[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8033-8037]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02577]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2022-0065; Notice 2]

Columbus Trading-Partners USA, Inc., Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Columbus Trading-Partners USA, Inc., (CTP), has determined
that certain Cybex child restraint systems distributed by CTP do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
213, Child Restraint Systems. CTP filed an original noncompliance
report dated June 30, 2022. CTP petitioned NHTSA on July 5, 2022, and
amended the petition on August 4, 2022, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This document announces the denial of CTP's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelley Adams-Campos, Safety Compliance
Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: CTP has determined that certain child restraint
systems manufactured under the brand name CYBEX and distributed by CTP
do not fully comply with paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213,
Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). CTP filed an original
noncompliance report dated June 30, 2022, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. CTP petitioned
NHTSA on July 5, 2022, and amended the petition on August 4, 2022, 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.
    Notice of receipt of CTP's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on August 26, 2022, in the Federal Register (87
FR 52674). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then

follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-
2022-0065.''
    II. Child Restraint Systems Involved: Approximately 31,080 Aton M,
Aton 2, Aton, Aton Q, and Cloud Q model child restraint systems
manufactured by CYBEX approximately between June 6, 2017,\1\ and
November 1, 2020, are potentially involved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its June 30, 2022, Part 573 submission, CTP reported
production dates between March 7, 2017, and November 1, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    III. Noncompliance: After being subjected to abrasion, the breaking
strength of the harness central adjuster (adjuster) webbing on the
subject child restraint systems was less than 75 percent of the new
webbing strength as required by S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) and S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1) of
FMVSS No. 213 include the requirements relevant to this petition. The
webbing of belts provided with a child restraint system which are used
to restrain the child within the system shall, after being subjected to
abrasion as specified in S5.1(d) or S5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 209 (Sec.
571.209), have a breaking strength of not less than 75 percent of the
new webbing strength when tested in accordance with S5.1(b) of FMVSS
No. 209. ``New webbing'' means webbing that has not been exposed to
abrasion, light, or micro-organisms as specified elsewhere in FMVSS No.
213.
    V. Background: In response to a July 2021 Information Request (IR)
from NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) relating to
this noncompliance, and after learning that CTP's supplier, Holmbergs,
did not have any historical test data for abrasion testing pursuant to
FMVSS No. 213 S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1),\2\ CTP claims it conducted abrasion
testing on 2018 production adjuster webbing samples that would have
been used on the (US) Aton M child restraint systems. As stated in
CTP's petition, the results from this testing were that the webbing
abraded using the hex bar test subceeded the required 75 percent of the
new webbing breaking strength, averaging a median value of 64 percent,
and the webbing abraded using CTP's ``through-adjuster'' test exceeded
the required 75 percent of the new webbing breaking strength. CTP
shared the results with NHTSA, submitting that FMVSS No. 213
S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1) provides two alternative abrasion test compliance
options. The first, as provided in FMVSS No. 209 S5.1(d), (hex bar
test) and the second, as provided in FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c), referred to
by CTP as ``through-adjuster test.'' CTP filed a form 573 Noncompliance
report acknowledging the noncompliance with the abrasion tests in FMVSS
No. 209 and then filed a petition, as summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In section 2 of its petition, CTP mistakenly referred to
S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213 as S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VI. Summary of CTP's Petition: CTP explains that the adjuster
webbing retained only 56.9 percent of the new webbing strength
following the hex bar abrasion test \3\ as specified in S5.1(d) of
FMVSS No. 209.\4\ CTP also acknowledges that, using an alternate
``through-adjuster'' \5\ test methodology it developed, the adjuster
webbing is noncompliant because CTP's test methods were ``not an
appropriate interpretation of FMVSS No. 209.'' The views and arguments
provided by CTP are presented in this section, ``VI. Summary of CTP's
Petition.'' They do not reflect the views of the Agency. CTP describes
the subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ OVSC compliance test report available at https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ctr/9999/TRTR-647389-2020-001.pdf.
    \4\ In its petition, CTP mistakenly referred to FMVSS No. 209 as
FMVSS No. 213.
    \5\ In its petition, CTP refers to S5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 209
Resistance to buckle abrasion as ``through-adjuster'' test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CTP believes that the subject noncompliance with the hex bar test
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based on results from
overload dynamic crash tests it conducted on Aton M child restraints
assembled using abraded adjuster webbing. CTP states that this webbing
was sourced from the same batch of webbing samples where some were
tested for breaking strength after being abraded. Those tested for
breaking strength averaged a median value of 64 percent retention of
strength. CTP asserts that because the adjuster webbing loads (1,014 N
maximum) measured in the dynamic tests were only a small fraction (11
percent) of the abraded webbing's retained strength, a significant
safety margin is built into the adjuster webbing making it ``sufficient
for this application,'' i.e., Aton M and similar. This difference, CTP
explains, shows that significantly more degradation (of webbing
strength) could be tolerated. According to internal crash test data
collected from tests varying in configuration, ATDs, attachment methods
and crash severities, CTP states that the peak adjuster strap load
recorded was 4,745 N. CTP also states that the dynamic crash tests of
the child restraints with the hex bar abraded webbing showed that
structural integrity of the child restraint was maintained and that the
occupant was retained.
    CTP notes that NHTSA's laboratory test procedure for FMVSS No. 209
Seat Belt Assemblies \6\ ``specifies that for webbing resistance to
abrasion tests performed pursuant to FMVSS Sec.  4.2(d), 5.1(d), and
5.3(c) the assembly ``shall be subjected to the buckle abrasion test''
if the ``assembly contain [sic] a manual adjusting device'' with the
emphasis added. CTP then explains its methodology for the ``through-
adjuster'' testing it employed. With respect to the requirements of
FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c) Resistance to buckle abrasion, CTP states, with
the emphases added, that ``[t]he webbing shall be pulled back and forth
through the buckle or manual adjusting device as shown schematically in
Figure 7 . . .'' and ``[t]he webbing shall pass through the buckle . .
.'' CTP contends that the referenced schematic in Figure 7 of Standard
No. 209 ``should only be viewed as a general visual aid,'' and that the
schematic ``contradict[s] the plain language of the FMVSS.'' CTP states
that although the schematic (in Figure 7 of Standard No. 209) does not
appear to show the buckle or adjusting device opening and closing,
``that action certainly must occur to meet the plain language and clear
intent of the regulation.'' When CTP performed its ``through-adjuster''
testing on the 2018 production webbing samples, the webbing was cycled
through the adjuster containing a cam lock. CTP states that the cam
lock ``must be opened during the lengthening stroke'' otherwise the
adjuster will ``not allow webbing to move,'' i.e., pass through it. CTP
investigated a variety of test conditions it claims are related to
FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c) ``varying the amount and timing of the central
adjuster cam opening'' in each. CTP believes the ``through-adjuster''
abrasion test it used accurately exposes the webbing to the abrading
environment that exists in the real-world application, and that ``the
language of the regulation, as well as the stated purpose of the
regulation, should control the test methodology employed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Dated December 7, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CTP explains it ``relies on its suppliers to self-certify
compliance to certain standards and requirements'' and that Holmbergs
``was following the Aton M US Control Plan'' based on CTP's On-going
Quality Control (OQC) reports. CTP provided the Control Plan, OQC and
other documents in its April 14, 2022, supplemental response to NHTSA.
    CTP states it has implemented replacement adjuster webbing on new

