[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 99 (Thursday, May 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31023-31025]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10954]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0125; Notice 1]

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz AG (``MB AG'') and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
(``MBUSA'') (collectively, ``Mercedes-Benz''), formerly known as
Daimler AG has determined that certain model year (MY) 2019 Mercedes-
Benz AMG GT motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact. Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated
October 18, 2019, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on November 7,
2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt
of Mercedes-Benz's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before June 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Mercedes-Benz has determined that certain MY 2019
Mercedes-Benz AMG GT motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph
S5.3.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49
CFR 571.201).
    Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated October 18, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on November 7, 2019, for
an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of the Mercedes-Benz's petition is published
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency
decision or another exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 12 MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz GT63,
GT53, and GT63S AMG motor vehicles, manufactured between August 29,
2017, and March 4, 2019, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: Mercedes-Benz explains that an interior
compartment door assembly in the subject vehicles, does not meet the
requirements of paragraph S5.3.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201. Specifically, the
front center console storage compartment sliding lid may open briefly
in certain types of forward crashes.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S5.3, S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(c) of
FMVSS No. 201, include the requirements relevant to this petition. Each
interior compartment door assembly located in an instrument panel,
console assembly, seat back, or side panel adjacent to a designated
seating position shall remain closed when tested in accordance with
either S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(b) or S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(c). S5.3.1(a)
subjects the interior compartment door latch system to an inertia load
of 10g in a horizontal transverse direction and an inertia load of 10g
in a vertical direction in accordance with the procedure described in
section 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b (1965) (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  571.5), or an approved equivalent. Further,
S5.3.1(c) subjects the interior compartment door latch system to a
horizontal inertia load of 30g in a longitudinal direction in
accordance with the procedure described in section 5 of SAE Recommended
Practice J839b (1965) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  571.5), or
an approved equivalent.
    V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz's Petition: The following views and
arguments presented in this section, V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz's
petition, are the views and arguments provided by Mercedes-Benz. They
have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views of
the Agency. Mercedes-Benz described the subject noncompliance and
stated its belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Background: Prior to the introduction of the MY 2019 AMG GT
vehicles to the United States market, MB AG found that the lid of the
front center console could open for a matter of milliseconds and that
the supplier of the compartment had tested the locking mechanism of the
door with 24g of force, instead of the 30g force requirement contained
in subparagraph (c). The crash lock was updated in production, prior to

