[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6928-6930]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02415]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0134; Notice 2]

General Motors LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: General Motors LLC, (GM) has determined that certain model
year 2014

Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks manufactured between January
29, 2013, and October 28, 2013, do not fully comply with paragraph
S5.3.1(e) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101,
Controls and Displays, and paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 102,
Transmission Shift Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and
Transmission Braking Effect. GM filed a report dated October 31, 2013,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. GM then petitioned NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR part
556 requesting a decision that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Amina
Fisher, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. GM's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, GM has
petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on February 24, 2014, in the Federal Register
(79 FR 10226). Four individuals and the Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) provided comments to the receipt notice. To view the
petition, the comments, and all supporting documents, log onto the
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then, follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2013-0134.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 200,921 model
year 2014 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks manufactured
between January 29, 2013, and October 28, 2013.
    III. Noncompliance: GM explains that the noncompliance is that
under certain circumstances when an owner uses the steering wheel
controls to browse and select songs to play from an external device
(i.e., MP3 player) that is plugged into one of the vehicle's USB ports,
the instrument cluster may reset. When the instrument cluster resets
the analog gauges and identifications, the PRNDM [shift position]
indicator, and the cruise control telltale, if illuminated, will
briefly extinguish. In addition, some of the instrument cluster
telltales may also illuminate briefly during a bulb check without the
condition the telltale is designed to indicate being present.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.3.1 of FMVSS No. 101 states
specifically:

    S5.3.1 Timing of illumination
    . . .
    (e) A telltale must not emit light except when identifying the
malfunction or vehicle condition it is designed to indicate, or
during a bulb check.

    Paragraph S3.1.4. of FMVSS No. 102 states specifically:

    S3.1.4 Identification of shift positions and of shift position
sequence.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> Except as specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>, if the transmission
shift position sequence includes a park position, identification of
shift positions, including the positions in relation to each other
and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver
whenever any of the following conditions exist:
    (a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be
shifted; or
    (b) The transmission is not in park. . . .

    V. Summary of GM's Analyses: GM states that the subject
noncompliance is unlikely to occur in that all of the following
conditions have to exist: The driver must operate a media device
inserted into one of the vehicle's USB ports in a very specific way;
the redundant steering wheel controls must be used to select a song;
the driver must then search for a particular song by depressing the
left arrow on the right spoke of the steering wheel, then select
``audio'' using the steering wheel controls, then select ``browse''
using the steering wheel controls, then scroll to a particular song
using the steering wheel control, then select a song to play. If the
driver selects ``browse'' using the steering wheel controls to select a
second song, the subject condition may occur, but only if the total
information in titles of the buffered songs exceeds 2000 bytes.
    GM believes that the condition is short-lived as disruption of the
PRNDM is said to persist for one and one half seconds, and the telltale
bulb check is said to persist for approximately five seconds. GM cited
a 1979 interpretation to Ford in which NHTSA acknowledged that a short-
lived inability to view telltales does not necessarily warrant
manufacturers correcting the condition.\1\ NHTSA is quoted as stating,
``This means that the tell-tales and their identification need not be
visible to the driver when the tell-tales are struck by direct
sunlight. Since conditions such as these are typically short-lived, the
NHTSA does not believe that the length of time the driver may be unable
to view the tell-tales is significant enough to warrant requiring the
manufacturer to prevent their occurrence.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A copy of this letter is attached to GM's petition and is
available in the docket at www.regulations.gov, Docket No. NHTSA-
2013-0134-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GM states that the noncompliance that is the subject of the
petition has little effect on the normal operation of the vehicle. GM
states that when the operation of the instrument panel is briefly
affected by the noncompliance, none of the other vehicle operations are
affected; any underlying messages remain in place and will continue to
be displayed after the instrument panel resets; other operations, like
cruise control, are unaffected by the noncompliance (only the displays
on the instrument panel are briefly affected by the condition); and if
the noncompliance were to occur, it is unlikely the brief disruption of
the PRNDM will affect the driver.
    Lastly, GM states that NHTSA has previously granted petitions for a
determination of inconsequential noncompliance, finding no risk to
motor vehicle safety, where the sequence of events causing the
noncompliant condition is exceptionally rare. GM states that these
granted petitions allow specific telltales to extinguish for a limited
period of time while the vehicle is being operated.
    In summation, GM believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to be exempt from providing recall notification of the
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA'S Analysis: NHTSA has reviewed GM's justification for an
inconsequential noncompliance determination and agrees that the
specific noncompliance addressed is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    GM states its belief that the subject condition is unlikely to
occur due to the series of events that must take place before the
instrument cluster resets. GM explains that the driver must operate a
USB media device by using the steering wheel controls to search for a
song, select ``audio'', select ``browse'', and select another song to
play while the total information in titles of the buffered songs
exceeds 2000 bytes for the condition to occur.
    GM states that the condition is short-lived with the disruption of
the PRNDM illumination lasting approximately one and one half seconds
and the telltale

