[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16432-16436]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07826]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0127; Notice 2]

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.,
Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.,
on behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation (collectively referred to as
``Toyota''), has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016-2017
Lexus RX350 and RX450H motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of Interior
Materials. Toyota filed a noncompliance information report dated
November 3, 2016. Toyota also petitioned NHTSA on November 23, 2016,
and provided a supplement to their petition on December 12, 2016, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abraham Diaz, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Toyota has determined that certain MY 2016-2017 Lexus
RX350 and Lexus RX450H motor vehicles do not fully comply with
paragraph S4.2 of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49
CFR 571.302). Toyota filed a noncompliance information report dated
November 3, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Toyota also petitioned NHTSA on November
23, 2016, and provided a supplement to their petition on December 12,
2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
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.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on April 7, 2017 in the Federal Register (82 FR
17076). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2016-0127.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 102,075 MY 2016-2017 Lexus
RX350 and Lexus RX450H motor vehicles manufactured between September
29, 2015 and October 21, 2016, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: Toyota explains that the noncompliance is that
the front and rear seat covers and rear center armrest assemblies, in
the subject vehicles, were manufactured with needle punch felt material
that does not meet the burn rate requirements as specified in
paragraphs S4.2 and S4.3 of FMVSS No. 302.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraphs S4.2 and S4.3(a) of FMVSS No. 302
includes the requirements relevant to this petition:

     Any portion of a single or composite material which is
within 13 millimeters (mm) of the occupant compartment air space
shall meet the requirements of paragraph S4.3.
     When tested in accordance with paragraph S5, material
described in paragraphs S4.1 and S4.2 shall not burn, nor transmit a
flame front across its surface, at a rate of more than 102 mm per
minute.
     The requirement concerning transmission of a flame
front shall not apply to a surface created by cutting a test
specimen for purposes of testing pursuant to paragraph S5.

    V. Summary of Toyota's Petition: Toyota described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Toyota provided the following description of the construction of
the front and rear seats related to the subject noncompliance. The
front and rear seats in the subject vehicles are constructed of several
layers of soft material mounted on a steel seat frame. The layers of
soft material include a leather or synthetic leather seating surface
with a cover pad laminated or laminated and sewn underneath, and a
needle punch felt material attached to a seat cushion foam pad. The
leather or synthetic leather surface, the cover pad, and the needle
punch felt material together are referred to as the cover subassembly.
The needle punch felt material is used to attach the cover subassembly
to the foam pad. Depending on the vehicle specification, the seat
assembly may or may not contain a seat heater, which is constructed of
a urethane pad and attached light gauge wire acting as the heating
element. The seat back construction is identical to the construction of
the seat cushion. The rear seat assembly also includes a center armrest
assembly that is covered with an armrest cover sub-assembly. Depending
on the vehicle's specification, the armrest may or may not include a
storage bin inside the center armrest. The needle punch felt is the
only material that does not comply with FMVSS No. 302 requirements.
    In support of its petition, Toyota submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. The needle punch felt material complies with FMVSS No. 302 when
tested as a ``composite'' as installed in the vehicle, i.e., along with
the surrounding FMVSS No. 302 compliant seat cover, cover pad, foam
pad, seat heater, carpet, and storage bin.
    2. Toyota testing and design review of the seat heater and its
components indicate that the chance of fire or flame induced by a
malfunctioning seat heater is essentially zero.
    3. The non-complying needle punch felt material would normally not
be exposed to open flame or an ignition source (like matches or
cigarettes) in its installed application, because it is installed
within or completely covered by complying materials that meet FMVSs No.
302.
    4. The needle punch felt material is a very small portion of the
overall mass of the soft material portions comprising the entire seat
assembly and is significantly less in relation to the entire vehicle
interior surface area that could potentially be exposed to flame.
Therefore, it would have an insignificant adverse effect on interior
material burn rate and the potential for occupant injury due to
interior fire.
    5. Toyota is not aware of any data suggesting that fires have
occurred in the field due to the installation of the non-complying
needle punch felt material.
    6. In similar situations, NHTSA has granted petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance relating to FMVSS No. 302 requirements.
    Toyota provided details of the above reasoning which are described
below.