introduction to the U.S. market, to ensure conformance to the force
requirements in subparagraph (c) and vehicles in the company's
possession were reworked.\1\ MB AG later identified 12 vehicles that
had not received the improved crash lock mechanism prior to being
released into the field and made a determination to submit a Part 573
Noncompliance Information Report on October 11, 2019. In support of its
petition, Mercedes-Benz submitted the following reasoning:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The crash lock mechanism is not installed on vehicles
offered for sale outside of the United States, Canada and South
Korea, where FMVSS 201 or its equivalent has been adopted. MB AG is
not aware of any claims or reports of injuries due to the
performance of the interior compartment door in any market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. At issue in this petition are a total of 12 MY 2019 Mercedes-
Benz AMG GT vehicles. MB AG previously determined that the interior
compartment door located within the vehicle's center console does not
fully meet the requirement in FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact, when tested to the demonstration procedure for frontal
crash set forth in the standard. In a frontal crash scenario, there is
a possibility for the lid of the interior compartment door in the
center console to open for a matter of milliseconds, after which the
door will automatically close again.
    2. Mercedes-Benz says that due to the location and geometry of the
compartment door, there is no risk of injury even if it were to open in
a frontal crash. Mercedes-Benz stated that the door is located in the
center console, below the in-vehicle display, and does not present an
opportunity to strike vehicle occupants when opened. Further, because
the design of the door slides forward and into the center console when
it opens, there is similarly no risk of injury from the performance of
the door. Finally, although the purpose and objective of the standard
is to protect against injury from hard and sharp surfaces in the event
of a crash, because the compartment door will automatically close
within an extremely short period of time (a matter of milliseconds)
from opening and because the door may only open during a frontal crash
in which case any objects within the compartment would only move in a
forward direction and not rearward into the occupant compartment, there
is no risk of harm from objects inside the compartment escaping into
the occupant space.
    3. The Performance of the Compartment Door Does Not Create an
Increased Safety Risk: Mercedes-Benz cited the provisions of the Safety
Act, 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the basis upon which NHTSA
evaluates an inconsequentiality petition ``whether an occupant who is
affected by the noncompliance is likely to be exposed to a
significantly greater risk than an occupant in a compliant vehicle.''
See 69 FR 19897, 19900 (April 14, 2004) (emphasis added).
    As described below, the issue here does not impact the operational
safety of the vehicle and will not create an enhanced risk to vehicle
occupants because, in the limited, frontal crash scenario in which the
door could potentially open, neither the door itself nor any objects
within the compartment could cause injury to vehicle occupants.
    4. Description of the Compartment Door: The interior compartment
door at issue in this petition is a storage compartment used in
vehicles with the Wireless Media Interface (WMI) package. The WMI
feature allows users to wirelessly charge cell phones within the
compartment and the compartment can also be used to store small objects
like coins and accessories. The compartment is located within the
center console between the driver and front passenger's seat and the
storage portion of the compartment is approximately 15 cm/6 inches long
and 13 cm/5 inches deep.
    In normal use, the door remains shut until an occupant pushes the
door forward. The door moves forward in an upward direction, towards
the front of the vehicle. When reaching the top, the door is enclosed
within the housing of the compartment itself and, with an additional
push is snapped into place to remain open. Once it is snapped into
place, in order to close the door an occupant can pull the door
slightly from the housing. The door then closes automatically. As a
result, if the door does open briefly during a frontal crash and is not
pushed fully into the latched open position, it will quickly and
automatically close.
    5. It is Not Possible for the Compartment Door to Strike Occupants:
The performance of the interior compartment door does not present any
of the safety risks contemplated by FMVSS No. 201 because there is no
risk of vehicle occupants coming into contact with or striking the
compartment door. When originally promulgated, the interior compartment
door provisions in FMVSS No. 201 were focused on preventing injuries
that could occur from hard interior doors, such as the glove
compartment door, striking an occupant. See 33 FR 15794 (October 24,
1968) (considering ``the potential injury that can be caused by an open
interior compartment door because . . . [prior requirements] do not
afford protection against the type of protrusion created by an open
interior compartment door'') (emphasis added); see also Letter to M.
Smith, August 26, 1988 (``the purpose of the requirement is to prevent
a door from flying open and striking an occupant in a crash.'') The
standard, which was also promulgated at a time when seat belt use was
substantially lower than it is today, was directed toward mitigating
injuries that can be caused by interior doors with hard and sharp
surfaces opening unexpectedly. That risk is not present here.
    The location, geometry, and operation of the compartment door
prevent it from causing or contributing to an injury in the event of a
crash. The door is located in the bottom of the center console, in the
area between the driver and front passenger seats. The door is
installed in a location where it could not strike a vehicle occupant
should it open in a crash. The door, moreover, does not have any sharp
edges and is not comprised of a hard, metal surface.
    Further, because of the manner in which the door opens, there is no
opportunity for the door to strike a vehicle occupant. The door
covering slides forwards and into the housing of the compartment
itself, it does not extend outwards into the passenger compartment
which is the concern that the standard is intended to address. In
typical use, the operator slides the door covering away towards the
front of the vehicle, away from the occupant compartment and into the
center console where it becomes fully enclosed within the housing. By
contrast, glove box doors and other interior compartment doors on
hinges that open outwards and into the occupant compartment are the
traditional types of doors that FMVSS No. 201 was designed to address
because the door's surface could come into contact with a vehicle
occupant if it opened in a crash. This same risk does not exist with
the door covering in the AMG vehicles based on its geometry and design.
    Additionally, the compartment door will automatically close after
opening if it has not been snapped into place to stay open. In the
event of a frontal crash force that is severe enough to cause the door
to open, the door would open for an extremely short period of time, a
matter of milliseconds, and then would automatically pull back into
place and the door will close again. Because of the design and
operation of the door, it remains open for a matter of milliseconds
seconds after which it will retreat back into its fully closed
position.

    6. There is No Risk of Injury to Occupants from Objects Escaping
the Compartment: Mercedes-Benz says there is no potential for items
inside the storage compartment to escape and injure vehicle occupants.
Although the scope of the standard has always been focused on risks of
injury presented by the hard surface of vehicle doors opening in a
crash, there is similarly no enhanced risk to safety from items
escaping the compartment and causing injury. The compartment door has
the potential to open only in specific situations, a frontal crash with
loads exceeding 24g of force. The compartment door operates within the
requirements of the standard at all other times.\2\ Even in a crash
where the load force was severe enough, the compartment lid would open
and completely close again all within approximately 250 ms of the
crash. Further, even in a front end crash that was severe enough to
open the compartment door, the direction of the crash forces precludes
objects from escaping. In a front end collision with high vehicle
deceleration, any objects inside the storage compartment at the time
would shift forward, in the same direction in which the vehicle is
moving. Because the force of deceleration causes the items to shift
forward, they will move forward and deeper into the compartment and
will remain enclosed within the compartment during the crash event.
During the intervening moments following the crash, the door will
automatically close and secure the items within the compartment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The vehicles fully meet the performance requirements when
tested to S5.3.l(a) and S5.3.l(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Mercedes-Benz stated that the above described marking
discrepancy does not create a safety risk and that they are not aware
of any warranty claims, field reports, customer complaints, legal
claims, or injuries related to this noncompliance. Even if the
compartment door was to open in the event of a severe crash, there is
no increased risk of injury due to the location of the door covering
itself, its operation and design that allows it to retract into the
console housing and the fact that it will automatically close shut
after an extremely short period of time. Vehicle occupants are not at
risk of coming into contact with the door itself (when opened or
closed) and there is no risk of objects stored inside the compartment
from escaping into the occupant space.
    Mercedes-Benz concluded that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and that its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Mercedes-Benz
no longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after
Mercedes-Benz notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-10954 Filed 5-20-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28495-28497]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11525]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0334]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Safety Precautions to Protect the Public from the
Effects of a Potential Catastrophic Failure of the Marseilles Dam;
Illinois River

