts 300, 600 and 697
        [Docket No. 070717337-7338-01]
        RIN 0648-AV78
        General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Specifications for Boarding Ladders

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments, reopening of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS reopens the comment period for proposed regulations to require the operators of certain domestic fishing vessels to provide a U.S. Coast Guard-approved pilot ladder as a safer and more enforceable means for authorized personnel to board.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received at the following address by February 25, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by “RIN 0648-AV78,” by any one of the following methods:

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

          • Fax: 301-713-1175, Attn: William D. Chappell.
          • Mail: Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Boarding Ladder Rule.”

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

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          William D. Chappell, 301-713-2337.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        The Magnuson-Stevens Act established U.S. management authority over the fishery resources in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). NMFS is responsible for implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) prepared by eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and for the FMP governing Atlantic Highly Migratory Species. While each Council prepares FMPs for those fishery resources within the Council's area of authority that require conservation, NMFS implements certain requirements common to all fisheries, such as facilitation of enforcement. Associated regulations are codified at 50 CFR parts 600 through 697.
        On December 11, 2007, NMFS published this proposed rule with a comment period ending January 10, 2008. Because the comment period extended through the December holiday period, many affected members of the fishing industry were unaware of the proposed rule until late in the comment period. As a result, NMFS received several requests to extend the comment period. Although the comment period ended before NMFS could publish an extension to this comment period, NMFS now reopens the comment period for an additional 30 days to allow the public adequate time to understand the rule, its effects on their circumstances, and provide their comments.
        Clarifications
        Comments received to date identified some misunderstandings and questions that need clarification. The most important misunderstanding is that the proposed rule would require fishing vessels to provide boarding ladders for the first time. Fishing vessel operators have been required to provide authorized officers “a safe ladder” since before 1988, when all facilitation of enforcement regulations were consolidated in one part. The intent of this proposed rule was to specify the type of ladder to meet the requirement, not to change the requirement to provide a ladder. Experience in many boardings has shown that ladders offered by many fishing vessel operators are, in reality, not safe. This negatively affects the ability of an authorized officer to safely board the fishing vessel at sea, resulting in an unacceptable safety hazard. In some instances, authorized officers entered the water as a direct result of ladder failures or inadequacies. Under current regulations, the safety of the ladder can only be determined unsafe after the fact, a situation that is unacceptable from both a safety and enforcement aspect. NMFS proposes to amend the existing regulation to require that a standard and safe ladder be made available. These commonly used ladders are available from many maritime suppliers, and can be constructed to meet the size of the vessel and can be rolled up to use minimal storage space.
        Another important misconception is that the proposed rule would require all fishing vessels to carry a Coast Guard approved ladder. The current regulations do not require vessels with a freeboard of 4 feet (1.25 m) or less to carry a ladder. The proposed rule will not alter this distinction. Instead, the proposed rule would define the term freeboard for the purposes of the rule as the working distance between the top rail of the gunwale of a vessel to the water's surface. This is somewhat different from the typical usage of the term freeboard, which usually means the difference between the lowest exposed or weather deck and the water.
        Several commenters asked whether the proposed rule would apply to recreational fishing vessels. The answer is yes, this proposed rule would apply to both recreational and commercial fishing vessels fishing under Federal fishing regulations.
        NMFS also received comments regarding alternative freeboard heights, purpose built ladders, and exemptions from the provision of a safe ladder based on vessel length, as well as other comments. All comments will be addressed in any final rule published for this rulemaking.

          Dated: January 18, 2008
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service

      [FR Doc. E8-1348 Filed 1-24-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        [Docket No. 051104291-5291-01; I.D. 100405F]
        50 CFR Part 648
        RIN 0648-AT29
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Spiny Dogfish; Framework Adjustment 1

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

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule; establishing a multiple-year specifications process.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes measures contained in Framework Adjustment 1 (Framework 1) to the Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) that would allow the specification of commercial quotas and other management measures for up to 5 years. The intent is to provide flexibility and efficiency to the management of the species.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received on or before December 16, 2005.

