[Federal Register: November 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 218)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58562-58567]
[DOCID:fr13no09-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0175]
RIN 2127-AK62

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Air Brake Systems

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

ACTION: Final Rule; partial response to petitions for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: On July 27, 2009, NHTSA published a final rule that amended
the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for air brake systems by
requiring substantial improvements in stopping distance performance. In
response, the agency received eight petitions for reconsideration. This
document responds to those petitions by correcting errors in a table
published in the final rule, removing a testing specification, and
adjusting the compliance date for a small number of vehicles the agency
had not fully accounted for in the final rule. This document provides a
partial response to the submitted petitions for reconsideration.

DATES: This final rule is effective November 24, 2009.
    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received not later than December 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building, Ground Floor, Docket Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all documents received into any of our dockets
by the name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70;
Pages 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Jeff Woods,
Office of Crash Avoidance Standards (NVS-121), NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 366-
0098) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    For legal issues: Ari Scott, Office of the Chief Counsel (NCC-112),
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petitions for Reconsideration and Agency Analysis
    A. Four-Axle Tractors With a GVWR Under 59,600 Pounds
    B. Definition of Typical Three-Axle Tractors
    C. Fuel Tank Loading Specification
    D. Typographical Corrections
    E. Stopping Distances at Reduced Test Speeds
III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
    B. Privacy Act
    C. Other Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
IV. Regulatory Text

I. Background

    On July 27, 2009, NHTSA published a final rule \1\ in the Federal
Register (74 FR 37122) amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake Systems, to require improved stopping
distance performance for heavy truck tractors. This rule reduced the
maximum allowable stopping distance, from 60 mph, from 355 feet to 250
feet for the vast majority of heavy truck tractors. For a small
minority of very heavy tractors, the maximum allowable stopping
distance was reduced from 355 feet to 310 feet. Having come to the
conclusion that modifications needed for ``typical three-axle
tractors,'' to meet the improved requirements were relatively
straightforward, NHTSA provided two years lead time for those vehicles
to comply with the new requirements. These typical three-axle tractors
comprise approximately 82 percent of the total fleet of heavy tractors.
The agency concluded that other tractors, which are produced in far
fewer numbers and may require additional work to ensure stability and
control while braking, would require more lead time to meet the
requirements. Due to extra time needed to design, test, and validate
these vehicles, which included two-axle tractors and severe service
tractors, the agency allowed four years lead time for these tractors to
meet the improved stopping distance requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Docket  NHTSA-2009-0083.

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

II. Petitions for Reconsideration and Agency Analysis

    NHTSA received eight timely petitions for reconsideration in
response to the final rule. Separate petitions were received from the
Truck Manufacturers Association (TMA); the Heavy Duty Brake
Manufacturers Council of the Heavy Duty Manufacturers Association
(HDBMC); Bendix Spicer Foundation Brake LLC (Bendix), a joint venture
between Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems and Dana Corporation; and
ArvinMeritor. The agency received four additional petitions supporting
and incorporating the TMA petition by reference from Daimler Trucks
North America (Daimler); Kenworth Truck Company (Kenworth); Peterbilt
Motors Company (Peterbilt); and Navistar Truck Group (Navistar).
    The petitions focused on four main issues, as well as identified
some typographical errors in the final rule. The main issues included
the stopping distance requirements for reduced speeds, the omission of
four-axle tractors under 59,600 pounds gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) from the listed requirements and the date at which the improved
stopping distance requirements should apply to those tractors, the
manner in which NHTSA characterized the typical three-axle tractor, and
the fuel tank fill level testing specification. Additionally, the
petitioners requested that NHTSA correct some typographical errors in
the regulatory text.
    This final rule addresses all issues except those relating to
stopping distance requirements at reduced speeds. With regard to that
issue, the agency is closely examining the petitions and working to
formulate a comprehensive response. However, we are addressing the
other issues in this document. The reason for this two-part approach is
that, because the agency omitted to address lead time requirements for
tractors with four or more axles and a GVWR of 59,600 pounds or less,
and given the way this final rule was drafted the amended regulation
inadvertently requires these vehicles to comply with the upgraded
stopping distance requirements on November 24, 2009. We recognize that
this would not provide nearly enough time to design and validate
compliant tractors, and as the agency intended to provide sufficient
time to modify these vehicles in the final rule, a prompt amendment is
needed to correct this omission. The specific issues of the petitions
are addressed below.