1. Composite Test Conditions

    To emulate the potential real world conditions that could occur to
the relevant soft material portions of the front and rear seats as they
are assembled into the subject vehicles, Toyota conducted FMVSS No. 302
burn testing of the seating materials when assembled as a
``composite.'' Toyota chose locations to evaluate that were judged to
potentially be the least flame resistant to be the most conservative in
determining material performance.
    Toyota determined synthetic leather to be the least flame resistant
surface material to test based on review of the material construction
as well as ``composite'' FMVSS No. 302 evaluations performed on the
cover subassembly itself. According to Toyota, natural leather made
from cow skin contains collagen fibers which are a non-flammable
material. Synthetic leather is constructed of flammable urethane resin
and polyester fibers which are treated with a flame retardant to
achieve flammability requirements.
    To identify the potentially least flame resistant ``composite''
sample locations to evaluate, Toyota did a thorough design review and
``composite'' testing of the cover assemblies according to FMVSS No.
302 procedures. Toyota tested the cover subassembly for the seat back
and cushions at 21 different locations where needle punch felt is used.
All locations met FMVSS No. 302 criteria; however, the three locations
with the fastest burn rate were selected for further testing as
assembled in the subject vehicles. These locations were tested under
various conditions simulating open flame exposure inside the vehicle.
The conditions examined included those where the top leather and cover
pad layers of the cover subassembly are torn and where the needle punch
felt is exposed to direct flame. The samples were tested in their
installed condition; however, in locations where the seat foam is part
of the ``composite,'' only the portion which is within the 13 mm of the
occupant airspace specified by the standard was tested. When
applicable, the seat heater was included in the ``composite'' in its
``OFF'' condition.
    Toyota provided test results under eight different test conditions.
In all test conditions, the samples exhibited burn rates well within
the FMVSS No. 302 S4.3(a) requirements (i.e., no more than 102 mm/min),
therefore meeting the FMVSS No. 302 criteria. Toyota provided the
following table summarizing the test results.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16AP18.024

    Toyota stated that based on the test results shown in the table
above, the needle punch felt material complies with FMVSS No. 302 when
tested as a ``Composite'' as installed in the vehicle, i.e., along with
the surrounding FMVSS No. 302 compliant cover sub-assembly parts, foam
pad, seat heater, or storage bin. Toyota stated that the non-complying
needle punch felt material would not be exposed to open flame or an
ignition source (like matches or cigarettes) in its installed
application, because it is within or completely covered by complying
materials that meet FMVSS No. 302. Toyota further opined that given
that the purpose of FMVSS No. 302 is to ``reduce the deaths and
injuries to motor vehicle occupants caused by vehicle fires, especially
those originating in the interior of the vehicle from sources such as
matches or cigarettes,'' it believes that the noncompliant needle punch
felt material as installed in the vehicle does not present a safety
risk, and the chance of fire or flame propagation is essentially zero.

2. Risk of the Seat Heater Element as an Ignition Source

    In order to evaluate any potential risk associated with the seat
heater element as an internal ignition source, Toyota stated that it
conducted a design review and tests. Toyota provided the following
findings of the review and tests:
    a. In all locations, the needle punch felt material never comes in
direct contact with a seat heater element wire.
    b. The seat heater system has a self-diagnosis function. At
ignition ``ON,'' a system self-diagnosis check is performed to confirm
that the switch, which consists of a relay and an IPD (Intelligent
Power Device), is operating properly. If the diagnosis detects a fault
in the relay and/or the IPD, the system would not allow the seat heater
to be turned on. In the unlikely event both the relay and the IPD fail
and are stuck in the open position after the self-diagnosis, each seat
heater's temperature is still regulated by its thermostat. Under normal
design operating conditions, the thermostat restricts the temperature
of the element wire in a range of approximately 50 [deg]C to 100
[deg]C, depending on the specific application. This temperature range
is far below the auto-ignition temperature of the needle punch felt,
which is approximately 253 [deg]C.
    c. The seat heater element wire used in the subject vehicle is of a
design which eliminates the potential for localized ``hot spots.'' The
heating element wire is comprised of multiple individual filaments
insulated from each other by urethane coating. The filaments are
connected to each other in parallel rather than in series. In the event
that one or more of the filaments are damaged, there is no change in
current through the seat heater wire, and therefore no increase in
temperature.
    Given the findings from the evaluation of the seat heater and its
components, Toyota believes that the chance of an ignition internal to
the seat induced by a malfunctioning seat heater is essentially zero,
and no safety risk is presented.