          ADDRESSES:

          Copies of Framework 1, the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and other supporting documents are available from Daniel Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South Street, Dover, DE 19901-6790. The RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.nero.nmfs.gov.
          Written comments on the proposed rule may be sent by any of the following methods:
          • Mail to the following address: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, NMFS, Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on Framework 1 - Dogfish”;
          • Fax to Patricia A. Kurkul at the following number: (978) 281-9135;
          • E-mail to the following address: DogFrame1@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-mail comment the following document identifier: “Comments on Framework 1";

          • Electronically through the Federal e-Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Eric Jay Dolin, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9259, fax (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        This framework adjustment to the FMP is intended to improve management of the Northeast Atlantic stock of spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias), pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Under the existing FMP, spiny dogfish are jointly managed by both the Mid-Atlantic and the New England Fishery Management Councils (Councils). The Councils recommend annual commercial quotas and other management measures (e.g., minimum or maximum fish sizes, seasons, mesh size restrictions, trip limits, or other gear restrictions), as needed, in order to ensure that the target F of 0.08 will not be exceeded. Implementing regulations for these fisheries are found at 50 CFR part 648, subpart L. Under the current FMP, the commercial quota and trip limits are specified annually and apply only to the following fishing year.
        The Councils developed Framework 1, pursuant to § 648.237, in order to streamline the administrative and regulatory processes involved in specifying the fishing measures for spiny dogfish, while, at the same time, maintaining consistency with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The proposed action would modify the FMP so that, within a given year, the Councils could specify commercial quotas and other management measures necessary to ensure that the target F of 0.08 will not be exceeded in each of the following 1 to 5 years. Implementation of Framework 1 will provide the option, not the requirement, for Councils to specify multi-year management measures. All of the environmental and regulatory review procedures currently required under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Environmental Policy Act will be conducted and documented during the year in which specifications are set. These analyses will consider impacts throughout the time span for which specifications are to be set (1 to 5 years). Multi-year quotas and other management measures would not have to be constant from year to year, but would instead be based upon expectations of future stock conditions as indicated by the best scientific information available at the time the multi-year specifications are set. Updated information on the resource and the fishery would be reviewed at least every 5 years by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (MAFMC) Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee, the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee and the Councils. Adjustments to the management measures, once implemented, would not be expected to occur during the period of multi-year specifications. Nevertheless, if new information indicated that modification to the multi-year management measures is necessary to ensure that the target F of 0.08 is not exceeded, the Councils would initiate the process for setting specifications in order to make such modifications. Given the elimination of the annual review/management measure adjustment process under this proposed action, environmental impact evaluation in the specification setting year would have to thoroughly consider the uncertainty associated with projected estimates of stock size in the 1 to 5 year time horizon. Accordingly, Council recommendations for multi-year management measures would have to be adequately conservative to accommodate this uncertainty under the proposed action.
        During the development of Framework 1, the Councils considered and analyzed the following three alternatives for a multi-year specifications process: A no-action alternative, which would continue the requirement to establish spiny dogfish specifications on an annual basis; the proposed alternative; and an alternative that would require the Councils to conduct an annual review of the previously established multi-year specifications. The Councils selected the proposed action because it provided the most straightforward and efficient administrative process for establishing multi-year specifications, and because it is expected to provide greater predictability to the commercial fishing sector.
        Classification
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

        An IRFA was prepared that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action is contained in the preamble of this proposed rule. The preamble also includes complete descriptions of the proposed, no action, and the other alternative discussed here. Under the current management system, the Councils annually submit a specifications document to NMFS for review. Under the other two alternatives, the Councils would submit a specifications document only in the first year of the multi-year specifications period, if applicable. This would reduce substantially the administrative burden on both the Councils and NMFS. Additionally, longer term specifications should provide greater predictability to the commercial fishing sector. Under the proposed alternative, an annual review of updated information on the fisheries by the MAFMC's Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee, the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee, and the Councils would not be required during the period of multi-year specifications because the analysis of multi-year measures would have evaluated the impacts of the measures for years 2 through 5, as appropriate, in the specifications process. The Councils concluded that the provision for an annual review would not be necessary and would reduce administrative efficiency. However, the Councils contemplate that a review would be initiated when new information indicated that modifications could be required to ensure that the target F of 0.08 is not exceeded.
        There are no relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule. This rule does not contain any new, nor does it revise any existing reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements. Framework 1 deals only with the administrative periodicity of specifications process, and therefore would have minimal direct effect on entities participating in these fisheries.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
          Fishing, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: November 25, 2005.
          John Oliver,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

