[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10742-10744]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03586]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1035; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01017-T;
Amendment 39-21430; AD 2021-04-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria
Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. (Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer
S.A.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. Model
EMB-135, EMB-145, -145EP, -145ER, -145LR, -145MP, -145MR, and -145XR
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports that calculations provided
by the automatic takeoff thrust control system (ATTCS) are incorrect
under certain conditions. This AD requires updating the software of the
installed full authority digital engine control (FADEC) systems, as
specified in an Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil
(ANAC) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this
AD

to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 30, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 30,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For ANAC material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC), Aeronautical
Products Certification Branch (GGCP), Rua Dr. Orlando Feirabend Filho,
230--Centro Empresarial Aquarius--Torre B--Andares 14 a 18, Parque
Residencial Aquarius, CEP 12.246-190--S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos
Campos--SP, BRAZIL, Tel: 55 (12) 3203-6600; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
internet www.anac.gov.br/en/. You may find this IBR material on the
ANAC website at https://sistemas.anac.gov.br/certificacao/DA/DAE.asp.
You may view this IBR material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2020-1035.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
1035; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Arrigotti, Aerospace
Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206-231-
3218; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The ANAC, which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued
ANAC AD 2020-07-02, effective July 21, 2020 (ANAC AD 2020-07-02) (also
referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Yabor[atilde]
Ind[uacute]stria Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. Model EMB-135, EMB-145, -
145EP, -145ER, -145LR, -145MP, -145MR, and -145XR airplanes. Model EMB-
145EU, EMB-145LU, and EMB-145MK airplanes are not certificated by the
FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this
AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Yabor[atilde]
Ind[uacute]stria Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. Model EMB-135, EMB-145, -
145EP, -145ER, -145LR, -145MP, -145MR, and -145XR airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on November 27, 2020 (85 FR 75964).
The NPRM was prompted by reports that calculations provided by the
ATTCS are incorrect under certain conditions. The NPRM proposed to
require updating the software of the installed FADEC systems, as
specified in ANAC AD 2020-07-02.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or
on the determination of the cost to the public.

Changes Made to This AD

    Paragraph (c) of this AD has been revised to correct the reference
to Model EMB-145ER airplanes.
    Certain paragraph designations have been corrected in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety
and the public interest require adopting this final rule with the
changes described previously and minor editorial changes. The FAA has
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    ANAC AD 2020-07-02 describes procedures for updating the software
of the installed FADEC systems to version B9.4 or B9.4.1. This material
is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to
it through their normal course of business or by the means identified
in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 494 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $425...........................              $0             $425         $209,950
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2021-04-09 Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria Aeron[aacute]utica S.A.
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Embraer S.A.): Amendment 39-
21430; Docket No. FAA-2020-1035; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01017-
T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 30, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Yabor[atilde] Ind[uacute]stria
Aeron[aacute]utica S.A. Model EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, and
-135LR airplanes; and Model EMB-145, -145EP, -145ER, -145LR, -145MP,
-145MR, and -145XR airplanes; certificated in any category; as
identified in Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil
(ANAC) AD 2020-07-02, effective July 21, 2020 (ANAC AD 2020-07-02).

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 73, Engine fuel
and control.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that calculations provided by
the automatic takeoff thrust control system (ATTCS) are incorrect
under certain conditions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the
risk of over-prediction of the operational margins, without the
necessary alert being provided to the flightcrew in some situations.
This condition, if not corrected, could lead to a performance
reduction during takeoff, in which case the airplane may not be able
to take off safely.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, ANAC AD 2020-07-02.

(h) Exceptions to ANAC AD 2020-07-02

    (1) Where ANAC AD 2020-07-02 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Alternative method of compliance (AMOC)'' section of
ANAC AD 2020-07-02 does not apply to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or ANAC; or ANAC's
authorized Designee. If approved by the ANAC Designee, the approval
must include the Designee's authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Kathleen Arrigotti,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC)
AD 2020-07-02, effective July 21, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For ANAC AD 2020-07-02, contact National Civil Aviation
Agency (ANAC), Aeronautical Products Certification Branch (GGCP),
Rua Dr. Orlando Feirabend Filho, 230--Centro Empresarial Aquarius--
Torre B--Andares 14 a 18, Parque Residencial Aquarius, CEP 12.246-
190--S[atilde]o Jos[eacute] dos Campos--SP, BRAZIL, Tel: 55 (12)
3203-6600; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.anac.gov.br/en/. You
may find this IBR material on the ANAC website at https://sistemas.anac.gov.br/certificacao/DA/DAE.asp.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1035.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on February 5, 2021.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-03586 Filed 2-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 203)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64972-64973]
[DOCID:fr21oc10-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0772; Airspace Docket No. 10-ASW-10]

Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; Lone Star, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to remove Class E airspace at Lone Star,
TX. Abandonment of the former Lone Star Steel Company Airport and
cancellation of all Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) has
eliminated the need for controlled airspace in the Lone Star, TX, area.
The FAA is taking this action to ensure the efficient use of airspace
within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2010-0772/Airspace Docket No. 10-
ASW-10, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2010-0772/
Airspace Docket No. 10-ASW-10.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's
should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by removing the Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface at the former Lone Star Steel Company
Airport, Lone Star, TX. The airport has been abandoned and all SIAPs
have been cancelled, therefore, controlled airspace is no longer needed
for the safety and management of IFR operations.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would remove controlled airspace at the former Lone Star Steel
Company Airport, Lone Star, TX.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 18,
2010, and effective September 15, 2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Lone Star, TX [Removed]

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 6, 2010.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-26533 Filed 10-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 18026-18028]
[DOCID:fr02ap08-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57574; File No. SR-NSX-2008-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Extend the Effective Period for Rule 2.12, Regarding Third-Party
Routing Services in Respect of Orders Entered into NSX BLADE

March 27, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 24, 2008, the National Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NSX'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comment on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is proposing to extend the effective period for Rule
2.12, which describes the terms under which the Exchange provides
routing services procured from a third party with respect to orders
entered into its trading system, NSX BLADE. The Exchange is also
proposing to extend the delay in effectiveness of Rule 2.11, which
relates to the outbound routing function of the Exchange's affiliate,
NSX Securities, LLC (``NSX Securities'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nsx.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rules 2.11 and 2.12 to
extend the effective period for Rule 2.12 (relating to the Exchange's
use of a third party to provide outbound routing of orders from the
Exchange to other trading centers (``Routing Services'')) through
September 30, 2008, and to delay the effectiveness of Rule 2.11
(relating to the outbound routing function of the Exchange's affiliate,
NSX Securities) until October 1, 2008.
    Rule 2.11 provides for certain terms and conditions under which NSX
Securities, an affiliate of the Exchange, will provide Routing
Services. Rule 2.11 was approved by the Commission in connection with
the approval of the Exchange's new trading rules relating to NSX BLADE
on August 31, 2006.\5\ The Exchange filed and received approval for the
addition of Rule 2.12, which provides for terms and conditions of the
Exchange's use of a third party to provide Routing Services.\6\ The
Exchange subsequently filed to extend the effective period for Rule
2.12.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54391, 71 FR 52836
(September 7, 2006) (SR-NSX-2006-08).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54808 (November 21,
2006), 71 FR 69163 (November 29, 2006) (SR-NSX-2006-15)
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55624 (April 12,
2007), 72 FR 19732 (April 19, 2007) (SR NSX 2007-04); 56067 (July
13, 2007), 72 FR 39650 (July 19, 2007) (SR-NSX-2007-08); and 56587
(October 1, 2007), 72 FR 57087 (October 5, 2007) (SR-NSX-2007-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 2.12 currently is effective through March 31, 2008, with Rule
2.11 becoming effective on April 1, 2008. In connection with the rule
filing adding Rule 2.12,\8\ the Exchange requested this finite period
of effectiveness so that the Exchange could offer routing services
through NSX BLADE while NSX Securities completed its registration
process as a broker-dealer with the National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc. (and thus became available to provide routing
services),\9\ and while