3. Exposure of the Needle Punch Felt Material

    Toyota stated that the needle punch felt material is one of several
layers of the soft material of the seats which is used for securing
components together, improving appearance, and reducing noise. Toyota
stated that for all seating areas the needle punch felt material is
either encased between or covered by other materials which themselves
comply with FMVSS No. 302 requirements.
    Toyota explained the construction of the seat cover subassembly as
follows: In the vast majority of applications, the needle punch is
encased by other FMVSS No. 302 materials. A typical construction
consists of the leather seating surface on which an occupant sits. A
cover pad is glued to the underside of the leather. The cover and cover
pad each comply with FMVSS No. 302. The needle punch felt is sewn to
the cover pad assembly, and when so equipped, a layer of seat heater
material is attached to the underside, forming a cover sub-assembly.
The seat heater complies with FMVSS No. 302 requirements. The cover
sub-assembly is then tightly secured over the seat cushion pad foam or
seat back pad foam to the seat structure with ``hog'' rings. The seat
cushion and seat back foam each comply with FMVSS No. 302 requirements.
When so secured, no portion of the needle punch felt material

is visible or directly exposed to the occupant compartment.
    Toyota stated that as constructed, it would be highly unlikely that
the needle punch felt material would ever be exposed to ignition
sources such as matches or cigarettes, identified in S2 of FMVSS No.
302 as a stated purpose of the standard. Toyota stated that because the
needle punch felt is completely surrounded by FMVSS No. 302 compliant
material, it would be extremely unlikely that a vehicle occupant would
ever be exposed to a risk of injury as a result of the noncompliance.

4. Proportion of the Needle Punch Felt Material Relative to the Other
Soft Material in the Seat

    According to Toyota, the needle punch felt material comprises up to
approximately 0.32 percent of the total mass of the soft material of
the front seat assembly, and between 0.48 percent and 0.55 percent of
the total mass of the soft material of the rear seat assembly. Toyota
noted that the needle punch felt material is only a very small part of
the overall mass of the soft material comprising the entire seat
assembly and is significantly less in relation to the entire vehicle
interior surface area that could potentially be exposed to flame.
Toyota stated that therefore, it would have an insignificant adverse
effect on the interior material burn rate and the potential for
occupant injury due to interior fire.

5. Field Events Involving the Needle Punch Felt Material

    Toyota stated that there are no known field events involving
ignition of the needle punch felt material as of November 22, 2016.
Toyota is not aware of any fires, crashes, injuries or customer
complaints involving this component in the subject vehicles.