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary Final Rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Illinois River from Mile Marker 231.0 to Mile Marker 271.4. This zone
is intended to place restrictions on vessels due to the salvage and
port recovery operations in this part of the Illinois River, and the
potential structural concerns regarding the Marseilles Dam. This safety
zone is necessary to protect the general public, vessels, and tows from
the hazards associated with salvage and port recovery operations and
the potential catastrophic failure of the Marseilles Dam.

DATES: This rule will be enforced with actual notice from April 29,
2013, until May 15, 2013. This rule is effective in the Code of Federal
Regulations from May 15, 2013 until June 30, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-0334]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact MST1 Joseph McCollum, Prevention Department, Coast Guard Sector
Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On April 18, 2013, in light of dangerously high water conditions,
the Coast Guard established a temporary safety zone on the Illinois
River from Mile Marker 187.2 to Mile Marker 285.9 (see docket for this
regulation). The safety zone restricted recreational and commercial
vessel transits in the zone without the permission of the Captain of
the Port Lake Michigan. That safety zone has been effective and
enforced since April 18, 2013, and expires on April 30, 2013. Because
of the emergent nature of the flooding, the Coast Guard did not solicit
comments before establishing this temporary safety zone.
    On April 29, 2013, in order to facilitate commerce and in
consideration of salvage operations around the Marseilles Dam, the
Coast Guard established a temporary safety zone (USCG-2013-0323) that
authorized commercial vessels to transit the Illinois River except from
Mile Marker 244 to Mile Marker 252. Recreational vessels were
prohibited from Mile Marker 187.2 to 285.9. Because of the emergent
nature of the flooding, the Coast Guard also did not solicit comments
prior to establishing this temporary safety zone.
    Now, the Coast Guard is issuing a third temporary final rule
without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority
under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without
prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause
finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so
would be impracticable. The Coast Guard is issuing this rule in
response to an immediate and emergency situation which involves salvage
and port recovery operations in the vicinity of the Marseilles Lock and
Dam and the potential for catastrophic failure of the Marseilles Dam.
Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment
period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast
Guard's ability to protect persons and vessels from the hazards, which
are discussed further below, associated with the potential catastrophic
failure of the Marseilles Dam.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for 30 day notice period to run would
be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    Heavy and extended periods of rain during the first half of the
month of April resulted in dangerously high waters within the Illinois
River, bringing excessive debris, rapidly-flowing water, and
complicating vessel navigation. These high and rapidly-moving waters
also threatened to damage critical infrastructure including river
levees.
    As a result of these conditions, the Coast Guard established the
two previously-mentioned safety zones on the Illinois River from Mile
Marker 187.2 to Mile Marker 285.9. Since April 18, 2013, seven barges
broke loose from their tow during an approach to the Marseilles Lock
canal and lodged against the Marseilles Dam. Salvage operations are
underway to recover the barges and a structural survey of the dam is
being conducted.
    On April 29, 2013, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released
Navigation Notice IW 13-12 saying that Dresden Lock and Starved Rock
Lock will not lock vessel traffic into the area between the locks with
the exception of those vessels assisting in the salvage operation or
the dam recovery efforts at Marseilles Dam. Currently, both commercial
and recreational vessels remain within portions of the Illinois River,
which could either be affected by the failure of the Marseilles Dam or
could impede the salvage operations at work there. This affected area
is determined to be all waters of the Illinois River between the
Starved Rock Lock and Dam (Mile marker 231.0) and the Dresden Lock and
Dam (Mile Marker 271.4).
    In an effort to ensure the safety of all vessels that might be
either affected by the failure of the Marseilles Dam or could impede
the salvage operations being conducted, the Captain of the Port is
issuing this temporary final rule.

Enforcement of the restrictions in the prior temporary safety zone
(USCG-2013-0323) will be suspended.
    The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has established the
restrictions named within this regulation in response to the safety
risks presented by the high water conditions, the potentially
compromised dam, and ongoing salvage operations. The safety risks
associated with these conditions include loss of vessel control,
sinking, swamping, collisions, and allisions.