bulb check lasting approximately five seconds. According to GM, the
condition will have little effect on the normal operation of the
vehicle as no underlying systems are affected by the failure.
    After receipt of GM's petition, NHTSA requested more information
regarding the subject noncompliance. GM submitted videos showing that
when the condition occurs any existing warning lights extinguish, the
indicators (gauges) drop to zero, and operation of the entire
instrument panel is interrupted. Specifically, any illuminated
telltales extinguish for approximately one and one half seconds before
a bulb check that lasts approximately five seconds is initiated. At the
conclusion of the bulb check, any previously illuminated telltales will
illuminate and remain illuminated.
    NHTSA agrees with GM that if the instrument panel reset were to
happen it would only be a momentary condition, the instrument panel
telltales and indicators would extinguish and return to normal very
quickly, with little, if any, impact to the driver.
    GM mentioned two previous petitions that the agency granted due to
the loss or failure of telltale indications. In the first petition,
General Motors Corp.; Grant of Petition for Determination of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 56 FR 33323 (July 19, 1991), the
noncompliance would only manifest itself when the headlight high beams
were turned on and the cigar lighter was activated. In this situation
the required high beam telltale could dim or extinguish altogether for
a short period of time while the cigar lighter was being powered. The
petition was granted because the agency determined there was no
consequence to motor vehicle safety attached to the extinguishment of
the high beam telltale.
    In the second petition, submitted by Nissan, Nissan North America,
Incorporated, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 59090, (Sept. 25, 2013), under rare circumstances
the transmission gear selected was not always displayed correctly as
required. The petition was granted because it was only possible for the
gear indication to extinguish when the engine was inactive and the
vehicle was inoperable. Upon reactivating the engine the gear indicator
displayed the correct gear.
    Five commenters (four individuals and the Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety) provided comments about GM's petition when NHTSA issued
the notice of receipt in the Federal Register.
    One individual stated that ``there is no such potential product
recall as `inconsequential' '' and that ``all product recalls must be
effectively enforced against the vehicle manufacturer.'' We note that
the Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires the Secretary of Transportation
to provide the vehicle manufacturers an opportunity to submit
information, views, and arguments showing that a noncompliance does not
impact motor vehicle safety. NHTSA is then required to consider
information and arguments submitted and make a determination whether
the noncompliance is, or is not, inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. If NHTSA determines that the subject noncompliance has no
consequence to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer is exempted from
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    The second individual commenter believes that GM should conduct a
recall because the touch screen is not covered by the vehicle's
warranty. The agency feels that this comment is not relevant because
the steering wheel controls (rather than the touch screen on the center
console) are the controls that must be used for the subject
noncompliance to occur.
    The two remaining individuals that provided comments believe that
anything causing a distraction to the occupants of a motor vehicle
under operation should be recalled. One of the commenters expressed
that using a USB music device would be distracting and the other
believes that the cluster becoming inoperable, even for a second, is
enough time to distract the driver and cause an accident.
    After reviewing the video provided by GM, the agency believes that
a reset of the instrument panel would be corrected quickly within
seconds, before the driver would be distracted, or realize what was
happening.
    The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety does not specifically
support the granting or denial of GM's petition, but believes that the
existence of such a malfunction raises serious questions regarding
vehicle design which can lead to this kind of situation.
    Finally, GM stated that a Service Update Bulletin was issued to
update the software of all IP clusters whenever any service to the
affected vehicles is done at the dealership. The agency understands
that GM's action to update the IP cluster software on these vehicles as
they are brought in for regular service should reduce considerably the
number of affected vehicles.
    NHTSA'S Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that GM has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 101
and FMVSS No. 102 noncompliance in the affected vehicles is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, GM's petition is
hereby granted and GM is not obligated to provide 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 noncompliant vehicles that GM 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 GM
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.