A. Four-Axle Tractors With a GVWR Less Than or Equal to 59,600 Pounds

    In the final rule, the agency omitted addressing a compliance date
for tractors with four or more axles that have a GVWR of less than or
equal to 59,600 pounds. Moreover, given the way the final rule was
drafted, these tractors would inadvertently be required to comply with
the requirements in Table II on November 24, 2009. Manufacturers were
given either a two- or four-year lead time before all other tractors
were required to meet the improved stopping distances in Table II.
Specifically, typical three-axle tractors are required to comply with
the upgraded requirements on August 1, 2011, while all other tractors
are required to comply on August 1, 2013.
    The issue of lead time for tractors with four or more axles less
than or equal to 59,600 pounds GVWR was raised by a number of
petitioners. TMA noted their omission, and requested that NHTSA amend
the rule so that these tractors are required to comply with the
improved stopping distances on August 1, 2013, which would provide four
years lead time. HDBMC made an identical request. Bendix also noted the
omission, although did not provide a recommended lead time.
    It was not the agency's intention to omit tractors with four or
more axles and a GVWR of 59,600 pounds or less from the optional
requirements of Table IIa, and therefore require them to comply with
the upgraded requirements in November 2009. Instead, the agency
acknowledges that these tractors require lead time commensurate with
other non-typical tractors for purposes of design, testing, and
validation. Therefore, for the reasons discussed below, NHTSA is
accepting the recommendation of TMA, HDBMC, and Bendix, and requiring
compliance with the improved standards for tractors with four or more
axles and a GVWR of less than or equal to 59,600 pounds by August 1,
2013, thereby giving four years of lead time.
    In deciding to allow four years of lead time, instead of two years,
the agency used the same rationale concerning appropriate lead time as
that discussed in the final rule. In the rule, we allowed two years of
lead time for typical three-axle tractors because we believed that the
improvements needed to shorten the stopping distances to meet the new
requirements were relatively straightforward, and that many of these
tractors would already comply with the new standards. On the other
hand, we allowed four years lead time for two-axle tractors and severe
service tractors (defined as tractors with a GVWR of more than 59,600
pounds) for several reasons. First, for some tractors, we believed that
meeting the improved stopping distances might require additional
engineering to address concerns with stability and control issues.
Second, we noted that unlike ``typical'' three-axle tractors, which
comprise the overwhelming bulk of the tractor fleet, relatively less
design work had been done on non-typical tractors, and that more time
would be needed for design, testing, and validation of new tractor
designs. Specifically, in the section of the final rule dealing with
lead time, we stated:

    [O]nly limited development work relevant to reduced stopping
distance has been performed on [severe service tractors] vehicles to
date. As several commenters indicated, additional lead time is
needed for complete testing and validation of new brake systems for
these vehicles to ensure that full compliance can be achieved,
without compromising control, stability, and comfort elements
important to end users.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 74 FR 37154.

    Much like severe service tractors, only limited development work
relevant to reduced stopping distance has been performed on tractors
with four or more axles and a GVWR of less than or equal to 59,600
pounds. The agency believes that this tractor configuration would be
uncommon, because it has a relatively low GVWR and is equipped with
four axles. By virtue of it having four axles, we consider that it is
not a typical three-axle tractor and it should be afforded more lead
time for design, testing, and validation to meet the new stopping
distance requirements. Therefore, we believe that manufacturers of
these tractors should be given until August 1, 2013 to meet the
improved stopping distance requirements.

B. Definition of Typical Three-Axle Tractors

    TMA and ArvinMeritor raised a concern regarding the manner in which
NHTSA defined ``typical three-axle tractor'' in the final rule. TMA
stated that there was a slight, but substantive, discrepancy between
how NHTSA defined this term in the preamble of the final rule, and how
it defined it in the regulatory text of the standard. Because of this
discrepancy, TMA and ArvinMeritor claim that NHTSA puts some tractors
with severe service characteristics into the category of typical three-
axle tractors, and thus only allows two years lead time to meet the
improved standards, when it should actually allow manufacturers of
those tractors four years of lead time. After

carefully reviewing the TMA and ArvinMeritor petitions, NHTSA agrees
and is revising the standard to reflect this, for the reasons described
below.
    In the final rule, NHTSA made the following statement regarding the
definition of three-axle tractors:

    NHTSA used the same definition for a ``typical three-axle
tractor'' as TMA and HDBMC, which is a 6x4 configuration (three
axles with six wheel positions; a non-driven steer axle and two rear
drive axles) with a GVWR below 59,600 pounds, a steer axle with a
GAWR equal or less than 14,600 pounds, and tandem drive axles rated
equal or less than 45,000 pounds total capacity.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 74 FR 37131.