child restraints manufactured beginning October 27, 2021, and that this
webbing complies with all retained breaking \7\ strength requirements
after having been subject to both hex bar and ``through-adjuster''
testing. Additionally, CTP states it has clarified to its webbing
supplier that the supplied webbing must comply with both available
abrasion tests in its specifications. Finally, CTP states that since
2017 no adjuster webbing or adjuster assembly issues have been
observed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In its petition, CTP mistakenly refers to breaking as
tensile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Details of CTP's investigation and testing can be found in its
amended petition at https://www.regulations.gov/document/NHTSA-2022-0065-0001.
    CTP concludes by stating its belief that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety and 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.
    VII. NHTSA's Analysis: The burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in an FMVSS is substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining inconsequentiality of a noncompliance, NHTSA focuses
on the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event
against which a recall would otherwise protect.\9\ In general, NHTSA
does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries when
determining if a noncompliance is inconsequential to safety. The
absence of complaints does not mean vehicle occupants have not
experienced a safety issue, nor does it mean that there will not be
safety issues in the future.\10\ Thus CTP's claim that, since 2017, no
adjuster webbing or adjuster assembly issues have been observed is not
persuasive in evaluating if this noncompliance is inconsequential to
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \10\ See Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr.
12, 2016); see also United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d
754, 759 (DC Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk
when it ``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden
engine fire, and where there is no dispute that at least some such
hazards, in this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in
the future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As CTP's petition explains, S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213
provides two alternative abrasion test compliance options: the hex bar
test (FMVSS No. 209 S5.1(d)) and the resistance to buckle abrasion test
(FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c)). Note that in its petition, CTP
mischaracterizes the resistance to buckle abrasion test as a ``through-
adjuster'' test; NHTSA takes this opportunity to correct this
mischaracterization of Standard No. 209 S5.3(c) from hereon.
    With respect to CTP's argument that the webbing's maximum load,
1,014 N, measured during its overload dynamic crash testing using child
restraint systems assembled with hex bar abraded adjuster webbing, or
4,745 N from its other internal crash test data, compared to the
average median breaking strength, 9,506 N,\11\ from its hex bar abraded
webbing tests does not meet its burden of persuasion. The Agency does
not find the argument that abraded webbing with a breaking strength
less than the required minimum is offset, compliant or inconsequential
to safety by exceeding webbing loads observed in dynamic crash tests.
If we did, the minimum requirements would be written to accommodate it.
Consistent with past Agency denials \12\ for inconsequentiality
petitions for noncompliant child restraint webbing that used dynamic
crash test analyses in its basis, NHTSA is not compelled by CTP's
arguments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CTP determined the median value in each of four tests (each
test contained 3 samples) and then averaged the four median values
to come up with an ``average median breaking strength'' of 9,506 N.
    \12\ Combi USA, Inc., Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 86 FR 47723 (and decisions cited
therein) (August 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, neither CTP's dynamic test analysis nor its claims
based on other internal crash test data address the potential for
safety issues resulting from possible further loss in webbing strength
with continued long-term use. The webbing breaking strength test and
child restraint system dynamic test do not test for the same conditions
and serve distinct purposes. Requirements that apply to new child
restraints only, such as the dynamic sled tests conducted on the child
restraint as a system, do not provide comparable assurances for
components, such as webbing, tested independently from the child
restraint system.
    Among our concerns is also that, according to its petition, CTP
assembled the Aton M child restraints in the foregoing overload dynamic
crash tests with adjuster webbing, after being abraded, sourced from
the 2017-2018 production adjuster webbing batches ``that would have
been used on the (US) Aton M'' subject to its petition. Adjuster
webbing from these batches were also used in CTP's hex bar abrasion and
breaking strength tests, where the webbing's median breaking strength
retention ranged from 61 percent to 66.2 percent.\13\ CTP relies on the
average of these degradation rates as being representative of all
adjuster webbing coming from these 2017-2018 batches. However, in the
Aton M models tested in the OVSC's compliance testing, assembled with
adjuster webbing that CTP asserts would have come from these same 2017-
2018 production batches, the breaking strength retention after abrasion
was 56.9 percent, a significantly lower degradation rate. Even if CTP's
test results were relevant, NHTSA does not find them persuasive.
Notwithstanding that other webbing samples from the same batches could
have even greater degradation rates, i.e., lower breaking strength
retention percentages, the webbing strength could degrade to levels
even lower than in these foregoing instances over an entire lifetime of
actual use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Section 8, Table ``HEX-BAR ABRASION TEST RESULTS (performed
Sept 2021), FMVSS213. S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)'' in CTP's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CTP uses its dynamic testing to argue that the adjuster webbing's
absolute strength, versus the required 75 percent retention strength,
after abrasion is sufficient for its application in an infant child
restraint. According to CTP, all that matters is whether webbing that
has been subjected to the abrasion test is stronger than certain loads
it claims to have measured on the webbing in limited dynamic testing,
tantamount to establishing an ``effective minimum.'' This argument
challenges the stringency of the requirement in the standard, to which
a petition for rulemaking, not an inconsequentiality petition, is the
appropriate means.\14\ CTP's approach is additionally inconsistent with
the two-faceted regulatory structure that NHTSA