the Exchange evaluated its options for providing routing services to
ETP Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54808 (November 21,
2006), 71 FR 69163 (November 29, 2006) (SR-NSX-2006-15).
    \9\ In January 2007, NSX Securities' application for
registration as a broker-dealer was approved by the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. To date, the Exchange has
not used NSX Securities for routing services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the instant rule filing, the Exchange is proposing to extend the
effectiveness of Rule 2.12 through September 30, 2008,\10\ and to delay
the effectiveness of Rule 2.11 until October 1, 2008, in order to allow
the Exchange more time to evaluate its options for providing routing
services to ETP Holders and make any system changes, if necessary. The
ability to route orders entered into NSX BLADE to away markets for
execution at the best available prices is a key feature of NSX's new
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange is requesting an additional six month
extension as an outer time limit so as to limit the need for any
further extensions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange intends to provide routing services in accordance with
Rule 2.12 until September 30, 2008, unless the Exchange, with the
Commission's approval, amends Rule 2.12 before such date. During such
time period, the Exchange intends to evaluate its options for providing
routing services and make any necessary system changes. At the
conclusion of such time period, the Exchange may decide to (i) Continue
the approach provided for in Rule 2.12 on a permanent basis, and not
use NSX Securities as the outbound router (by filing a proposed rule
change to delete Rule 2.11 and renumbering Rule 2.12); (ii) use the
Exchange's original approach of NSX Securities as an outbound router
and discontinue the approach provided for in Rule 2.12 (by filing a
proposed rule change to delete Rule 2.12); or (iii) file a proposed
rule change to allow ETP Holders to use either NSX Securities or the
approach provided for in proposed Rule 2.12 for outbound routing.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, which requires, among
other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any inappropriate burden on competition.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing rule does not (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission,\13\ the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\15\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NSX fulfilled this requirement.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act,\16\ the proposal does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that
the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay, so that the proposal
may take effect upon filing, which will allow Rule 2.12 to remain in
effect, and the effectiveness of Rule 2.11 to continue to be delayed,
without interruption. The Commission believes that the proposal raises
no new issues and that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposal may take effect upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay of
this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NSX-2008-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2008-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also
will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of
the NSX. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions

should refer to File Number SR-NSX-2008-08 and should be submitted on
or before April 23, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-6776 Filed 4-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76230-76233]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26959]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0125; Notice 2]

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

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Nuschler, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Mercedes-Benz has determined that certain MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz AMG
GT motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S5.3.1(c) of FMVSS
No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact (49 CFR 571.201).
    Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated October 18, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and

Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on November 7, 2019, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of Mercedes-Benz's petition was published, with a
30-day public comment period, on May 21, 2020, in the Federal Register
(85 FR 31023). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management Systems
(FDMS) website at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0125.''

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 12 MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz GT63, GT53, and GT63S AMG
motor vehicles, manufactured between August 29, 2017, and March 4,
2019, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Mercedes-Benz explains that an interior compartment door assembly
in the subject vehicles does not meet the requirements of paragraph
S5.3.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201. Specifically, the front center console
storage compartment sliding lid may open briefly in certain types of
forward crashes.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraphs S5.3, S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201, include
the requirements relevant to this petition. Each interior compartment
door assembly located in an instrument panel, console assembly, seat
back, or side panel adjacent to a designated seating position shall
remain closed when tested in accordance with either S5.3.1(a) and
S5.3.1(b) or S5.3.1(a) and S5.3.1(c). S5.3.1(a) subjects the interior
compartment door latch system to an inertia load of 10g in a horizontal
transverse direction and an inertia load of 10g in a vertical direction
in accordance with the procedure described in section 5 of SAE
Recommended Practice J839b (1965) (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
571.5), or an approved equivalent. Further, S5.3.1(c) subjects the
interior compartment door latch system to a horizontal inertia load of
30g in a longitudinal direction in accordance with the procedure
described in section 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b (1965)
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  571.5), or an approved
equivalent.