C. Discussion of Rule

    The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that a
safety zone is necessary to mitigate the aforementioned safety risks.
This rule establishes a safety zone that encompasses all waters of the
Illinois River from the gates of the Dresden Lock and Dam at Mile
Marker 271.4 to the gates of the Starved Rock Lock and Dam at Mile
Marker 231.0. This rule will place restrictions on certain vessels
entering, transiting, moving within, or departing the waters within the
safety zone. Inbound vessels are directed to contact the Army Corps of
Engineers; vessels transiting within or departing from this zone are
directed to contact the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan
Representative. This rule is effective and will be enforced from April
29, 2013, until June 30, 2013.
    The Captain of the Port Lake Michigan will notify the public that
this safety zone is being enforced by all appropriate means to the
affected segments of the public including publication in the Federal
Register as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means
of notification may also include, but are not limited to Broadcast
Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners.
    All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his or her designated on-scene
representative. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Lake
Michigan, or his or her designated on-scene representative. The Captain
of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his or her designated on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or by contacting the
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan Command Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

E. Regulatory Analysis

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have
minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies,
will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients,
and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone
created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for a
relatively short amount of time. Also, this safety zone is designed to
minimize its impact on navigable waters. Furthermore, the safety zone
has been designed to allow vessels to transit unrestricted to portions
of the waterways not affected by the safety zones. Thus, restrictions
on vessel movements within that particular area are expected to be
minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit
through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port, Lake
Michigan. On the whole, the Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse
impact to mariners from the activation of this safety zone.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit portions of the Illinois River during the time
that this zone is enforced.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
safety zone would be effective and thus subject to enforcement, for two
months. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the zone with the
permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port can be
reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of the zone, we
would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so they can better evaluate its
effects on them. If this rule would affect your small business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

 5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

7. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not affect the taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

8. Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

 9. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

 10. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

11. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

12. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

 13. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone, and
thus, paragraph 34(g) of figure 2-1 in Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
applies.
    An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination
and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0334 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0334  Safety Zone; Safety precautions to protect the
public from the effects of a potential catastrophic failure of the
Marseilles Dam; Illinois River.

    (a) Location. All waters of the Illinois River from the gates of
the Dresden Lock and Dam at Mile Marker 271.4 to the gates of the
Starved Rock Lock and Dam at Mile Marker 231.0.
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This safety zone will be
effective and enforced from April 29, 2013, until June 30, 2013.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All vessels permitted to enter or remain in
the safety zone are prohibited from laying up on levees.
    (2) All vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting, or
anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port, Lake Michigan, or his designated representative.
    (3) Any vessel located within the safety zone will be authorized to
transit within or exit the safety zone only by permission of the
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or his designated representative.
    (d) Exceptions. (1) All vessels intending to transit into the
safety zone are authorized to do so at the discretion of the Dresden
and Starved Rock Lockmasters. The Dresden Lockmaster may be contacted
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Starved Rock Lockmaster may be contacted
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessels underway in the Dresden or Starved
Rock Pool should immediately seek a safe mooring or departure from the
affected pools. Vessels moored within the Starved Rock or Dresden Pool
that intend to depart or transit within the pool shall contact The
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative via
VHF Channel 16, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given
permission to enter, operate, or depart from the safety zone must
comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative. The ``on-scene
representative'' of the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan is any Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by
the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan to act on his behalf.

    Dated: April 29, 2013.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2013-11525 Filed 5-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 164 (Friday, August 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 58260]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18392]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10489-020]

City of River Falls Municipal Utilities; Notice of Availability
of Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the application for subsequent license to continue to operate
and maintain the River Falls Hydroelectric Project (project). The
project is located on the Kinnickinnic River, in the City of River
Falls (City), Pierce County, Wisconsin. Commission staff has prepared
an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
    The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental
impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with
appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a
major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the
human environment.
    The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity
to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's
Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov/), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter
the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at [email protected], or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to
6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. In lieu of electronic
filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S.
Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be
addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first
page of any filing should include docket number P-10489-020.
    For further information, contact Michael Davis at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

    Dated: August 21, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18392 Filed 8-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


18638 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Notices Unless the provisions of an earlier order apply, existing stocks already in the hands of dealers or users can be distributed, sold, or used legally until they are exhausted, provided that such further sale and use comply with the EPA approved label and labeling of the affected product. Exception to these general rules will be made in specific cases when more stringent restrictions on sale, distribution, or use of the products or their ingredients have already been imposed, as in a Special Review action, or where the Agency has identified significant potential risk concerns associated with a particular chemical.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: April 1, 2003. Linda Vlier Moos Acting Director, Information Resources Services Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 03   8959 Filed 4   15   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2002   0281; FRL   7299   1]

Pesticides; North American Free Trade Agreement Guidance Document on Requirements for Tolerances on Imported Commodities; Notice of Availability AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This document provides detailed guidance on data requirements that meet North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA) standards for the establishment of pesticide import tolerances or maximum residue levels in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. It has been developed consistently with the goals of the North American Free Trade Agreement. This guidance document does not change the U. S. data requirements for obtaining a U. S. import tolerance. This notice starts a 60   day public comment period, during which the public is encouraged to submit comments to EPA in accordance with procedures described in Unit I. of this document. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2002   0281, must be received on or before June 16, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McNally, Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   8085; fax number: ( 703) 308   8041; email address: mcnally. robert@ epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you sell, distribute, manufacture, or use pesticides for agricultural applications, produce food, distribute or sell food, or implement governmental pesticide regulations. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Food manufacturers ( NAICS 311), e. g., commercial processors   Pesticide manufacturers ( NAICS 32532), e. g., pesticide registrants and pesticide producers This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2002   0281. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For members of the public submitting comments, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 41 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APN1. SGM 16APN1 18639 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Notices Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

C. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit I. D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the person who submitted the comment, and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2002   0281. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2002   0281. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency ( 7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2002   0281. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA., Attention: Docket ID number OPP   2002   0281. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.