This definition was important, because NHTSA treated typical three-axle
tractors differently than other tractors, by providing manufacturers
less lead time to meet the improved requirements for these tractors
than other tractors. As we stated, ``NHTSA is specifying differing
compliance dates for typical three-axle tractors on the one hand, and
two-axle and severe service tractors on the other.'' \4\ However, in
the text of the regulation, NHTSA used a shorthand method of referring
to these tractors that, TMA and ArvinMeritor point out, includes some
tractors that should not be included. Specifically, the text of the
regulation required that ``three-axle tractors with a GVWR of 59,600
pounds or less'' \5\ are required to comply with the improved
requirements by August 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 74 FR 37154.
    \5\ See paragraph S5 of 49 CFR 571.121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By using the overall GVWR of the tractor in the regulation, as
opposed to specifying the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of the
specific axles, NHTSA incorporated some tractors into the category of
``typical three-axle tractors'' that should not have been included. For
example, according to the definition in the preamble, a tractor with a
steer axle with a GAWR of 18,000 pounds and combined drive axle GAWRs
of 40,000 pounds would not be considered a typical three-axle tractor.
We note that, for a tractor of this configuration, the high steer axle
weight rating is consistent with severe service duty. However, because
the vehicle would have a GVWR of 58,000 pounds, it would be considered
a typical three-axle tractor using the ``less than or equal to 59,600
pounds GVWR'' classification in the regulation.
    We believe that the definition of ``typical three-axle tractors''
should be limited to those tractors that meet the definition in the
preamble of the final rule--that is--have a steer axle GAWR of 14,600
pounds or less and a combined drive axle GAWR of 45,000 pounds or less.
NHTSA is aware that a small number of three-axle tractors, used in some
specialty applications, have heavier steer axles. Much like other
tractors produced in lower volumes, only limited development work has
been done on these tractors. Therefore, we believe that manufacturers
of those tractors require additional lead time to design, test, and
validate improved braking systems on these tractors. For this reason,
we are modifying the category of vehicles subject to the two-year lead
time to three-axle tractors with a front axle (steer axle) less than or
equal to 14,600 pounds GAWR, and a combined GAWR for the rear two axles
(drive axles) less than or equal to 45,000 pounds. This more precise
classification will encompass the typical three-axle tractors NHTSA
that NHTSA intended it to encompass, without unintentionally including
a subset of non-typical tractors.

C. Fuel Tank Loading Specification

    In the final rule, NHTSA added a provision to FMVSS No. 121
specifying the level of fuel in the fuel tank is 100 percent of rated
capacity at the beginning of testing, and that the level is not less
than 75 percent of rated capacity during any part of the brake testing.
We stated that we believed that specifying this will reduce test
variability. In its petition, TMA requested that NHTSA rescind the fuel
tank loading specification, both for substantive and procedural
reasons. First, TMA raised a procedural objection, arguing that NHTSA
did not provide adequate notice in the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that it was considering adding a fuel tank fill specification.
Second, TMA argued that because tractors are configured with a wide
range of fuel storage options, specifying the level of fuel carried by
the vehicle as a proportion of the tank(s) may not reduce test
variability. Third, TMA stated that the fuel specification may result
in test complications in certain circumstances, such that a tractor
with a front axle that is already close to its rated load capacity in
the bobtail condition can have the front axle weight rating exceeded
when the additional weight of a roll bar and test equipment is combined
with full fuel tanks.
    NHTSA has considered TMA's petition on this issue, and has decided
to remove the fuel tank fill specification from the text of the
regulation. This decision is based on the procedural question of notice
alone. Having re-examined the NPRM, we agree that the NPRM did not
propose a specification for filling the fuel tanks.
    In these circumstances, we believe it is appropriate to briefly
address a number of the applicable test conditions as they currently
exist, and will continue to exist after the fuel tank specification is
removed. FMVSS No. 121 specifies vehicle weight conditions for its test
requirements, and, in conducting a compliance test, NHTSA follows those
conditions as it does other test conditions included in the standard.
    FMVSS No. 121 specifies various requirements that vehicles must
meet in loaded and lightly loaded conditions, including stopping
distance requirements. S5.3.1 refers to Table I. Table I, Stopping
Sequence, of FMVSS No. 121 provides that certain tests (including
stopping distance tests) are conducted with the vehicle at its gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR), and certain tests are conducted with the
vehicle at lightly loaded vehicle weight (LLVW).
    As to the loaded tests, GVWR is a term that is defined at 49 CFR
571.3. We also note that the standard specifies various other
conditions related to weight for the loaded tests.
    Lightly loaded vehicle weight is determined by adding specified
additional weight to a vehicle's unloaded vehicle weight.\6\ The term
unloaded vehicle weight is defined at 49 CFR 571.3, and means the
weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for
operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories
that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use.
It thus includes the weight of full fuel tanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See S4 of 49 CFR 571.105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the stopping distance tests in a lightly loaded weight
condition, up to 500 pounds weight (including driver and
instrumentation) is added to the vehicle's unloaded vehicle weight. At
the manufacturer's option, an additional amount of weight that is not
more than 1000 pounds may be added for a roll bar structure. See
S<IP_ADDRESS> (b) and (c). We note that while different terminology is used
in some cases in these paragraphs with respect to a vehicle's unloaded
weight, in a short hand fashion, the meaning is the same. Thus,
``unloaded weight'' in the latter portions of paragraphs (b) and (c) of
S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 121 has the same meaning as ``unloaded vehicle
weight,'' and the reference to ``tractor only configuration'' at the
beginning of (b) has the same meaning as ``unloaded vehicle weight.''
    TMA raised a concern about the possible situation of the combined