V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Mercedes-Benz's Petition,'' are the views and arguments
provided by Mercedes-Benz. They do not reflect the views of the Agency.
Mercedes-Benz describes the subject noncompliance and contends that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Background: Prior to the introduction of the MY 2019 AMG GT
vehicles to the United States market, MB AG found that the lid of the
front center console could open for a matter of milliseconds and that
the supplier of the compartment had tested the locking mechanism of the
door with 24g of force, instead of the 30g force requirement contained
in S5.3.1(c). The crash lock was updated in production, prior to
introduction to the U.S. market, to ensure conformance to the force
requirements in S5.3.1(c) and vehicles in the company's possession were
reworked.\1\ MB AG later identified 12 vehicles that had not received
the improved crash lock mechanism prior to being released into the
field and made a determination to submit a part 573 Noncompliance
Information Report on October 11, 2019. In support of its petition,
Mercedes-Benz submits the following reasoning:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    1. At issue in this petition are a total of 12 MY 2019 Mercedes-
Benz AMG GT vehicles. MB AG previously determined that the interior
compartment door located within the vehicle's center console does not
fully meet the requirement in FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in
Interior Impact, when tested to the demonstration procedure for frontal
crash set forth in the standard. In a frontal crash scenario, there is
a possibility for the lid of the interior compartment door in the
center console to open for a matter of milliseconds, after which the
door will automatically close again.
    2. Mercedes-Benz states that due to the location and geometry of
the compartment door, there is no risk of injury even if it were to
open in a frontal crash. Mercedes-Benz states that the door is located
in the center console, below the invehicle display, and does not
present an opportunity to strike vehicle occupants when opened.
Further, because the design of the door slides forward and into the
center console when it opens, there is similarly no risk of injury from
the performance of the door. Finally, although the purpose and
objective of the standard is to protect against injury from hard and
sharp surfaces in the event of a crash, because the compartment door
will automatically close within an extremely short period of time (a
matter of milliseconds) from opening and because the door may only open
during a frontal crash in which case any objects within the compartment
would only move in a forward direction and not rearward into the
occupant compartment, there is no risk of harm from objects inside the
compartment escaping into the occupant space.
    3. The Performance of the Compartment Door Does Not Create an
Increased Safety Risk: Mercedes-Benz cites the provisions of the Safety
Act, 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the basis upon which NHTSA
evaluates an inconsequentiality petition ``whether an occupant who is
affected by the noncompliance is likely to be exposed to a
significantly greater risk than an occupant in a compliant vehicle.''
See 69 FR 19897, 19900 (April 14, 2004) (emphasis added).
    As described below, the issue here does not impact the operational
safety of the vehicle and will not create an enhanced risk to vehicle
occupants because, in the limited, frontal crash scenario in which the
door could potentially open, neither the door itself nor any objects
within the compartment could cause injury to vehicle occupants.
    4. Description of the Compartment Door: Mercedes-Benz explains that
the interior compartment door at issue in this petition is a storage
compartment used in vehicles with the Wireless Media Interface (WMI)
package. The WMI feature allows users to wirelessly charge cell phones
within the compartment and the compartment can also be used to store
small objects like coins and accessories. The compartment is located
within the center console between the driver and front passenger's seat
and the storage portion of the compartment is approximately 15 cm/6
inches long and 13 cm/5 inches deep.
    In normal use, the door remains shut until an occupant pushes the
door forward. The door moves forward in an upward direction, towards
the front of the vehicle. When reaching the top, the door is enclosed
within the housing of the compartment itself and, with an additional
push is snapped into place to remain open. Once it is snapped into
place, in order to close the door an