II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? This notice constitutes and announces the availability of the NAFTA Guidance Document on Data Requirements for Tolerances on Imported Commodities. It has been developed consistently with the goals of the NAFTA. A common NAFTA approach to import tolerances will promote trade between North America and the rest of the world.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action? In the Federal Register of June 1, 2000 ( 65 FR 35069) ( FRL   6559   30, EPA issued a guidance on import tolerances. The NAFTA Guidance Document on Data Requirements for Tolerances on Imported Commodities is consistent with the earlier U. S. guidance.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 41 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APN1. SGM 16APN1 18640 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 73 / Wednesday, April 16, 2003 / Notices EPA regulates pesticides under two major statutes: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA). FIFRA requires that pesticides be registered ( licensed) by EPA before they may be sold or distributed for use in the U. S. Section 408 of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to establish, modify, or maintain tolerances or tolerance exemptions for pesticide residues in or on food. Any food with pesticide residues not covered by a tolerance or tolerance exemption or with residues in excess of the tolerance may be subject to regulatory action by the U. S. government ( including seizure). Pesticide tolerances and exemptions are enforced by individual States and the U. S. Food and Drug Administration for most foods, and by the U. S. Department of Agriculture for meat, poultry, and some egg products. EPA has an obligation under section 408 of the FFDCA to establish tolerances for pesticide chemicals at levels that are `` safe.'' EPA also has an obligation to ensure that the tolerances continue to be `` safe'' over time, since new information may alter EPA's earlier safety finding under the FFDCA.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, NAFTA pesticides and tolerances.

Dated: March 27, 2003. Lois A Rossi, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 03   9338 Filed 4   15   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7484   5]

Toxicological Review of Benzene   Noncancer Effects AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of the final document, Toxicological Review of Benzene   Noncancer Effects ( EPA/ 635/ R   02/ 001F), prepared by the Office of Research and Development's ( ORD) National Center for Environmental Assessment ( NCEA). ADDRESSES: The document is available on NCEA's Web site at http:// www. epa. gov/ ncea under the What's New and Publications menus. A limited number of paper copies will be available from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications ( NSCEP), P. O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242; telephone: 1   800   490   9198 or 513   489   8190; facsimile: 513   489   8695. Please provide your name and mailing address and the title and EPA number of the requested publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, please contact David Bayliss, National Center for Environmental Assessment Washington ( 8623D), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 202   564   3294; facsimile: 202   565   0078; e mail: bayliss. david@ epa. gov. For general information contact: Technical Information Staff, NCEA   W ( 8623D), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460; telephone: 202   564   3261; facsimile: 202   565   0050; email nceadc. comment@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Toxicological Review of Benzene   Noncancer Effects characterizes the potential noncancer health hazards associated with environmental exposure to benzene. This toxicological review will serve as a scientific document for hazard identification and dose response assessment in updating the noncancer health effects summary on benzene in the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS).

The Toxicological Review concludes that chronic benzene exposure may pose several types of noncancer human health hazards. Hematotoxicity, e. g., progressive deterioration of hematopoietic function, has been consistently reported to be the most sensitive indicator of noncancer toxicity in both experimental animal studies and occupationally exposed humans. The hazards can result from inhalation, oral or dermal exposure, though the exposure circumstances vary. The Toxicological Review includes estimates of chronic exposure levels for oral exposure ( reference dose) and inhalation exposure ( reference concentration) that are thought to be without appreciable risk.

Earlier drafts of the assessment were subjected to independent expert peer review, as well as to public review and comment. The comments of the expert panel and the public are addressed in the revisions of the draft document. Dated: April 10, 2003. Peter W. Preuss, Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment. [ FR Doc. 03   9341 Filed 4   15   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7484   4]

Anniston Lead Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed Settlement AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

SUMMARY: Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (`` CERCLA''), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (`` EPA'') proposes to enter into a Prospective Purchaser Agreement (`` PPA'') regarding the Anniston Lead Superfund Site in Anniston, Calhoun County, Alabama. EPA proposes to enter into the PPA with Habitat for Humanity of Calhoun County, Inc. ( Habitat). Pursuant to the PPA, Habitat will conduct time critical removal actions at the properties (`` Properties'') covered by the PPA under EPA oversight. The PPA provides Habitat with a covenant not to sue from the United States for Existing Contamination on the Properties and releases any Superfund liens on the Properties as well. EPA will consider comments on the proposed PPA until May 16, 2003. EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed PPA should such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate the proposed PPA is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. Copies of the proposed settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Waste Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, 404/ 562   8887. Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor at the above address within 30 days of the date of publication.