weight of full fuel tanks, driver and instrumentation, and a roll bar
resulting in a vehicle's front axle rating being exceeded. TMA has not
demonstrated that there is a problem. The regulation has been in place
for years, and we have not encountered any problems. Roll bars are a
manufacturer option that manufacturers are not required to select, and
manufacturers can design their vehicles in ways to avoid this possible
problem.
    Moreover, as we have explained on a number of occasions,
manufacturers are not required to test their products in the manner
specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product
at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with
all applicable standards. A manufacturer may choose any valid 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 and to provide a
basis for its certification of compliance. Thus, a truck tractor
manufacturer may certify that a vehicle will comply with the lightly
loaded option in S<IP_ADDRESS>(b) of FMVSS No. 121 that does not include the
weight of a roll bar without testing in that specific manner.

D. Typographical Corrections

    All petitioners pointed out two typographical errors that appeared
in the regulatory text of the final rule. First, it was pointed out
that two-axle tractors were mistakenly omitted from the ``notes''
portion of Table II. All petitioners stated that two-axle tractors
should be added to the note for column three. Second, all petitioners
pointed out that note three, which at one point reads ``Four of more
axles,'' should read ``Four or more axles.'' NHTSA is changing the
tables in the regulatory text to reflect the changes discussed in this
response to petitions for reconsideration, and will correct these
errors in that process.

E. Stopping Distances at Reduced Test Speeds

    TMA, HDBMC, and Bendix raised concerns with the new stopping
distance requirements for tractors that would be subjected to brake
testing from initial speeds below 60 mph. Requirements in FMVSS No. 121
provide that if the speed attainable by a tractor in a distance of two
miles is less than 60 mph, the vehicle shall stop from a speed in Table
II that is four to eight mph less than the speed attainable in two
miles. In the final rule, the agency discussed its derivation of the
stopping distances for reduced test speeds associated with the new 250-
foot, 60 mph stopping distance requirement in Table II.
    Several petitioners raised questions regarding the agency's method
of calculating the required stopping distance at reduced speeds. HDBMC
stated that the new stopping distances had not been validated by
testing at reduced speeds, and stated that limited initial testing by
HDBMC members showed that tractors were close to meeting, or did not
meet, the 20 mph, 30-foot stopping distance with a ten-percent margin
of compliance. HDBMC stated that additional testing is planned and that
it will share this data with the agency when it is available. TMA and
Bendix similarly stated that further testing needs to be completed to
verify the calculations used to determine the stopping distances, and
TMA requested that the agency withdraw the reduced speed stopping
distances until it obtains more test data supporting the new
requirements.
    The agency concludes that it will need more time to complete an
analysis of this issue and therefore we are not addressing it in this
document, but we will do so in a subsequent response to petitions for
reconsideration.

III. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This action partially responds to petitions for reconsideration
regarding the July 27, 2009 final rule amending FMVSS No. 121. It was
not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866.
The agency has considered the impact of this action under the
Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979), and has determined that it is not
``significant'' under them.
    This final rule, partial response to petitions for reconsideration
corrects a table, adjusts the compliance date for a small number of
truck tractors not fully accounted for in the final rule, and removes a
testing specification. Today's action will not cause any additional
expenses for vehicle manufacturers, and will reduce some costs by
allowing longer compliance time for a small number of truck tractors,
thereby allowing a more reasonable schedule for improved brake design
and validation. Due to the relatively small number of tractors affected
and the fact that this is merely a change in the compliance dates, the
action will not have any significant safety impacts.

B. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all documents
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the document (or signing the document, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may
visit http://docketsinfo.dot.gov/.

C. Other Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

    In the July 27 final rule, the agency discussed relevant
requirements related to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Civil Justice Reform, the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act,
and Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks). As today's rule merely makes minor changes in
the lead time and test conditions, it will not have any effect on the
agency's analyses in those areas.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Tires.

IV. Regulatory Text

0
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA is amending 49 CFR Part 571 as
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Section 571.121 is amended by revising S5, removing S6.1.18, and
revising Tables II and IIa to read as follows:

Sec.  571.121  Standard No. 121; Air brake systems.

* * * * *
    S5. Requirements. Each vehicle shall meet the following
requirements under the conditions specified in S6. However, at the
option of the manufacturer, the following vehicles may meet the
stopping distance requirements specified in Table IIa instead of Table
II: Three-axle tractors with a front axle that has a GAWR of 14,600
pounds or less, and with two rear axles that have a combined GAWR of
45,000 pounds or

less, that are manufactured before August 1, 2011; and all other
tractors that are manufactured before August 1, 2013.
* * * * *

                                                           Table II--Stopping Distance in Feet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Service brake                              Emergency brake
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Vehicle speed in miles per hour                     PFC        PFC        PFC        PFC        PFC        PFC        PFC        PFC
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   0.9 (1)    0.9 (2)    0.9 (3)    0.9 (4)    0.9 (5)    0.9 (6)    0.9 (7)    0.9 (8)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20..............................................................         32         35         30         35         38         28         83         85
25..............................................................         49         54         45         54         59         43        123        131
30..............................................................         70         78         65         78         84         61        170        186
35..............................................................         96        106         89        106        114         84        225        250
40..............................................................        125        138        114        138        149        108        288        325
45..............................................................        158        175        144        175        189        136        358        409
50..............................................................        195        216        176        216        233        166        435        504
55..............................................................        236        261        212        261        281        199        520        608
60..............................................................        280        310        250        310        335        235        613        720
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:
(1) Loaded and Unloaded Buses.
(2) Loaded Single-Unit Trucks.
(3) Loaded Tractors with Two Axles; or with Three Axles and a GVWR of 70,000 lbs. or less; or with Four or More Axles and a GVWR of 85,000 lbs. or less.
  Tested with an Unbraked Control Trailer.
(4) Loaded Tractors with Three Axles and a GVWR greater than 70,000 lbs.; or with Four or More Axles and a GVWR greater than 85,000 lbs. Tested with an
  Unbraked Control Trailer.
(5) Unloaded Single-Unit Trucks.
(6) Unloaded Tractors (Bobtail).
(7) All Vehicles except Tractors, Loaded and Unloaded.
(8) Unloaded Tractors.

 Table IIa--Stopping Distance in Feet: Optional Requirements for: (1) Three-Axle Tractors With a Front Axle That
Has a GAWR of 14,600 Pounds or Less, and With Two Rear Axles That Have a Combined GAWR of 45,000 Pounds or Less,
        Manufactured Before August 1, 2011; and (2) All Other Tractors Manufactured Before August 1, 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Service brake                     Emergency brake
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Vehicle speed in miles per hour          PFC        PFC        PFC        PFC         PFC          PFC
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             0.9 (1)    0.9 (2)    0.9 (3)    0.9 (4)     0.9 (5)      0.9 (6)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20........................................         32         35         38         40           83           85
25........................................         49         54         59         62          123          131
30........................................         70         78         84         89          170          186
35........................................         96        106        114        121          225          250
40........................................        125        138        149        158          288          325
45........................................        158        175        189        200          358          409
50........................................        195        216        233        247          435          504
55........................................        236        261        281        299          520          608
60........................................        280        310        335        355          613          720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: (1) Loaded and unloaded buses; (2) Loaded single unit trucks; (3) Unloaded truck tractors and single unit
  trucks; (4) Loaded truck tractors tested with an unbraked control trailer; (5) All vehicles except truck
  tractors; (6) Unloaded truck tractors.