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-02415 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of e-cigarettes which are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I wish to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on all of these issues that pertain to me, but as I have a great job and a wonderful family, my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they can be difficult to read and take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I feel it is not at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I am once again living my life thanks to e-cigarettes. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Best Regards,


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15683-15685]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06580]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0158]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; ARCTIC CHALLENGER, Port of Bellingham; Bellingham,
WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around
the barge ARCTIC CHALLENGER within the waters of the Captain of the
Port Zone Puget Sound. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of
the maritime public and the crews involved in operational testing of
the Arctic Containment System, and will do so by prohibiting all
persons and vessels not involved with the operational testing of the
Arctic Containment System from entering, transiting, or remaining in
the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his
Designated Representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from March 25, 2015
until April 1, 2015. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be used from the date the rule was signed, March 11, 2015, until
March 25, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2015-1058 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 Ryan Griffin, Waterways Management
Division, Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; Coast Guard; telephone (206)
217-6051, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because publishing an NPRM would be
impracticable as delayed promulgation may result in injury or damage to
the maritime public, vessel crews, the vessels themselves, and the
facilities prior to conclusion of a notice and comment period.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for

making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register. Delaying the effective date until 30 days after
publication would be impracticable, as such a delay would eliminate the
safety zone's effectiveness and usefulness in protecting waterway
users, property, and the safe navigation of maritime traffic from the
hazards associated with sea trials before 30 days have elapsed.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Coast Guard Captains of the Port are granted authority to establish
safety and security zones in 33 CFR 1.05-1(f) for safety and
environmental purposes, described in 33 CFR part 165.
    The ARCTIC CHALLENGER is a barge currently located at the Port of
Bellingham that has been converted by Superior Energy Services for use
in the Arctic drilling operations as a containment system that would
respond in the event that a well blowout should occur.
    The ARCTIC CHALLENGER is scheduled to depart the Port of Bellingham
to anchor inside the East Vendovi Island Anchorage site located in the
Samish Bay. While at anchorage, the ARCTIC CHALLENGER will be
conducting several operational tests of the Arctic Containment System.
These operational tests are complex and will involve five different
vessels in conducting deployment and recovery of containment dome
systems and subsea pump operation and testing. As a result, the Coast
Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone which is necessary to
ensure the safety of the maritime public and workers involved in the
operational tests.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone which
encompasses all waters within 100 yards of the barge ARCTIC CHALLENGER,
located in Samish Bay.
    Vessels not involved with the operational testing of the Arctic
Containment System wishing to enter the zone must request permission
for entry by contacting the Joint Harbor Operations Center at 206-217-
6001, or the on-scene patrol craft via VHF-FM CH 13. Once permission
for entry is granted, vessels must proceed at a minimum speed for safe
navigation.

D. 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. This rule is not a
significant regulatory action as the safety zone is limited both in
size and duration.

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 vessels
intending to transit the affected waterway during the period mentioned.
This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities because the zone established in
this rule is limited in size and duration. Further, vessels wishing to
pass through the zone may do so with permission of the Captain of the
Port.

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
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

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 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 a 100 yard safety zone around the barge
ARCTIC CHALLENGER. The rule will prevent any vessel not involved with
operational tests of the Arctic Containment System from approaching
within 100 yards of ARCTIC CHALLENGER without permission of the Captain
of the Port. 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.

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 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 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. 0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-285 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-285  Safety Zone; ARCTIC CHALLENGER, Port of Bellingham;
Bellingham, WA.

    (a) Location. The following areas are designated as a safety zone:
All waters within 100 yards of the vessel ARCTIC CHALLENGER as it
conducts operational tests of the Arctic Containment System within the
waters of the Captain of the Port Zone Puget Sound.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in
subpart C of this part vessels not involved with the Arctic Containment
System operational tests who wish to enter the zone must request
permission for entry by contacting the Joint Harbor Operation Center at
206-217-6001 or the on-scene patrol craft on VHF-FM CH13. Once
permission for entry is granted vessels must proceed at a minimum speed
for safe navigation.
    (c) Dates. This rule is effective March 25, 2015 through April 1,
2015. It is enforceable from 12 a.m. on March 11, 2015 until 12 a.m. on
April 1, 2015.

    Dated: March 11, 2015.
M. W. Raymond,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2015-06580 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P