Dated: April 3, 2003. Archie Lee, Chief, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management Division. [ FR Doc. 03   9349 Filed 4   15   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 18: 31 Apr 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16APN1. SGM 16APN1


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 4, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16327-16329]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06595]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0983]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Fireworks Displays, Sector Key West, Florida

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish safety zones for certain
waters within the Sector Key West Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. This
action would establish safety zones around firework platforms,
structures, or barges during the storage, preparation, and launching of
fireworks. The proposed rule is necessary to provide for the safety of
the participants, participant vessels, and the general public on the
navigable waters of the United States during the fireworks displays.
This proposed rule would allow the Coast Guard to restrict persons and
vessels, except those participating in the event, from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated
area unless authorized by the COTP Key West or a designated
representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 4, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2016-0983 using the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Scott Ledee, Waterways Management
Division Chief, Sector Key West, FL, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (305)
292-8768, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

COTP Captain of the Port
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    This proposed rule would establish safety zones around firework
platforms, structures or barges within the Sector Key West COTP Zone
during the storage, preparation, and launching of fireworks. Hazards
from firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks,
dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The COTP
Key West has determined that potential hazards associated with
fireworks are a safety concern for anyone within a 500-yard radius of
the firework platforms, structures, or barges.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of all firework
platforms, structures, or barges during the storage, preparation, and
launching of fireworks. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under
authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish safety zones on navigable
waters around firework platforms, structures, or barges within the COTP
Zone Key West, Florida. The safety zones would include all waters
within a 500-yard radius of all fireworks launching platforms,
structures, or barges while engaged in the storage, preparation, and
launching of fireworks.
    The proposed rule seeks to enhance navigation safety and marine
environmental protection, reduce the potential for the loss of lives
and property, and ensure the safety of vessel and workers from hazards
associated with fireworks operations in the regulated area.
    No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone
without obtaining permission from the COTP Key West or a designated
representative. The proposed regulatory text appears at the end of this
document.
    Notice of enforcement and suspension of enforcement will be made by
all appropriate means to affect the widest distribution among the
affected segments of the public. Such means of notification may
include, but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local
Notice to Mariners, or notices on the U. S. Coast Guard Homeport Web
site.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This NPRM has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
    Although this proposed rule may restrict access to small portions
of the waterway within the Sector Key West COTP Zone, the effect of
this regulation would not be significant for the following reasons: (1)
The safety zones would only be enforced during limited time intervals
while firework display operations present a hazard; (2) vessels may be
authorized to enter the regulated areas with permission of the COTP Key
West or a designated representative; and (3) advanced notification of
closures will be made via Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast to
Mariners, and the U. S. Coast Guard Homeport Web site.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their

fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the
establishment of safety zones. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis
checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.785 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.785  Safety Zone; Fireworks Displays, Sector Key West,
Florida.

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is established as a safety
zone during the specified conditions: All waters within the Sector Key
West COTP Zone within a 500-yard radius of all firework platforms,
structures or barges during

the storage, preparation, and launching of fireworks. COTP Key West or
a designated representative may reduce the 500-yard zone based on
prevailing conditions and enforcement needs.
    (1) The Coast Guard realizes that some large scale events, such as
those with many participants or spectators, or those that could
severely restrict navigation pose a significant hazard, may still
require separate special local regulations or safety zones that address
the specific peculiarities of the event. In those situations, the Coast
Guard will create special local regulations or safety zones
specifically for the event, and those regulations will supersede the
proposed regulations in this rule.
    (2) All firework platforms, structures, or barges will display a
sign on both the port and starboard sides labeled, ``FIREWORKS--STAY
AWAY''. This sign will consist of 10-inch high by 1.5-inch wide red
lettering on a white background. Shore fireworks sites that affect
navigable waterways will also display signs with the aforementioned
specifications.
    (b) Definition. Designated representative means Coast Guard Patrol
Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other
officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local
officers designated by or assisting the COTP Key West in the
enforcement of the regulated area.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with Sec.  165.23, entering, transiting through,
anchoring in, or remaining within the safety zone during periods of
enforcement is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP Key West or a
designated representative.
    (2) During periods of enforcement, upon being hailed by a Coast
Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the
operator must proceed as directed.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain or operate within the regulated area during the enforcement
period shall contact the COTP Key West or the designated on-scene
representative via VHF channel 16 or call the Sector Key West Command
Center at<PHONE_NUMBER> to obtain permission.
    (d) Notice of enforcement or suspension of enforcement. The safety
zone established by this section will be enforced only upon notice of
the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port will cause notice of
enforcement of the safety zone established by this section to be made
by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public
including publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in
accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also
include, but are not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local
Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: March 28, 2017.
J.A. Janszen,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Key West.
[FR Doc. 2017-06595 Filed 4-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 125 (Monday, June 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39037-39040]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13927]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0124; Notice 1]