adopted in the 2005-2006 rulemaking,\15\ establishing a minimum
breaking strength requirement for new webbing. In that rulemaking, the
Agency explained that the fact that webbing has a particular strength
after being subjected to the abrasion test does not mean further
degradation is not possible.\16\ Both the new webbing strength and
degradation rate requirements after abrasion are important from a
safety perspective \17\ and do not vary based on probable use patterns,
e.g., infant child restraints or otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Dorel Juvenile Group; Denial of Appeal of Decision on
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 75 FR 510, January 5, 2010.
    \15\ See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint
Systems, 70 FR 37731 and 71 FR 32855.
    \16\ See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint
Systems, 71 FR 32858-859, June 7, 2006.
    \17\ See Dorel Juvenile Group; Denial of Appeal of Decision on
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 75 FR 510, January 5, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The abrasion test is an accelerated aging test that provides a
snapshot of the webbing over prolonged exposure to environmental
conditions. The tests do not, and are not intended to, assess how
strong a particular tested specimen will be at the end of its life.\18\
The tests do not replicate the lifetime use of the webbing.\19\ In the
2006 Final Rule, the Agency affirmed that retaining control over
webbing material degradation rates is critical to ensure sufficient
webbing strength over time. NHTSA believes that when a required webbing
degradation rate is not met, as in the case of CTP's Aton M adjuster
webbing, its performance as it ages will expose child occupants to a
risk that increases with long-term use, thus we are not persuaded with
this argument made by CTP that the noncompliance is inconsequential to
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.
    \19\ ``The primary purposes of laboratory tests are merely to
save valuable time and to serve as controls in the manufacture of
basic materials.'' Plastics Engineering Handbook of the Society of
the Plastics Industry, Inc., Third Ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold
Company, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figure 7 of Standard No. 209 illustrates the required setup for the
resistance to buckle abrasion testing specified in S5.3(c). NHTSA does
not agree with CTP's argument that the schematic in Figure 7 ``should
only be used as a general visual aid.'' In fact, the regulatory text
specifically states, ``[t]he webbing shall be pulled back and forth
through the buckle or manual adjusting device as shown schematically in
Figure 7.'' The design of the manual adjusting device for the adjuster
on the subject child restraint systems does not facilitate performing
the test in the manner specified in S5.3(c) or as shown in Figure 7.
This is illustrated by CTP's alternate test methodology it performed,
explaining that in order for the webbing to be pulled back and forth
through the manual adjusting device as shown in Figure 7 its cam lock
``must be opened during the lengthening stroke'' otherwise the manual
adjusting device will ``not allow webbing to move,'' i.e., pass through
it. In its petition, CTP states that it investigated a variety of test
conditions related to FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c) that included ``varying the
amount and timing of the central adjuster cam opening'' and that the
results exceeded the retained breaking strength requirement of 75
percent.
    The Agency does not find these results to be impactful because the
way in which they were obtained is not consistent with any procedure
established in the standard and therefore does not demonstrate
compliance. Intentionally and actively, i.e., manually, opening the cam
lock, as CTP did, in any amount, regardless of the timing cadence, is
in direct conflict with S5.3(c) and Figure 7 of FMVSS No. 209. Such
manipulation, or any other purposeful means of releasing the buckle or
manual adjusting device, is not specified in S5.3(c) or elsewhere in
Standard No. 209. Moreover, such manipulation directly reduces the
amount of contact between the adjusting device and the adjuster
webbing, making the test less severe.
    The Agency reiterates its long-standing position that a
manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to
determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the
requirements of that standard, provided the manufacturer exercises due
care in ensuring that the vehicle or equipment will comply with Federal
requirements when tested by the Agency according to the procedures
specified in the standard. In other words, the manufacturer must show
that its chosen means is a reasonable surrogate for the test procedure
specified by the standard \20\ and should be sufficient to support the
conclusion that, if tested under the specified conditions, the product
would perform as required.\21\ CTP's procedure was not sufficient as a
surrogate or otherwise in demonstrating compliance with FMVSS No. 213
because its procedure did not replicate the abrading produced by
following S5.3(c) of FMVSS No. 209. CTP appears to suggest that the
schematic in Figure 7 of Standard No. 209 has little value in defining
the required test methodology, through its belief that ``the language
of the regulation, as well as the stated purpose of the regulation,
should control the test methodology employed.'' CTP's assertion is
incorrect. FMVSS No. 209 S5.3(c) states that ``[t]he webbing shall be
pulled back and forth through the buckle or manual adjusting device as
shown schematically in Figure 7.'' Thus, Figure 7 is directly
incorporated into the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/aiam4760.
    \21\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/aiam0434.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CTP asserts in its petition that the Agency's laboratory test
procedure (TP) for enforcement of FMVSS No. 209 Seat Belt
Assemblies,\22\ specifies that if the ``assembly contain [sic] a manual
adjusting device'' the assembly shall be subjected to the buckle
abrasion test. As explained in a legal note set forth at its beginning,
``[t]he OVSC Test Procedures are prepared for the limited purpose of
use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance
tests for the OVSC. The TPs are not rules, regulations or NHTSA
interpretations regarding the FMVSS.'' The note continues to explain
that as long as the tests are performed in a manner consistent with the
FMVSS itself, NHTSA may authorize contractors to deviate from the
procedures. In order to be consistent with the requirement options
provided in FMVSS No. 213 S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1) for the abrasion testing of
the adjuster webbing, and to conduct the tests as specified with
respect to the design of the subject child restraint system, the hex
bar test of S5.1(d) of FMVSS No. 209 was the correct procedure in this
case. Despite CTP's contention that its test methodology ``accurately
exposes the central adjuster webbing to the abrading environment that
exists in the [child restraint] application'' NHTSA concludes that
because of CTP's deviations from the protocol established in the FMVSS,
the protocol fabricated by CTP with its ``through-adjuster'' test was
less stringent than required by the standard and does not establish
compliance with it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Dated December 7, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In regard to CTP's description that what caused the noncompliance
of the subject child restraint systems was its reliance on its
suppliers to self-certify to the FMVSSs, NHTSA takes this opportunity
to remind the reader of the following. First, the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act \23\ (the Safety Act) requires that motor
vehicles or motor vehicle equipment meet two separate requirements
before they may be sold or otherwise introduced into interstate
commerce in the United