6. Previous NHTSA Grants of Petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Toyota noted that NHTSA has previously granted at least nine FMVSS
No. 302 petitions for inconsequential noncompliance, one of which was
for a vehicle's seat heater assemblies, one of which was for a
vehicle's console armrest, one of which was for large truck sleeper
bedding, and six of which were for issues related to child restraints.
(For a full list along with summaries of the petitions that Toyota
references please see Toyota's petition.)
    Toyota stated that they have made improvements that were
implemented as of October 21, 2016, to assure that any new vehicle sold
by Toyota will meet all FMVSS No. 302 requirements.
    In a supplemental letter dated December 12, 2016, Toyota notified
NHTSA that Transport Canada (TC) had determined this noncompliance to
be inconsequential. TC concluded ``there is no real or implied
degradation to motor vehicle safety'' presented by the noncompliance
with Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) 302. Toyota Canada,
Inc. stated that no further notification or remedy action is required.
    Toyota concluded by expressing the belief 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's Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA has reviewed Toyota's analyses that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA
considered several factors specific to this petition and agrees that
the failure of the needle punch felt material to comply with FMVSS No.
302 is inconsequential to safety in this case:
    1. The needle punch felt material in the subject vehicles is
covered by other materials that do comply with FMVSS No. 302 thus, the
needle punch felt material is protected from the occupant compartment
where it could directly come into contact with an ignition source such
as a match or cigarette.
    2. With respect to the ignition risk associated with the seat
heater, in the subject vehicles, NHTSA considered several factors
before agreeing that the failure of the needle punch felt material, to
comply with FMVSS No. 302, is inconsequential to safety. In its
evaluation, NHTSA relied on the information Toyota provided about the
seat heater. First, the needle punch felt material never comes into
direct contact with the seat heater element wire; second, the wire
design has multiple built in safety shut off components; and third, the
heater element is designed to prevent hot-spots. These design factors
restrict the temperature range of the seat heater element wire to 50
[deg]C-100 [deg]C. Since this temperature restricted range is far below
the ignition temperature of the needle punch felt material, 253 [deg]C
as cited by Toyota, it is highly unlikely for the noncompliant material
to become ignited by the seat heater.
    3. When the needle punch felt material is tested as a composite
with the FMVSS No. 302 compliant materials (i.e., seat cover, cover
pad, foam pad, seat heater, carpet, and storage bin), that cover the
punch felt material, in accordance with the procedures of FMVSS No.
302, the requirements for burn rate are met accordingly. Toyota
provided composite test data representing eight worst case scenarios
for which they collected FMVSS No. 302 test results. The test data
provided showed the maximum burn rate was 68 mm per minute, therefore
each of the tests performed met the burn rate requirements of 102 mm
per minute.
    4. The noncompliant material is approximately 0.32 percent of the
total mass of the soft material of the front seat assembly and between
0.48 percent and 0.55 percent (less than 1 percent) of the total mass
of the soft material of the rear seat assembly. Therefore, the
noncompliant material represents an insignificant quantity of material
compared to the total quantity of interior vehicle material. In
addition, this insignificant quantity of material is covered by other
materials, all together forming a composite material that meets the
standard.
    5. In an email dated February 20, 2018, Toyota stated that they
conducted a review of field information and confirmed that as of
February 8, 2018, Toyota was still not aware of any fires, crashes,
injuries or customer complaints involving this component in the subject
vehicles.
    6. As Toyota mentioned, the agency has granted previous petitions
with similar noncompliances for FMVSS No. 302.
    The agency is providing comments for:
    (i) Ford (63 FR 40780, July 30, 1998). Vehicle console armrests: In
Ford's petition a non-compliant center console armrest ``plus pad'' was
determined to be inconsequential to safety in that it was located under
an exterior cover. Similarly to Toyota's petition, the needle felt
punch material is under exterior components covering it that meet FMVSS
No. 302 flammability requirements.
    (ii) Toyota (80 FR 4035, January 26, 2015). Vehicle seat heaters:
The agency had concluded, the noncompliance in certain MY 2012-2014
Toyota Camry, Avalon, Corolla, Sienna, Tundra, and Tacoma motor
vehicles to be inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, in part,
because the non-complying seat heaters would normally not be exposed to
open flame or an ignition source in its installed application and
because they were installed within and surrounded by complying
materials that meet FMVSS No. 302.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that Toyota has met its burden of persuasion

that the subject FMVSS No. 302 noncompliance in the subject vehicles is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Toyota's petition
is hereby granted and Toyota is consequently exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of, and a free remedy for, that
noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    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, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that Toyota no longer controlled
at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of 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 Toyota 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)

Claudia W. Covell,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-07826 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: June 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 37626-37627]
[DOCID:fr30jn06-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54042; File No. SR-Amex-2006-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to its Options Marketing Fee Program

June 26, 2006.
    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 June 15, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') 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 prepared by the Exchange. The Amex
has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Amex under section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii)
of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Amex proposes to amend its fee schedule and marketing fee
program to assess a marketing fee of $0.75 per contract on options on
the Nasdaq-100 Index (``NDX'') and on the Russell 2000 Index (``RUT'').
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web
site at http://www.amex.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,