North America Subaru, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: North America Subaru, Inc., (NASI) on behalf of Subaru
Corporation and Subaru of America, Inc. (Subaru) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2016--2020 Subaru Impreza motor vehicles do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Subaru filed
a noncompliance report dated October 10, 2019. Subaru also

petitioned NHTSA on October 23, 2019, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This document announces receipt of Subaru's petition.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is July 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket number and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Subaru has determined that certain MY 2016--2019
Subaru Impreza motor vehicles do not fully comply with S<IP_ADDRESS> of
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49
CFR 571.108). Subaru filed a noncompliance report dated October 10,
2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Subaru also petitioned NHTSA on October 23,
2019, for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt, of Subaru's petition, is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercises of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 63,697 MY 2016--2020 Subaru
Impreza 4 door and approximately 124,703 Subaru Impreza Stationwagon,
totaling 188,400 motor vehicles manufactured between September 23,
2016, and August 7, 2019, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: NASI explains that the noncompliance is that
the subject vehicles are equipped with headlamp assemblies that do not
meet the requirements of paragraphs S8.1.11 and S10.15.6 of FMVSS No.
108. Specifically, the left front and right front halogen headlamp
assemblies, containing the side reflex reflector and low beam
reflector, may not fully meet requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 108.
When tested, four of four headlamp assemblies (samples LH1, LH2, LH3
and LH4) failed to comply at certain test points.
    IV. Rule Requirements: S8.1.11 and S10.15.6 of FMVSS No. 108
include the requirements relevant to this petition. Each reflex
reflector must be designed to conform to the photometry requirements of
Table XVI-a, when tested according to the procedure of S14.2.3, for the
reflex reflector as specified by FMVSS No. 108. Each replaceable bulb
headlamp must be designed to conform to the photometry requirements of
Table XVIII for upper beam and Table XIX for lower beam as specified in
Table II-d for the specific headlamp unit and aiming method, when
tested according to the procedure of S14.2.5 using any replaceable
light source designated for use in the system under test.
    V. Summary of NASI's Petition:
    The following views and arguments presented in this section, V.
Summary of NASI's Petition, are the views and arguments provided by
Subaru. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect
the views of the Agency.
    NASI described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that
the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety. NASI submitted the following views and arguments in support of
its petition:
    1. NASI submits that the nonconformance relating to side reflex
reflector photometry is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety for the following reasons:
    a. Real world testing conducted by Subaru showed that noncompliant
and compliant reflex reflectors are equally detectable in real world
conditions. An overview of cognitive performance testing of the
compliant and noncompliant reflex reflectors is attached to this
petition. The test set-up simulated a condition typical of a vehicle
approaching an unlit, perpendicular vehicle stalled in the driving
lane. This test condition simulates a real world condition where side
reflex reflectors would support improved visibility of that vehicle.
The test results show that, with respect to light reflectance and their
ability to be detected, there is no noticeable difference observable
between the fully compliant reflex reflector and the reflex reflector
that marginally under-complies at select test points.
    b. At a majority of the test points where the tested reflex
reflectors were found to have measured intensities below the required
minimum values, the measured values were generally only slightly less
than the required minimum. For two of the four lamp assemblies tested,
there was one point (point HV) where measured values slightly exceeded
the 25% threshold cited by NHTSA and others in the past as being the
threshold at which the difference between two lamp intensities