States: (1) they must be compliant with the FMVSS, and (2) they must be
certified as compliant by a manufacturer exercising reasonable
care.\24\ ``Manufacturer'' means a person manufacturing or assembling
motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or importing motor vehicles
or motor vehicle equipment for resale.\25\ Second, as previously
stated, a manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products
to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the
safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures
specified in the standard. In this case, it appears that CTP fully and
solely relied on its supplier to produce webbing compliant with
S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1) of FMVSS No. 213. While this may be legally permitted,
as the distributor whose name appears on the child restraint system,
CTP accepted certification responsibility of the subject child
restraint systems, and ultimately is accountable for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 49 U.S.C. 30101.
    \24\ 49 U.S.C. 30112, 30115.
    \25\ 49 U.S.C 30102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CTP claims it has implemented replacement adjuster webbing on newly
manufactured child restraints beginning October 27, 2021, and that this
webbing complies with all retained breaking strength requirements after
having been subjected to both hex bar and resistance to buckle abrasion
testing. In its petition, CTP attached Exhibit A \26\ in support of its
claim that child restraints with webbing manufactured in 2021 were
verified to be compliant with FMVSS No. 213 S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1). Exhibit A
contained portions of the January 14, 2022, OVSC test report \27\ for
FMVSS No. 213 Component Tests for Aton M models tested as part of its
FY2021 compliance program. The date of manufacture of the Aton M models
tested in that report was 11/26/2020. NHTSA does not consider CTP's
Exhibit A to be relevant to its petition because it did not apply to
the child restraint systems that were the subject of its petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ In its petition, CTP mistakenly referred to Exhibit A as
Exhibit 1.
    \27\ https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/ctr/9999/TRTR-647554-2021-001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    VIII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
has decided that CTP has not met its burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 213 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, CTP's petition is hereby denied, and CTP is
consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for
that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