* * * * *

    Issued: November 6, 2009.
Ronald L. Medford,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-27231 Filed 11-9-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3378-3380]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0020; Notice 2]

Hankook Tire America Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Hankook Tire America Corporation (Hankook) has determined that
certain Hankook Dynapro MT2 tires, do not fully comply with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial
Tires for Light Vehicles. Hankook filed a noncompliance report dated
February 19, 2020, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on March 11, 2020,
for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant of
Hankook's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA),<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Hankook has determined that certain Hankook Dynapro MT2 tires, do
not fully comply with paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139, New pneumatic
radial tires for light vehicles (49 CFR 571.139).
    Hankook filed a noncompliance report dated February 19, 2020,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on March 11, 2020, 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 Hankook's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on August 28, 2020, in the Federal Register (85
FR 53436). One comment was 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-2020-0020.''

II. Tires Involved

    Approximately 175 Hankook Dynapro MT2 tires, size LT215/85R16,
manufactured between October 20, 2019, and November 30, 2019, are
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Hankook explains that the noncompliance is that the subject tires
were marked with the incorrect number of nylon plies in the tread; and,
therefore, do not meet the requirements of paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS
No. 139. Specifically, the tires were marked ``TREAD 2 STEEL + 2
POLYESTER + 1 NYLON; SIDEWALL 2 POLYESTER'', when they should have been
marked ``TREAD 2 STEEL + 2 POLYESTER + 2 NYLON; SIDEWALL 2 POLYESTER.''

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139, includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. Each tire must be marked on one sidewall
with the actual number of plies in the sidewall and the actual number
of plies in the tread area, if different, as specified in paragraph
S5.5(f).

V. Summary of Hankook's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Hankook's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided
by Hankook and do not reflect the views of the Agency. In its petition,
Hankook describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Hankook offers the following reasoning:
    1. The incorrect ply labeling information does not affect the
operational safety of vehicles on which the tires are mounted.
    2. The tires meet or exceed the performance requirements of FMVSS
No. 139, and they otherwise comply with the labeling and performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 139.
    3. Hankook is not aware of any warranty claims, field reports,
customer complaints, or any incidents, accidents, or injuries related
to the subject condition.
    4. Hankook cites the Transportation Recall, Enhancement,
Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act (Pub. L. 106-414) and
several of NHTSA's past grant notices of petitions for decisions of
inconsequential noncompliance concerning the mislabeling of ply
information and contend those are similar to the subject petition.
Hankook states that NHTSA has routinely concluded the number of

plies is inconsequential to vehicle safety. Hankook believes the same
reasoning applies to the subject tires and that mislabeling the number
of nylon plies does not affect the operational safety of the vehicles.
Further, Hankook states, the subject tires correctly label the number
of steel plies, alleviating the safety concern for the tire retread,
repair, and recycling industries.''
    Hankook argues 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.
    Hankook's complete petition and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at: https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online
search instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title
of this notice.

VI. Public Comment

    NHTSA received one comment from the general public regarding
Hankook's petition from Mr. Bruce Grim.\1\ Mr. Grim stated that
although mislabeling a tire sidewall may seem inconsequential, for some
in the industry it is still an important aspect of safety for
consumers. He suggested that the public is not sufficiently notified at
the point of sale of the potential perils or hazards due to the subject
noncompliance. Mr. Grim also states that in the event of a recall, it
is important that retailers and consumers can identify the subject
tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2020-0020-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. NHTSA's Analysis

A. General Principles

    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality is
the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\2\ In general, NHTSA does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \3\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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).
    \3\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \4\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected have also not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\5\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality.
Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant who is
exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
    \6\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. NHTSA's Response to Hankook's Petition