and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange 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. The Amex 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
    The Amex proposes to amend its fee schedule and marketing fee
program to assess a marketing fee of $0.75 per contract on options on
the NDX and on the RUT. This fee would apply to specialists and
Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange states that it has proposed these changes to
its marketing fees in order to remain competitive with other options
exchanges and to attract order flow. Telephone conference between
Hong-Anh Tran, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation
(``Division''), Commission, and Nyieri Nazarian, Assistant General
Counsel, Exchange, on June 20, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that its current marketing fee of $0.75 is
assessed upon specialists and ROTs for all equity options classes;
exchange-traded fund share options, including options on the Nasdaq 100
Tracking Stock (``QQQQ''), and excluding options on the Standard &
Poor's Depositary Receipts (``SPY''); and Trust Issued Receipt
(``HOLDR'') options.\6\ Prior to the filing of the proposed rule
change, the marketing fee did not apply to index options, including
options on the Mini-Nasdaq 100 Index (``MNX''), NDX, or RUT options.\7\
In addition, a marketing fee of $1.00 is assessed upon specialists and
ROTs \8\ for all SPY options. The marketing fee does not apply to
firms, non-member market makers, broker/dealers and customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53341 (February 21,
2006), 71 FR 10085 (February 28, 2006) (SR-Amex-2006-15).
    \7\ Telephone conference between Hong-Anh Tran, Special Counsel,
Division, Commission, and Nyieri Nazarian, Assistant General
Counsel, Exchange, on June 20, 2006. As noted above, under the
proposed rule change, a marketing fee of $0.75 per contract now will
be assessed on NDX and RUT options.
    \8\ The marketing fee applies to specialists and ROTs. Telephone
conference between Hong-Anh Tran, Special Counsel, Division,
Commission, and Nyieri Nazarian, Assistant General Counsel,
Exchange, on June 20, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange asserts that the proposal is equitable as required by
section 6(b)(4) of the Act.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Section 6(b)(4) of the Act states that the rules of a
national securities exchange should provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. See 15
U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it
is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among Amex members and other persons using Amex
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose 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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments with respect
to the proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \12\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \13\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the proposal
will take effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time within 60
days of the filing of such 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 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-Amex-2006-59 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-Amex-2006-59. 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 office of the Amex. 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-Amex-2006-59 and should be submitted on or before July
21, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 06-5904 Filed 6-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6130-6132]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2410]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPA-2010-0987, FRL-9261-7]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act Facility
Response Plan Requirements (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a
continuing Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. This ICR is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2011.
Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is
soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information
collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 4, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OPA-2010-0987, to EPA, by one of the following methods:
    (1) http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    (2) E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No, EPA-HQ-
OPA-2010-0987.
    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-2010-
0987.
    (4) Mail: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-
2010-0987, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
    (5) Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-2010-0987. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPA-
2010-0987. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
J. Troy Swackhammer, Office of Emergency Management, Mail Code 5104A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-2625; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPA-2010-0987, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the EPA Docket
Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number to make an appointment to view the docket is (202)
566-0276.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What should I consider when 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 and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of 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 the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
a subset of facilities that are required to have a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan under the Oil Pollution
Prevention regulation (40 CFR part 112) and which, because of their
location, could reasonably expected to cause ``substantial harm'' to
the environment by discharging oil into or on navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines. Owners and operators of these facilities must
prepare and submit an Facility Response Plan (FRP) to EPA. The criteria
for a substantial harm facility include:
     Oil transfers over water to or from a vessel and a total
storage capacity of greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons; or
     Total oil storage capacity of greater than or equal to one
million gallons and meet one or more of the following harm factors:
insufficient secondary containment; proximity to fish and wildlife and
sensitive environments; discharge of oil could shut down a drinking
water intake; and/or facility experienced a reportable oil discharge of
10,000 gallons or more in last 5 years; or
     Other factors considered by the Regional Administrator.
(See 40 CFR 112.20(b)(1) and (f) for further information about the
criteria for substantial harm.)
    The specific private industry sectors subject to this action
include, but are not limited to: (1) Petroleum Bulk Stations and
Terminals (NAICS 42271); (2) Electric Power Generation, Transmission,
and Distribution (NAICS 2211); (3) Gasoline Stations/Automotive Rental
and Leasing (NAICS 4471/5321); (4) Heating Oil Dealers (NAICS 3112);
(5) Transportation, Pipelines, and Marinas (NAICS 482-486/488112-48819/
4883/48849/492/71393); (6) Grain and Oilseed Milling (NAICS 3112); (7)
Manufacturing (NAICS 31-33); (8) Warehousing and Storage (NAICS 493);
(9) Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (211111); (10) Mining
and Heavy Construction (NAICS 2121/2123/213114/213116/234); (11)
Schools (NAICS 6111-6113; (12) Hospitals (622-623); (13) Crop and
Animal Production (NAICS 111-112); and (14) Other Commercial Facilities
(miscellaneous).
    Title: Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act Facility Response
Plan Requirements (40 CFR Part 112) (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR Number 1630.10; OMB Control Number 2050-0135.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on March 31,
2011. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The authority for EPA's FRP requirements is derived from
section 311(j)(5) of the Clean Water Act, as amended by the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990. EPA's regulation is codified at 40 CFR 112.20
and 112.21. All FRP reporting and recordkeeping activities are
mandatory. This information collection request renewal has not
substantively changed from the last ICR approval (March 31, 2008).