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

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2023-02577 Filed 2-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 106 (Friday, June 4, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29967-29969]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11668]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0226; Airspace Docket No. 20-AAL-2]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, and Removal
of Class E Airspace; Kodiak, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class D airspace at Kodiak
Airport, Kodiak, AK. This action also proposes to remove the Class E
airspace, designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface
area, east of the airport. Further, this action proposes to modify the
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface by
increasing the size of the area. Finally, this action proposes to
update the geographic coordinates in the third line of the Class D text
header and update the term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' to ``Chart
Supplement'' in the last sentence of the Class D airspace description.
This action would ensure the safety and management of instrument flight
rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0226; Airspace Docket No. 20-AAL-2, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would amend the Class D and Class E airspace at Kodiak Airport,
Kodiak, AK, to support IFR operations at the airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-0226;
Airspace Docket No. 20-AAL-2''. The postcard

will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by modifying
the Class D airspace at Kodiak Airport, Kodiak, AK. The Class D is not
properly sized to contain departing IFR aircraft to 700 feet above the
surface or arriving IFR aircraft descending below 1,000 feet above the
surface. To properly contain IFR departures, the Class D radius should
be increased from 3.1 miles to 4.4 miles, excluding the mountainous
terrain west and northwest of the airport and the airspace around
Trident Basin Airport.
    Additionally, this action proposes to remove the Class E airspace,
designated as an extension to a Class D or Class E surface area, east
of the airport. This airspace is no longer required to contain arriving
IFR aircraft.
    Further, this action proposes to modify the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, by increasing the
size of the area east of the airport to properly contain IFR aircraft
performing the procedure turn maneuver for the VOR RWY 26 approach.
    Lastly, this action proposes to update the geographic coordinates
in the third line of the Class D text header to ``lat. 57[deg]44'59''
N, long. 152[deg]29'38'' W'' and update the term ``Airport/Facility
Directory'' to ``Chart Supplement'' in the last sentence of the Class D
airspace description.
    Class D, Class E4, and Class E5 airspace designations are published
in paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order
7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15, 2020, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AAL AK D Kodiak, AK [Amended]

Kodiak Airport, AK
    (Lat. 57[deg]44'59'' N, long. 152[deg]29'38'' W)
Trident Basin Airport, AK
    (Lat. 57[deg]46'51'' N, long. 152[deg]23'29'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,600 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of the airport, and within 1
mile each side of the 091[deg] bearing from the airport, extending
from the 4.4-mile radius to 6.1 miles east of Kodiak Airport,
excluding that airspace west and northwest of a line beginning at
the 228[deg] bearing from Kodiak Airport, to the 308[deg] bearing at
2.9 miles from Kodiak Airport, to the 012[deg] bearing from Kodiak
Airport, and excluding that airspace from the 024[deg] bearing from
the Kodiak Airport to the 325[deg] bearing at 1.0 mile from Trident
Basin Airport, and excluding that airspace within a 1.0-mile radius
of Trident Basin Airport from the 325[deg] bearing from Trident
Basin Airport counterclockwise to the 250[deg] bearing from Trident
Basin airport, and within a 0.3-mile radius of Trident Basin Airport
from the 250[deg] bearing from Trident Basin Airport
counterclockwise to the 119[deg] bearing from the Trident Basin
Airport, and from the 119[deg] bearing at 0.3 miles from Trident
Basin Airport to the 072[deg] bearing at 4.4 miles from Kodiak
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

AAL AK E4 Kodiak, AK [Removed]

Kodiak Airport, AK
    (Lat. 57[deg]45'00'' N, long. 152[deg]29'38'' W)

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or more Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Kodiak, AK [Amended]