of less than 25% cannot be detected reliably by most drivers (see DOT
report, Driver Perception of Just Noticeable Differences of Automotive
Signal Lamp Intensities, DOT HS 808 209, September 1994). The two
measured values were below the required minimums by 26.9% (sample LH1)
and 27.7% (sample LH4). We note that, on average (for the four samples
tested by Calcoast), the HV test point was only 24.8% below the
required minimum. We also note, as mentioned above, that the cognitive
performance testing conducted by Subaru found there to be no noticeable
differences in detectability for the compliant and noncompliant reflex
reflectors in question.
    c. For a dynamic situation, light reflecting at a particular test
point will be observed for only a short period of time. Compared to a
light source that is constantly illuminated, the intensity originating
from a reflex reflector is more fleeting to an observer. Reflex
reflector intensity varies significantly depending on the angle of the
driver's eyes to the reflector's central axis. Larger angles mean less
light will be seen from the reflex reflector. Smaller angles mean more
light will be seen from the reflex reflector. As a result, a
nonconformity at a given test point for a reflex reflector will
generally have a minimal impact on detectability. Thus, minor
nonconformances at any one test point should be inconsequential with
respect to safety risk.
    d. It has been recognized by NHTSA in the past that it is
inherently difficult to manufacture all lamps to comply with all test
points and that random failures do occur. FMVSS 108 requires lighting
equipment be designed to conform to relevant requirements as opposed to
simply comply with relevant requirements. According to NHTSA (see 62 FR
63416), occasional random noncompliances are to be expected in this
very complicated design and manufacturing process and it is for this
reason that the ``designed to comply'' provision is contained in the
lighting standard. See commentary from the Oct. 12, 2018 (83 FR 51766)
NPRM in which NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS 108 to permit the
certification of adaptive driving beam headlighting systems. In that
notice, the Agency noted that, historically, there has never been an
absolute requirement that every motor vehicle lighting device meets
every single photometric test point to comply with FMVSS No. 108.
    e. NHTSA has previously granted Subaru and General Motors petitions
for inconsequentiality involving side reflex reflectors which were
determined to be nonconforming at select test points by varying
degrees. See 56 FR 59971 (November 26, 1991) for Subaru and 57 FR 45867
(October 5, 1992) for General Motors.
    f. NASI is not aware of any field or customer complaints related to
the performance of the side reflex reflectors contained the subject
headlamp assemblies, nor have we been made aware of any accidents or
injuries that have occurred relating to the performance of these lamp
assemblies.
    2. NASI submits that the nonconforming condition relating to low
beam photometry is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety for the following reasons:
    a. In compliance testing conducted by CALCOAST-ITL on behalf of
NHTSA (see NHTSA Report No. 108-CAN-19-002), two of four headlamps
assemblies tested (samples LH1 and LH4) failed to comply with certain
low beam photometry requirements in S10.15.6.
    i. Sample LH1:
     Headlamp assembly sample LH1 photometry was measured at
twenty-four test points. At two of the twenty-four test points, sample
LH1 exceeded the maximum allowable luminous intensity values by small
amounts (11.4% and 4.7%). At one of the twenty-four test points, sample
LH1 was below the minimum acceptable luminous intensity value by 13.0%.
     At 21 of 24 test points, sample LH1 complied with the
specified luminous intensity values listed in Table XIX-a (LB2V).
    ii. Sample LH4:
     Headlamp assembly sample LH4 photometry was measured at 24
test points. At two of the twenty-four test points, the sample LH4
exceeded the maximum allowable luminous intensity values by small
amounts (16.8% and 19.4%). At 22 of 24 test points, sample LH4 complied
with the specified luminous intensity values listed in Table XIX-a
(LB2V).
    iii. For both sample LH1 and LH4, test points at which the max.
allowable luminous intensity values were exceeded at test points 1.0
degree and 0.5 degree up from the horizontal, respectively. These test
points, which were taken in the range of 1.5 degrees to 9.9 degrees
left of center, are in place to ensure that glare is minimized to
oncoming drivers. In the UMTRI report entitled ``Just Noticeable
Differences for Low-Beam Headlamp Intensities'' (UMTRl-97-4), testing
was conducted to evaluate ``just noticeable differences'' or JNDs for
glare intensities of oncoming low-beam headlamps. Specifically, UMTRI
looked at whether the 25% rule established by NHTSA for signal lamps
would be applicable for the range of intensities relevant to low-beam
headlamps. Based on the testing conducted by UMTRI using low-beam
headlamps, UMTRI concluded that applying the 25% limit for
inconsequential noncompliance to a photometric test point that
specifies a maximum for glare protection would be appropriate. Given
the UMTRI conclusion, we believe that the small exceedances in max
intensities for these two test points are inconsequential to safety.
    iv. For sample LH1, test point 4.0D 20.0R was the third point which
was noncompliant per the measurements taken. This test point measures
light intensity down and to the right (4 degrees below the horizontal
and 20 degrees to the right of center). The minimum intensity value
ensures adequate light down and far right (e.g., sidewalk to the right
of the vehicle). Sample LH1's measured light intensity was 13% less
than the required value.
    Of the four samples tested by Calcoast, only one sample was
noncompliant at this test point. This degree of nonconformity was
minimal (13% below the required value). When the other three samples
were tested, the measured intensities at this test point over-complied
by margins of 47.2%, 27.8% and 2.8%.
    For sample LH1, a point within the Zone 10U-90U/90L-90R at 10.00U-
7.3R exceeded the maximum permissible intensity threshold by 8.7%. The
maximum allowable intensity of 125 candelas in this zone was
established to reduce the amount of glare to the driver of the car with
the subject headlamp in driving conditions involving poor weather
(rain, fog, snow, etc.). The consequence of one of four samples having
a measurement of 8.7% above the maximum allowable value is
inconsequential given the exceedance is far less than the 25% just
noticeable difference.
    As discussed previously in this petition, it has been recognized by
NHTSA in the past that it is inherently difficult to manufacture all
lamps to comply with all test points and that random failures do occur.
FMVSS 108 requires lighting equipment be designed to conform to
relevant requirements as opposed to simply comply with relevant
requirements. Occasional random non-compliances are to be expected (see
62 FR 63416). This is why there has never been an absolute requirement
that every motor vehicle lighting device meets every single photometric
test point to comply with FMVSS 108 (see 83 FR 51766).

    Based on the data before us, we believe that the light intensity
measured at test point 4.0D 20.0R for one of four samples tested is
inconsequential to safety.
    3. NASI is not aware of any field or customer complaints related to
the low-beam performance of the subject headlamp assemblies, nor have
we been made aware of any accidents or injuries that have occurred
relating to the performance of these lamp assemblies.
    4. For the foregoing reasons, NASI submits that the subject non-
compliance does not present an unreasonable risk, is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety and requests an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and associated regulations at 49 CFR
part 556.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that NASI no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Subaru
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-13927 Filed 6-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P