occupant can pull the door slightly from the housing. The door then
closes automatically. As a result, if the door does open briefly during
a frontal crash and is not pushed fully into the latched open position,
Mercedes-Benz states it will quickly and automatically close.
    5. It is Not Possible for the Compartment Door to Strike Occupants:
Mercedes-Benz states that the performance of the interior compartment
door does not present any of the safety risks contemplated by FMVSS No.
201 because there is no risk of vehicle occupants coming into contact
with or striking the compartment door. When originally promulgated, the
interior compartment door provisions in FMVSS No. 201 were focused on
preventing injuries that could occur from hard interior doors, such as
the glove compartment door, striking an occupant. See 33 FR 15794
(October 24, 1968) (considering ``the potential injury that can be
caused by an open interior compartment door because . . . [prior
requirements] do not afford protection against the type of protrusion
created by an open interior compartment door'') (emphasis added); see
also Letter to M. Smith, August 26, 1988 (``the purpose of the
requirement is to prevent a door from flying open and striking an
occupant in a crash.'') The standard, which was also promulgated at a
time when seat belt use was substantially lower than it is today, was
directed toward mitigating injuries that can be caused by interior
doors with hard and sharp surfaces opening unexpectedly. That risk is
not present here.
    The location, geometry, and operation of the compartment door
prevent it from causing or contributing to an injury in the event of a
crash. The door is located in the bottom of the center console, in the
area between the driver and front passenger seats. Mercedes-Benz states
that the door is installed in a location where it could not strike a
vehicle occupant should it open in a crash. The door, moreover, does
not have any sharp edges and is not comprised of a hard, metal surface.
    Further, Mercedes-Benz states that because of the manner in which
the door opens, there is no opportunity for the door to strike a
vehicle occupant. The door covering slides forwards and into the
housing of the compartment itself, it does not extend outwards into the
passenger compartment which is the concern that the standard is
intended to address. In typical use, the operator slides the door
covering away towards the front of the vehicle, away from the occupant
compartment and into the center console where it becomes fully enclosed
within the housing. By contrast, glove box doors and other interior
compartment doors on hinges that open outwards and into the occupant
compartment are the traditional types of doors that FMVSS No. 201 was
designed to address because the door's surface could come into contact
with a vehicle occupant if it opened in a crash. Mercedes-Benz contends
that this same risk does not exist with the door covering in the AMG
vehicles based on its geometry and design.
    Additionally, the compartment door will automatically close after
opening if it has not been snapped into place to stay open. In the
event of a frontal crash force that is severe enough to cause the door
to open, the door would open for an extremely short period of time, a
matter of milliseconds, and then would automatically pull back into
place and the door will close again. Because of the design and
operation of the door, it remains open for a matter of milliseconds
seconds after which it will retreat back into its fully closed
position.
    6. There is No Risk of Injury to Occupants from Objects Escaping
the Compartment: Mercedes-Benz states there is no potential for items
inside the storage compartment to escape and injure vehicle occupants.
Although the scope of the standard has always been focused on risks of
injury presented by the hard surface of vehicle doors opening in a
crash, Mercedes-Benz claims that there is similarly no enhanced risk to
safety from items escaping the compartment and causing injury. The
compartment door has the potential to open only in specific situations,
a frontal crash with loads exceeding 24 g of force. Mercedes-Benz
states that the compartment door operates within the requirements of
the standard at all other times.\2\ Mercedes-Benz states that even in a
crash where the load force was severe enough, the compartment lid would
open and completely close again within approximately 250 ms of the
crash. Mercedes-Benz claims that even in a front end crash that was
severe enough to open the compartment door, the direction of the crash
forces precludes objects from escaping. In a front end collision with
high vehicle deceleration, any objects inside the storage compartment
at the time would shift forward, in the same direction in which the
vehicle is moving. According to Mercedes-Benz, because the force of
deceleration causes the items to shift forward, they will move forward
and deeper into the compartment and will remain enclosed within the
compartment during the crash event. During the intervening moments
following the crash, the door will automatically close and secure the
items within the compartment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    7. Mercedes-Benz states that the above described discrepancy does
not create a safety risk and that it is not aware of any warranty
claims, field reports, customer complaints, legal claims, or injuries
related to this noncompliance. Even if the compartment door was to open
in the event of a severe crash, there is no increased risk of injury
due to the location of the door covering itself, its operation and
design that allows it to retract into the console housing and the fact
that it will automatically close after an extremely short period of
time. Mercedes-Benz states that vehicle occupants are not at risk of
coming into contact with the door itself (when opened or closed) and
there is no risk of objects stored inside the compartment from escaping
into the occupant space.
    Mercedes-Benz concludes 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.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

    FMVSS No. 201 establishes performance requirements designed to
reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior
of a vehicle during a crash. S5.3 of FMVSS No. 201 specifies that doors
to interior compartments must remain latched when subjected to certain
forces that might be experienced in a crash.
    NHTSA notes first that a petitioner seeking relief from the
notification and remedy requirements must, when requesting the Agency
to grant a petition for inconsequential noncompliance, meet the burden
of persuasion to obtain relief. Further, the burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in a standard--as opposed to a labeling requirement--is
more substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not
found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\3\ Potential
performance