Kodiak Airport, AK
    (Lat. 57[deg]44'59'' N, long. 152[deg]29'38'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.9-mile radius of the airport, and within 8 miles north
and 4.1 miles south of the 071[ordm] bearing from the airport,
extending from the 6.9-mile radius and extending from 5.2 miles east
of the airport to 21.2 miles east of the airport, excluding that
airspace extending beyond 12 miles of the shoreline; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
73-mile radius of the Kodiak Airport, AK, excluding that airspace
extending beyond 12 miles of the shoreline.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on May 27, 2021.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-11668 Filed 6-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 2015)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 19201-19203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [http://www.gpo.gov/]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08347]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0137]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Naval Helicopter Association (NHA) Red Bull
Helicopter Demonstration; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of San Diego Bay for a helicopter aerial demonstration
sponsored by the Naval Helicopter Association (NHA). This safety zone
is established to ensure the safety of the helicopter aircrew,
spectators, safety vessels, and other vessels and users of the
waterway. Unauthorized persons and vessels are prohibited from entering
into, transiting through or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
The Coast Guard requests public comments on the temporary safety zone.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on May 12,
2015. Public comments must be received by May 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments using one of the listed methods, and see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information on public comments.
     Online--http://www.regulations.gov/ following Web site
instructions.
     Fax--202-493-2251.
     Mail or hand deliver--Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Hand
delivery hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket [USCG-2015-
0137]. 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,
call or email Petty Officer Randolph Pahilanga, Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, 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. Public Participation and Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on this
temporary final rule. We will consider all submissions and may adjust
our final action based on your comments. Comments should be marked with
docket number USCG-2015-0137 and should provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You should provide personal contact
information so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your comments; but please note that all comments will be posted to the
online docket without change and that any personal information you
include can be searchable online (see the Federal Register Privacy Act
notice regarding our public dockets, 73 FR 3316, Jan. 17, 2008).
    Mailed or hand-delivered comments should be in an unbound 8\1/2\ x
11 inch format suitable for reproduction. The Docket Management
Facility will acknowledge receipt of mailed comments if you enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope with your submission.
    Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in
our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov/ and can be viewed by
following the Web site's instructions. You can also view the docket at
the Docket Management Facility (see the mailing address under
ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule safety zone
for a planned fifteen minute air show over San Diego Bay 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 publishing an NPRM would be impracticable,
because

immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger to the
participants and the public during the event. Furthermore, the
necessary information to determine whether the marine event poses a
threat to persons and vessels was provided March 12, 2015, less than 60
days before the event, which is insufficient time to publish an NPRM.
The Coast Guard requests new marine event permit applications at least
165 days in advance for proper environmental and administrative review
of the event.
    Nevertheless, we are providing an opportunity for subsequent public
comment and, should public comment show the need for modifications to
the safety zone during the event, we may make those modifications
during the event and will provide actual notice of those modifications
to the affected public.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this temporary rule are found
in 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; Public Law 107-295, 116
Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1,
which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose, establish, and
define regulatory safety zones.
    The Coast Guard believes a temporary safety zone is needed on the
navigable waters of the San Diego Bay to ensure public safety for the
NHA Red Bull Helicopter Demonstration. This event involves a planned
fifteen minute air show which flies over a portion of San Diego Bay.
Because aerial stunt flying over busy waterways poses significant risk
to public safety and property and the likely combination of large
numbers of recreation vessels, congested waterways, and low flying
could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities, a safety zone is
necessary to safe guard spectators, vessels and the event pilots. For
the safety concerns noted, it is important to have these regulations in
effect during the event and impracticable to delay the regulations.

D. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone that will
be enforced from 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on May 12, 2015. This safety
zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the helicopter aircrew,
event spectators, safety patrol craft and to protect other vessels and
users of the waterway. Persons and vessels will be prohibited from
entering into, transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or their designated
representative. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will
publish a local notice to mariners (LNM). Just prior to the event and
during the enforcement of the event, the Coast Guard will issue a
broadcast notice to mariners (BNM) alert via VHF Channel 16.
    This temporary safety zone will be bound by the following
coordinates (North American Datum of 1983, World Geodetic System,
1984): 32[deg]43.05 N, 117[deg]10.54 W, 32[deg]43.05 N, 117[deg]10.46
W, 32[deg]43.33 N, 117[deg]10.54 W, 32[deg]43.33 N, 117[deg]13.46 W.

E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and 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 those Orders. We expect the economic
impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory
Evaluation is unnecessary. This determination is based on the size,
location and limited duration of the safety zone. This zone impacts a
small designated area of the San Diego bay for less than one hour.
Furthermore, vessel traffic can safely transit around the 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
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities: the owners or operators of private and
commercial vessels intending to transit or anchor in the impacted
portion of the San Diego Bay from 6:30 p.m. through 7:30 p.m. on May
12, 2015.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Vessel
traffic can pass safely around the zone. The Coast Guard will publish a
local notice to mariners (LNM) and will issue broadcast notice to
mariners (BNM) alerts via VHF Channel 16 before the safety zone is
enforced.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this 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,
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. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.

Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INTFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. 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 will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. 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.

10. 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 does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Technical Standards

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

14. 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 on
the navigable waters of San Diego Bay. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a 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 rule.

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 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. 1226, 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; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.01.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-689 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-689  Safety zone; Naval Helicopter Association (NHA) Red
Bull Helicopter Demonstration; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass the navigable waters
encompassed by the following coordinates (North American Datum of 1983,
World Geodetic System, 1984): 32[deg]43.05 N, 117[deg]10.54 W,
32[deg]43.05 N, 117[deg]10.46 W, 32[deg]43.33 N, 117[deg]10.54 W,
32[deg]43.33 N, 117[deg]10.46 W.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 6:30
p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on May 12, 2015. If the event concludes prior to the
schedule termination time, the COTP will cease enforcement of this
safety zone and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative means any commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary,
or local, state, or federal law enforcement vessels who have been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Under the general regulations in 33 CFR part
165, subpart C, entry into, transit through or anchoring within this
safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
of San Diego or his designated representative.
    (2) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
    (3) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard or designated patrol
personnel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator
of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
    (4) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies in patrol and notification of the regulation.