Purpose of Data Collection

    An FRP will help an owner or operator identify the necessary
resources to respond to an oil spill in a timely manner. If implemented
effectively, the FRP will reduce the impact and severity of oil spills
and may prevent spills through the identification of risks at the
facility. Although the owner or operator is the primary data user, EPA
also uses the data in certain situations to ensure that facilities
comply with the regulation and to help allocate response resources.
State and local governments may use the data, which are not generally
available elsewhere and can greatly assist local emergency preparedness
planning efforts. EPA reviews all submitted FRPs and must approve FRPs
for those facilities whose discharges may cause significant and
substantial harm to the environment in order to ensure that facilities
believed to pose the highest risk have planned for adequate resources
and procedures to respond to a spill. (See 40 CFR 112.20(f)(3) for
further information about the criteria for significant and substantial
harm.)
    Response Plan Certification. Under section 112.20(e), the owner or
operator of a facility that does not meet the substantial harm criteria
in section 112.20(f)(1) must complete and maintain at the facility the
certification form contained in Appendix C to part 112.
    Response Plan Preparation. Under section 112.20(a) or (b), the
owner or operator of a facility that meets the ``substantial harm''
criteria in section 112.20(f)(1) must prepare and submit to the EPA
Regional Administrator an FRP following section 112.20(h). Such a
facility may be a newly constructed facility or may be an existing
facility that meets paragraph (f)(1) as a result of a planned change
(paragraph (a)(2)(iii)) or an unplanned change (paragraph (a)(2)(iv))
in facility characteristics. Under paragraph (c), the owner or operator
may be required to amend the FRP.
    Response Plan Maintenance. Under section 112.20(g), the owner or
operator must periodically review the FRP to ensure consistency with
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
and Area Contingency Plans and update the plan to reflect changes at
the facility. Under section 112.20(d), the facility owner or operator
must revise and resubmit revised portions of the FRP after material
changes at the facility. FRP changes that do not result in a material
change in response capabilities shall be provided to the Regional
Administrator as they occur. Periodic drills and exercises are required
of the planholder to test the effectiveness of the FRP.
    Recordkeeping. Under section 112.20(e), an owner or operator who
determines that the requirements do not apply must certify and retain a
record of this determination. An owner or operator who is subject to
the requirements must keep the FRP at the facility (section 112.20(a)),
keep updates to the FRP (section 112.20(d)(1) and (2)), and log
activities such as discharge prevention meetings, response training,
and drills and exercises (section 112.20(h)(8)(iv)).
    Number of Regulated Facilities. Since approval of the current ICR
(March 31, 2008), EPA has continued to maintain an inventory of
facilities that have prepared and submitted an FRP to EPA. This
national inventory of FRP facilities is periodically compiled by EPA
headquarters based on data maintained by each of EPA's ten regional
offices. The inventory was updated in April 2010 and comprises a total
of 4,341 plan holders versus an inventory of 4,132 plan holders in the
prior ICR renewal. Of the 4,341 planholders, 81 are Federal facilities,
resulting in a universe of 4,260 non-Federal government FRP facilities.
In the prior ICR renewal, a total of 3,942 non-Federal government FRP
facilities were included. Since the number of affected facilities has
not

changed substantively since the last renewal, EPA is not substantively
revising the ICR supporting statement at this time, but is accepting
comment on areas that may need revisions or updating.
    Burden Statement: The average annual reporting and recordkeeping
burdens for this collection of information on a newly regulated
facility for which an FRP is not required (i.e., facility where the
owner or operator certifies that the facility does not meet the
``substantial harm'' criteria) is estimated to be 0.4 hour per year.
The average annual reporting and recordkeeping burdens on a newly
regulated facility for which an FRP is required (i.e., first-year costs
for plan development) are estimated at 240.1 hours per year. The
average annual reporting and recordkeeping burdens on a facility for
which the owner or operator is maintaining an FRP (i.e., subsequent
year costs for annual plan maintenance) are estimated at 99.7 hours.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements
which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond
to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    The ICR supporting statement provides a detailed explanation of the
Agency's estimate, which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 22,574.
    Frequency of response: Less than once per year.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 432,627 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $17,427,828 includes $29,483
annualized capital costs.

Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval?

    EPA estimates that there is no substantive change in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR
currently approved by OMB. This conclusion is based on EPA's current
inventory of facilities that have submitted and are maintaining an FRP
as per 40 CFR part 112. EPA has not amended the FRP regulation since
the last ICR renewal that would affect the per-facility regulatory
burden. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: January 19, 2011.
Maryann Petrole,
Acting Director, Office of Emergency Management, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2011-2410 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P