    NHTSA has evaluated the merits of the inconsequential noncompliance
petition submitted by the petitioner and agrees that, based on the
facts presented, this specific noncompliance of the subject tires is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The Agency considered the
following prior to making this determination:
    1. Operational Safety & Performance: NHTSA agrees that in this
case, the incorrect number of nylon plies labeled on the tire has no
effect on the operational safety of vehicles when the affected tires
meet the other performance and labeling requirements of the applicable
FMVSS.
    2. Tire Identification and Traceability: The tires have the
required information per 49 CFR 574.5 to ensure that the tires may be
properly registered for the purposes of a safety recall. The entire
TIN, including the plant code and manufacturing date is both legible
and easily discernible.
    3. Downstream Operations: The Agency must also consider other
stakeholders, in addition to the manufacturer and end-user. Downstream
entities involved in tire repair, retreading, and recycling operations
require certain information to determine if tires may be safely used in
their operations. The existence of steel in a tire's sidewall and tread
can be relevant to the manner in which it should be repaired or
retreaded. The use of steel cord construction in the sidewall and tread
is the primary safety concern of these industries. The Agency believes
the noncompliance of the subject tires will have no measurable effect
on the safety of the tire retread, repair, and recycling industries
since the tire sidewalls are marked correctly for the number of steel
plies.
    4. Consumer Feedback and Focus Groups: The Agency has concluded,
based on previous feedback, that the tire construction information,
specifically the number of plies and cord material in the sidewall and
tread plies, influences very few consumers when they are deciding to
buy a motor vehicle or replacement tires. This conclusion is based on
information gathered from the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) that was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2000,
(65 FR 75222).
    5. Public Comments: In response to Mr. Grim's comments, the Agency
agrees that the safety of the end-users is a priority and has taken
that into consideration when analyzing this petition. Furthermore, the
Agency agrees that the user's ability to identify a tire in the event
of a recall is important and finds nothing in the facts of this
petition that would impede tire identification of the subject tires in
the event of a recall.
    In summary, the Agency believes that the specific incorrect
labeling of the tire construction information present in this instance
will have an inconsequential effect on motor vehicle safety or any
related downstream tire repair, retread, or recycling operations.

VIII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Hankook has met
its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 139 noncompliance
in the affected tires is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Hankook's petition is hereby granted and Hankook 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 tires that Hankook no longer controlled at
the time it determined that the noncompliance existed. However, the
granting of this petition does not relieve equipment distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant tires under their control after Hankook notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-01133 Filed 1-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: October 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 194)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62023-62024]
[DOCID:fr07oc10-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM10-23-000]

Transmission Planning and Cost Allocation by Transmission Owning
and Operating Public Utilities

September 29, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for reply comments.

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

SUMMARY: On June 17, 2010, the Commission issued a Notice of proposed
rulemaking (75 FR 37884) proposing to amend the transmission planning
and cost allocation requirements established in Order No. 890 to ensure
that Commission-jurisdictional services are provided on a basis that is
just, reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential. With
respect to transmission planning, the proposed rule would provide that
local and regional transmission planning processes account for
transmission needs driven by public policy requirements established by
state or federal laws or regulations; improve coordination between
neighboring transmission planning regions with respect to interregional
facilities; and remove from Commission-approved tariffs or agreements a
right of first refusal created by those documents that provides an
incumbent transmission provider with an undue advantage over a
nonincumbent transmission developer. Neither incumbent nor nonincumbent
transmission facility developers should, as a result of a Commission-
approved tariff or agreement, receive different treatment in a regional
transmission planning process. Further, both should share similar
benefits and obligations commensurate with that participation,
including the right, consistent with state or local laws or
regulations, to construct and own a facility that it sponsors in a
regional transmission planning process and that is selected for
inclusion in the regional transmission plan. With respect to cost
allocation, the proposed rule would establish a closer link between
transmission planning processes and cost allocation and would require
cost allocation methods for intraregional and interregional
transmission facilities to satisfy newly established cost allocation
principles. The Commission is providing interested persons an
opportunity to file reply comments on the proposed rule.

DATES: Reply comments to the proposed rule published June 30, 2010 (75
FR 37884) are due November 12, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit reply comments, identified by Docket No.
RM10-23-000, by any of the following methods:
     Agency Web Site: http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created
electronically using word processing software should be filed in native
applications or print-to-PDF format and not in a scanned format.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of
their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the
Secretary, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Russell Profozich (Technical
Information), Office of Energy Policy and Innovation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    John Cohen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice Establishing Reply Comment Period