    Dated: April 1, 2015.
J.A. Janszen,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2015-08347 Filed 4-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 20002-20004]
[DOCID:fr20ap07-131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55634; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Pricing for Nasdaq Members Using the Nasdaq Market Center

April 16, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 30, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been substantially prepared by Nasdaq. Pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
Nasdaq has designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due,
fee, or other charge, which renders the proposed rule change effective
immediately upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq proposes to modify the pricing for Nasdaq members using the
Nasdaq Market Center. Nasdaq will implement this rule change on April
2, 2007.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic Nasdaq Manual found at http://nasdaq.complinet.com, as

amended by Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55576 (April 3,
2007), 72 FR 17969 (April 10, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-026), on an
immediately effective basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
7018. Nasdaq Market Center Order Execution and Routing
    (a) The following charges shall apply to the use of the order
execution and routing services of the Nasdaq Market Center by members
for all securities that it trades.

 Fees for Order Execution in the Nasdaq Market Center; Fees for Routing
   of Orders in All Securities to Venues Other Than the New York Stock
   Exchange (``NYSE''); and Fees for Routing Orders in Exchange-Traded
                              Funds to NYSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charge to member entering order that
 executes in the Nasdaq Market Center
 or attempts to execute in the Nasdaq
 Market Center prior to routing:
    Members with an average daily        $0.0026 per share executed for
     volume through the Nasdaq Market     securities priced at $1 or
     Center in all securities during      more per share.
     the month of (i) more than 35       0.1% of the total transaction
     million shares of liquidity          cost for executions in the
     provided, and (ii) more than 55      Nasdaq Market Center of
     million shares of liquidity          securities priced at less than
     accessed and/or routed; or members   $1 per share.
     with an average daily volume        0.3% of the total transaction
     through the Nasdaq Market Center     cost for routed orders in
     in all securities during the month   securities priced at less than
     of (i) more than 25 million shares   $1 per share.
     of liquidity provided, and (ii)
     more than 65 million shares of
     liquidity accessed and/or routed.
    Members with an average daily        $0.0028 per share executed for
     volume through the Nasdaq Market     securities priced at $1 or
     Center in all securities during      more per share.
     the month of (i) more than 20       0.1% of the total transaction
     million shares of liquidity          cost for executions in the
     provided, and (ii) more than 35      Nasdaq Market Center of
     million shares of liquidity          securities priced at less than
     accessed and/or routed.              $1 per share.
                                         0.3% of the total transaction
                                          cost for routed orders in
                                          securities priced at less than
                                          $1 per share.
    Other members......................  $0.0030 per share executed for
                                          securities priced at $1 or
                                          more per share.
                                         0.1% of the total transaction
                                          cost for executions in the
                                          Nasdaq Market Center of
                                          securities priced at less than
                                          $1 per share.
                                         0.3% of the total transaction
                                          cost for routed orders in
                                          securities priced at less than
                                          $1 per share.
    Charge to member entering order      $0.0035 per share executed for
     that does not attempt to execute     a Directed Intermarket Sweep
     in the Nasdaq Market Center prior    Order for securities priced at
     to routing.                          $1 or more per share.
                                         $0.0030 per share executed for
                                          other orders for securities
                                          priced at $1 or more per
                                          share.
                                         0.3% of the total transaction
                                          cost for routed orders in
                                          securities priced at less than
                                          $1 per share.
Surcharge for order routed to the        $0.01 per share executed.
 American Stock Exchange and charged a
 fee by the specialist.
Credit to member providing liquidity
 through the Nasdaq Market Center:
    Members with an average daily        $0.0025 per share executed (or
     volume through the Nasdaq Market     $0, in the case of executions
     Center in all securities during      against Quotes/Orders in the
     the month of more than 35 million    Nasdaq Market Center at less
     shares of liquidity provided.        than $1.00 per share).
    Members with an average daily        $0.0022 per share executed (or
     volume through the Nasdaq Market     $0, in the case of executions
     Center in all securities during      against Quotes/Orders in the
     the month of more than 20 million    Nasdaq Market Center at less
     shares of liquidity provided.        than $1.00 per share).
    Other members......................  $0.0020 per share executed (or
                                          $0, in the case of executions
                                          against Quotes/Orders in the
                                          Nasdaq Market Center at less
                                          than $1.00 per share).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Fees for Routing Orders in Securities Other Than Exchange-Traded Funds
                                 to NYSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order that attempts to execute in the    $0.000225 per share executed
 Nasdaq Market Center prior to routing    for securities priced at $1 or
 and being executed at NYSE.              more per share.
                                         0.3% of the total transaction
                                          cost for routed orders in
                                          securities priced at less than
                                          $1 per share.
Order that does not attempt to execute   $0.0035 per share executed for
 in the Nasdaq Market Center prior to     a Directed Intermarket Sweep
 routing and being executed at NYSE.      Order for securities priced at
                                          $1 or more per share.
                                         $0.000275 per share executed
                                          for other orders for
                                          securities priced at $1 or
                                          more per share.
                                         0.3% of the total transaction
                                          cost for routed orders in
                                          securities priced at less than
                                          $1 per share.
Order that is routed to NYSE and then    A pass-through of any routing
 routed to another venue for execution.   fees charged to Nasdaq by
                                          NYSE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq is establishing a fee of $0.0035 per share executed for
orders that are designated as Directed Intermarket Sweep Orders (unless
the order is for a security priced under $1, in which case the fee is
0.3% of the transaction value). As described in SR-NASDAQ-2007-020,\6\
a Directed Order allows a market participant to enter an order into
Nasdaq that is designated for routing to another exchange without first
checking the Nasdaq book. By designating a Directed Order as an
Intermarket Sweep Order, the market participant entering the order
represents that it is complying with the requirements of Regulation NMS
Rules 610 and 611.\7\ Because these orders bypass the Nasdaq book, and
because Nasdaq will incur costs for post-trade surveillance of members'
compliance with these rules, Nasdaq believes that an increased routing
fee of $0.0035 is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55405 (March 6,
2007), 72 FR 11069 (March 12, 2007).
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.610 and 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which Nasdaq operates or controls. Nasdaq believes that an increased
fee for Directed Intermarket Sweep Orders is appropriate in light of
their special characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(6)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge.\11\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 C FR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-036 on the subject line.