failures of safety-critical equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are
rarely deemed inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality
based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues was the
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\4\ NHTSA also 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.'' \5\
``[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.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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).
    \5\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \6\ 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.\7\ 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.\8\ These
considerations are also relevant when considering whether a defect is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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).
    \8\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mercedes-Benz states that the door is located in the center
console, below the in-vehicle display, and does not present an
opportunity to strike vehicle occupants when opened. Further, Mercedes-
Benz states the design of the door slides forward and into the center
console when it opens and presents little or no opportunity for any
contact between the vehicle's occupants and the door. Finally, although
the purpose and objective of the standard are to protect against injury
from hard and sharp surfaces in the event of a crash, Mercedes-Benz
states the compartment door will automatically close within 250 ms.
    Without presenting any test data or other information supporting
this thesis, Mercedes-Benz argues that in a frontal crash there is the
possibility that the center console door will open for a matter of
milliseconds then automatically close. Specifically, Mercedes-Benz
represents that there is ``no risk of injury to occupants from objects
escaping the compartment . . . only opening in crash loads exceeding 24
g of force . . . and would open and completely close within
approximately 250 ms.'' NHTSA notes that frontal crash events, such as
seen in NHTSA FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection compliance tests
or New Car Assessment Program Tests, terminate in 150 ms or less and
can exceed 24 g.
    NHTSA finds that in the instant case, the mere assertion that the
center console door will open for up to 250 ms and then automatically
close is not sufficiently persuasive to justify granting the relief
Mercedes-Benz seeks. In addition, the Agency has never made a
distinction between sliding interior compartment doors and other,
pivoting or hinged doors that project outward when opened. Mercedes-
Benz asserts that an open sliding compartment door does not present a
potential for occupant injury because an open sliding compartment door
does not project outward into the interior of the vehicle. S5.3 of
FMVSS No. 201 requires that doors in the console or a side panel remain
closed regardless of the method by which a manufacturer chooses to open
or close them. The concern that an open door could cause occupant
injury is not limited to a protrusion created by an open door. Rather,
the concern addressed by the requirement is that a sharp or rigid
surface does not expose an occupant to undue risk of injury. In other
words, we do not consider the risk posed by the sharp edges of the door
itself to be the only risk addressed by FMVSS No. 201. Surfaces that
should be masked by a door may themselves pose risks to occupants
during a crash.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Agency Interpretation to D. Haenchen, Volkswagen of
America, Inc., February 12, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Mercedes-Benz represents that it is ``not aware of any
warranty claims, field reports, customer complaints, legal claims, or
injuries related to this noncompliance.'' As noted above, NHTSA does
not consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the
issue is inconsequential to safety.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA finds that Mercedes-Benz has not met its burden of persuasion
that the FMVSS No. 201 noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates
to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, the petition is hereby denied and
Mercedes-Benz is not exempt from the obligation to provide notification
of, and remedy for, the subject noncompliance in the affected vehicles
under 49 U.S.C. 30018 and 30120.

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

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-26959 Filed 12-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7583-7584]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02402]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1465; Airspace Docket No. 22-AGL-35]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Minocqua-Woodruff, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class E airspace at Minocqua-Woodruff,
WI. This action is due to an airspace review conducted as part of the
decommissioning of the Woodruff localizer (LOC). The name of the
airport is also being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 20, 2023. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Lakeland Airport/Noble F. Lee Memorial Field, Minocqua-
Woodruff, WI, to support instrument flight rule operations at this
airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (87 FR 74049; December 2, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-1465
to amend the Class E airspace at Minocqua-Woodruff, WI. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September
15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Lakeland Airport/
Noble F. Lee Memorial Field, Minocqua-Woodruff, WI, by adding an
extension 4 miles each side of the 001[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 11.5 miles north of the airport;
removes the city associated with the airport from the airspace legal
description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures
for Handling Airspace Matters; and updates the name of the airport
(previously Lakeland/Nobel F. Lee Memorial Field Airport) to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    This action is due to an airspace review conducted as part of the
decommissioning of the Woodruff LOC which provided navigation
information for the instrument procedures at this airport.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AGL WI E5 Minocqua-Woodruff, WI [Amended]

Lakeland Airport/Noble F. Lee Memorial Field, WI
    (Lat. 45[deg]55'41'' N, long. 89[deg]43'51'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of the Lakeland Airport/Noble F. Lee
Memorial Field Airport; and within 4 miles each side of the 001[deg]
bearing from the airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius to 11.5
miles north of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 1, 2023.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-02402 Filed 2-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P