    On September 28, 2010, Western Independent Transmission Group filed
a motion to establish a period for filing reply comments to the
Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking issued June 17, 2010, in the
above-docketed proceeding.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 131 FERC ] 61,253 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The period for filing initial comments in this proceeding ran
through September 29, 2010. Upon

consideration, the Commission establishes a period for filing reply
comments in this proceeding, which will run to and including November
12, 2010.
    Any interested person may file a reply to initial comments made by
other interested persons in this proceeding. Reply comments should not
raise new arguments that are not directly responsive to arguments
presented in initial comments, nor should a reply be repetitive of
arguments that an interested person made in its initial comments.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24976 Filed 10-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60044-60046]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24166]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2012-0571]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; DeStefano Wedding Fireworks Display, Patchogue Bay,
Patchogue, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of Patchogue Bay, in Patchogue, NY for the DeStefano
family wedding fireworks display. This action is necessary to provide
for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. Entering
into, transiting through, remaining, anchoring or mooring within this
regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port (COTP) Sector Long Island Sound.

DATES: This rule is effective from November 1, 2012 until 10:30 p.m. on
November 4, 2012.
    This will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. on November 3, 2012 until
10:30 p.m. on November 4, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2012-0571]. 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 Joseph Graun, Prevention Department, Coast
Guard Sector Long Island Sound,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On August 3, 2012 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; DeStefano Wedding Fireworks Display,
Patchogue Bay, Patchogue, NY in the Federal Register (77 FR 46349).
    We received no comments and no requests for a public meeting.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46
U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 which collectively authorize
the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones.
    This temporary regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of
vessels and spectators from hazards associated with fireworks display.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    We received no comments and no changes have been made to the rule.

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.
    The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a
significant regulatory action for the following reasons: The regulated
area is of limited duration and covers only a small portion of the
navigable waterways. Also, mariners may request permission from the
COTP Sector Long Island Sound or the designated representative to
transit the zone.
    Advanced public notifications will be made to the local maritime
community through the Local Notice to Mariners as well as Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.

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 received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. 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 enter,
transit, anchor or moor within the regulated area during the
enforcement period. The temporary safety zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons: the regulated area is of limited size and of
short duration and mariners may request permission from the COTP Sector
Long Island Sound or the designated representative to transit the zone.
Notifications will be made to the maritime community through the Local
Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of
the event.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. 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 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.
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 AREA AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0571 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0571  Safety Zone; DeStefano Wedding Fireworks Display
Patchogue Bay, Patchogue, NY

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
Patchogue Bay within a 1000-foot radius of the fireworks barge located
off Patchogue, NY in approximate position 40[deg]44'44.47'' N,
073[deg]00'41.25'' W North American Datum 1983.
    (b) Notification. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound will cause
notifications to be made to the local maritime community through all
appropriate means such as Local Notice to Mariners or Broadcast Notice
to Mariners well in advance of the event.
    (c) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from 8:30 p.m.
until 10:30 p.m. on November 3, 2012. If the event is postponed due to
inclement weather, then this rule will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. until
10:30 p.m. on November 4, 2012.
    (d) Regulations. The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23
apply. During the enforcement period, entering into, transiting
through, remaining, mooring or anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or the
designated representatives.
    (1) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (i) Designated Representative. A ``designated representative'' is
any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S.
Coast Guard who has been designated by the COTP, Sector Long Island
Sound, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative may
be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate
with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. In addition, members of
the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of
this regulation.
    (ii) Official Patrol Vessels. Official patrol vessels may consist
of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law
enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP Sector Long Island
Sound.
    (iii) Spectators. All persons and vessels not registered with the
event sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels.
    (2) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
regulated area should contact the COTP Sector Long Island Sound at 203-
468-4401 (Sector LIS command center) or the designated representative
via VHF channel 16 to obtain permission to do so.
    (3) Spectators or other vessels shall not anchor, block, loiter, or
impede the transit of event participants or official patrol vessels in
the regulated area during the effective dates and times, or dates and
times as modified through the Local Notice to Mariners, unless
authorized by COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated
representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel or the
designated representative, by siren, radio, flashing light or other
means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed. Failure to
comply with a lawful direction may result in expulsion from the area,
citation for failure to comply, or both.
    (5) The COTP Sector Long Island Sound or designated representative
may delay or terminate any marine event in this subpart at any time it
is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of life or property.
    (6) Fireworks barges used in this location will have a sign on
their port and starboard side labeled ``FIREWORKS--STAY AWAY''. This
sign will consist of 10 inch high by 1.5 inch wide red lettering on a
white background.

    Dated: September 21, 2012.
H.L. Najarian,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Sector Long
Island Sound.
[FR Doc. 2012-24166 Filed 10-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P