Paper Comments:

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-036.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-036 and
should be submitted on or before May 11, 2007.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to
delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7485 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 135 (Monday, July 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42085-42086]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0814]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Pediatric Study Plans: Content of
and Process for Submitting Initial Pediatric Study Plans and Amended
Pediatric Study Plans; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Pediatric
Study Plans: Content of and Process for Submitting Initial Pediatric
Study Plans and Amended Pediatric Study Plans.'' This draft guidance is
intended to provide information to industry on how to submit initial
and amended pediatric study plans (PSPs) as required under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) as amended by the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA).

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by September 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or
Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development (HFM-40), Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401
Rockville Pike, Suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one self-
addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section

for electronic access to the draft guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rosemary Addy, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6312, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-1640; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike,
Suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Pediatric Study Plans: Content of and Process for Submitting
Initial Pediatric Study Plans and Amended Pediatric Study Plans.'' The
purpose of this draft guidance is to assist sponsors in the submission
of an initial PSP and any amendments to the PSP. Specifically, this
guidance addresses FDA's current thinking regarding implementation of
the requirement for sponsors to submit an initial PSP under section
505B of the FD&C Act as amended by FDASIA (Pub. L. 112-144, 126 Stat.
993 (enacted July 9, 2012)).
    This draft guidance addresses topics related to the submission of
an initial PSP and any amendments to the PSP, including who must submit
an initial PSP, when a PSP must be submitted, what is expected to be
included in an initial PSP, and what is expected to be included in a
requested amendment to an initial PSP. The guidance also includes a
template that should be used for submission of an initial PSP.
    This draft guidance does not contain a discussion of general
requirements for pediatric drug development under the Pediatric
Research Equity Act. That topic is addressed in the draft guidance for
industry entitled ``How to Comply With the Pediatric Research Equity
Act.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ When final, this guidance will represent the FDA's current
thinking on this topic. For the most recent version of a guidance,
check the FDA Drugs guidance Web page at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on the content
of and process for submitting initial PSPs and amended PSPs. It does
not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not
operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used
if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance includes information collection provisions that
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
The collections of information referenced in this draft guidance that
are related to the burden on the submission of investigational new drug
applications are covered under 21 CFR Part 312, including plans for
pediatric studies under 21 CFR 312.47(b)(1)(iv) and waiver requests
under 21 CFR 312.10, and have been approved under OMB control number
0910-0014. The collections of information referenced in this draft
guidance that are related to the burden on the submission of new drug
applications are covered under 21 CFR Part 314, including pediatric use
information under 21 CFR 314.50(d)(7) and waiver requests under 21 CFR
314.90, and have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The
collections of information referenced in this draft guidance that are
related to the burden on the submission of biologic license
applications are covered under 21 CFR Part 601, including pediatric use
information and waiver requests under 21 CFR 601.27, and have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.
    Sponsors are already required to submit plans for pediatric studies
and often provide the information outlined in this guidance pursuant to
the regulations noted above. The new FDASIA provisions primarily serve
to establish a more precise timeline for the submission of that
information; however, some of the information may be considered a new
collection of information. Federal law at 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)
requires Federal Agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register for each proposed collection of information before submitting
the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement,
FDA will publish a 60-day notice of the proposed collection of
information in a future issue of the Federal Register for any
information collections recommended in this guidance that may be
considered new or that would represent material modifications to those
previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations
or guidances.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: July 9, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-16825 Filed 7-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


Placeholder for the July 14, 2006 document,

Terrestrial Plant Runoff Risk Assesment for Propiconazole on Turf Using PRZM This document is available in paper form in the Pesticide Docket. An electronic copy will be posted when the author returns from vacation.