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

        2. Section 648.230 is revised to read as follows:

          § 648.230
          Catch quotas and other restrictions.
          (a) Process for setting specifications. The Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee will review the following data at least every five years, subject to availability, to determine the total allowable level of landings (TAL) and other restrictions necessary to assure that a target fishing mortality rate (F) of 0.08 will not be exceeded: Commercial and recreational catch data; current estimates of F; stock status; recent estimates of recruitment; virtual population analysis results; levels of noncompliance by fishermen or individual states; impact of size/mesh regulations; sea sampling data; impact of gear other than otter trawls and gill nets on the mortality of spiny dogfish; and any other relevant information.
          (b) Recommended measures. Based on this review, the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee shall recommend to the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee a commercial quota and any other measures including those in paragraphs (b)(1)-(b)(5) of this section that are necessary to assure that the F specified in paragraph (a) of this section will not be exceeded in any fishing year (May 1 - April 30), for a period of 1-5 fishing years. The quota may be set within the range of zero to the maximum allowed. The measures that may be recommended include, but are not limited to:
          (1) Minimum or maximum fish sizes;
          (2) Seasons;
          (3) Mesh size restrictions;
          (4) Trip limits; or
          (5) Other gear restrictions.
          (c) Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee recommendation. The Councils' Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee shall review the recommendations of the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee. Based on these recommendations and any public comments, the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee shall recommend to the Councils a commercial quota and, possibly, other measures, including those specified in paragraph (b) of this section, necessary to assure that the F specified in paragraph (a) of this section will not be exceeded in any fishing year (May 1 - April 30), for a period of 1-5 fishing years. The commercial quota may be set within the range of zero to the maximum allowed.
          (d) Council recommendations. The Councils shall review these recommendations and, based on the recommendations and any public comments, recommend to the Regional Administrator a commercial quota and other measures necessary to assure that the F specified in paragraph (a) of this section will not be exceeded in any fishing year (May 1 - April 30), for a period of 1-5 fishing years. The Councils' recommendations must include supporting documentation, as appropriate, concerning the environmental, economic, and other impacts of the recommendations. The Regional Administrator shall initiate a review of these recommendations and may modify the recommended quota and other management measures to assure that the target F specified in paragraph (a) of this section will not be exceeded in any fishing year (May 1 - April 30), for a period of 1-5 fishing years. The Regional Administrator may modify the Councils' recommendations using any of the measures that were not rejected by both Councils. After such review, NMFS shall publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register specifying a coastwide commercial quota and other meas ures necessary to assure that the F specified in paragraph (a) of this section will not be exceeded in any fishing year (May 1 - April 30), for a period of 1-5 fishing years. After considering public comments, NMFS shall publish a final rule in the Federal Register to implement such a quota and other measures.
          (e) Annual quota. [Reserved]
          (f) Distribution of annual quota. (1) The annual quota specified according to the process outlined in paragraph (a) of this section shall be allocated between two semi-annual quota periods as follows: May 1 through October 31 (57.9 percent) and November 1 through April 30 (42.1 percent).
          (2) All spiny dogfish landed for a commercial purpose in the states from Maine through Florida shall be applied against the applicable semi-annual commercial quota, regardless of where the spiny dogfish were harvested.

      [FR Doc. 05-23536 Filed 11-30-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
        47 CFR Part 15
        [ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183; DA 20-730; FRS 16942]
        Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band

          AGENCY:
          Federal Communications Commission.

          ACTION:
          Petition for Reconsideration Dismissed.

          SUMMARY:

          In this document, the Office of Engineering and Technology dismisses Encina Communications Corporation's Petition for Reconsideration for the final rule published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2020. A Petition for Reconsideration of this order must have been filed within thirty days, i.e. on or by June 25, 2020, to be considered timely. However, the Petition was filed on June 29, 2020, four days late. We therefore dismiss it.

          DATES:
          Request for Petition of Reconsideration for the document published at 85 FR 31390, May 26, 2020, denied July 13, 2020.

          ADDRESSES:
          Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Nicholas Oros, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-0636, Nicholos.Oros@fcc.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        This is a summary of the Commission's Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 18-295, GN Docket No. 17-183, DA 20-730, adopted July 13, 2020, and released July 13, 2020. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/oet-dismisses-encina-communications-petition-reconsideration. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

          Federal Communications Commission.
          Ronald T. Repasi,
          Acting Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.

      [FR Doc. 2020-16153 Filed 7-24-20; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6712-01-P