Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 47731 

4HFT’s petition and the attachments can be 

found in full at https://www.regulations.gov by 

following the online instructions for accessing the 

docket. The docket ID number for this petition is 

shown in the heading of this notice. 

5See General Motors Corporation; Grant of 

Application for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance; 61 FR 1663, January 22, 1996; see 

also BMW of North America, LLC, Grant of Petition 

for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 82 

FR 55484, November 21, 2017. 

6See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; 

Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated 

Equipment; 83 FR 51766, October 12, 2018. 

In each of the samples, HFT states that 

the deviation is well within 25% of the 

required values. The plot diagram at 

Attachment 7 4 provides a visual 

depiction of the relationship between 

the two outlier values to the 520 cd 

minimum for the Zone 3 test results for 

the submersible trailer light kits tested 

by Calcoast. The plot diagram at 

Attachment 8 gives a visual depiction of 

the relationship between the outlier 

values and the photometric 

requirements for the magnetic trailer 

light kits. 

4. HFT states that an alternative basis 

on which to grant the petition is the 

performance exceedances of each of the 

other surrounding zones. Zones 1, 2, 4 

and 5 all exceeded the minimum 

candela value for their respective zone 

by wide margins (e.g. from a range of 

27%–44% higher than the minimum 

candela value for the zone for one 

sample and 26%–37% higher than the 

minimum candela value for each zone 

for the other sample). Thus, HFT claims 

the minor discrepancy in one zone is 

offset by the substantial (and compliant) 

exceedances in the remaining zones. 

Taking the performance of the lamp as 

a whole, and because drivers view the 

output of lamps as a whole rather than 

at individual points within the lamp, 

the additional light from the other zones 

would compensate for the deviation in 

Zone 3. HFT states that this rationale is 

consistent with the agency’s findings in 

other similar petitions which concluded 

that enhanced photometric values in 

other areas of the same lamp could 

effectively minimize a minor deviation 

in one portion of the lamp.5

5. Separately, HFT also states that 

NHTSA has recognized the inherent 

challenges to manufacture all lamps so 

that each and every test point within the 

lamp meets the minimum criteria. HFT 

claims that is the case here. When HFT 

commissioned Calcoast to review and 

confirm the performance of these 

lighting products, it tested a total of 24 

sets of lamps produced over a seven 

month/year period. Of that universe, 

there were just two samples of 

submersible trailer light kits that had 

slightly reduced photometric values and 

three samples of the magnetic trailer 

light kit that experienced minimal 

exceedances. HFT claims that this 

indicates that the LED lamps were in 

fact designed to comply with FMVSS 

No. 108 and that the results of the 

monitoring testing indicate an isolated 

number of random failures, not a 

systemic lapse in production processes. 

NHTSA has stated that it will not 

consider a lamp to be noncompliant if 

its failure to meet a test point is random 

and occasional.6 Thus, historically, 

there has never been an absolute 

requirement that every motor vehicle 

lighting device meet every single 

photometric test point to comply with 

FMVSS No. 108. 

6. Finally, HFT has reviewed its 

systems and has not received any 

reports or complaints about the levels of 

brightness for these trailer lighting kits. 

The lack of reports or indications that 

the subject trailer lights are either too 

bright or too dim supports the 

conclusion that the condition is 

undetectable to road users such as 

drivers following a vehicle equipped 

with either of the lighting products. 

HFT is providing copies of the relevant 

Calcoast test reports with this petition at 

Attachment 2 for the submersible trailer 

light kits and at Attachments 3 and 4 for 

the magnetic trailer light kits. 

HFT 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. 

HFT’s complete petition and all 

supporting documents are available by 

logging onto the 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. 

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, any 

decision on this petition only applies to 

the subject equipment that HFT no 

longer controlled at the time it 

determined that the noncompliance 

existed. However, any decision on 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 equipment under 

their control after HFT 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. 2021–18355 Filed 8–25–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard; American Honda Motor Co., 

Inc. 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s 

(Honda) petition for exemption from the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard (theft prevention standard) for 

its Acura RDX vehicle line beginning in 

model year (MY) 2022. The petition is 

granted because the agency has 

determined that the antitheft device to 

be placed on the line as standard 

equipment is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2022 model year. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carlita Ballard, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, West Building, 

W43–439, NRM–310, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Ballard’s phone number is (202) 366– 

5222. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 

U.S.C. chapter 331, the Secretary of 

Transportation (and the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) by delegation) is required to 

promulgate a theft prevention standard 

to provide for the identification of 

certain motor vehicles and their major 

replacement parts to impede motor 

vehicle theft. NHTSA promulgated 

regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft 

prevention standard) to require partsVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Aug 25, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM 26AUN1

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
47732 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 

1 49 CFR 543.7 specifies that the manufacturer 

must include a statement that their entire vehicle 

line is equipped with an immobilizer that meets 

one of the following standards: 

(1) The performance criteria (subsections 8 

through 21) of C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection 

and Rollaway Prevention (in effect March 30, 2011), 

as excerpted in appendix A of [part 543]; 

(2) National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC– 

S338–98, Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment 

and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 

1998); 

(3) United Nations Economic Commission for 

Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97), 

Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval of 

Vehicle Alarm System (VAS) and Motor Vehicles 

with Regard to Their Alarm System (AS) in effect 

August 8, 2007; or 

(4) UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116), 

Uniform Technical Prescriptions Concerning the 

Protection of Motor Vehicles Against Unauthorized 

Use in effect on February 10, 2009. 2 49 U.S.C. 33106(d). 

3 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3). 

4 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4). 

5 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5). 

marking for specified passenger motor 

vehicles and light trucks. Pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 33106, manufacturers that are 

subject to the parts-marking 

requirements may petition the Secretary 

of Transportation for an exemption for 

a line of passenger motor vehicles 

equipped with an antitheft device as 

standard equipment that the Secretary 

decides is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements. In accordance 

with this statute, NHTSA promulgated 

49 CFR part 543, which establishes the 

process through which manufacturers 

may seek an exemption from the theft 

prevention standard. 

49 CFR 543.5 provides general 

submission requirements for petitions 

and states that each manufacturer may 

petition NHTSA for an exemption of 

one vehicle line per model year. Among 

other requirements, manufacturers must 

identify whether the exemption is 

sought under section 543.6 or section 

543.7. Under section 543.6, a 

manufacturer may request an exemption 

by providing specific information about 

the antitheft device, its capabilities, and 

the reasons the petitioner believes the 

device to be as effective at reducing and 

deterring theft as compliance with the 

parts-marking requirements. Section 

543.7 permits a manufacturer to request 

an exemption under a more streamlined 

process if the vehicle line is equipped 

with an antitheft device (an 

‘‘immobilizer’’) as standard equipment 

that complies with one of the standards 

specified in that section.1

Section 543.8 establishes 

requirements for processing petitions for 

exemption from the theft prevention 

standard. As stated in section 543.8(a), 

NHTSA processes any complete 

exemption petition. If NHTSA receives 

an incomplete petition, NHTSA will 

notify the petitioner of the deficiencies. 

Once NHTSA receives a complete 

petition the agency will process it and, 

in accordance with section 543.8(b), 

will grant the petition if it determines 

that, based upon substantial evidence, 

the standard equipment antitheft device 

is likely to be as effective in reducing 

and deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of part 541. 

Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to 

issue its decision either to grant or to 

deny an exemption petition not later 

than 120 days after the date on which 

a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA 

does not make a decision within the 

120-day period, the petition shall be 

deemed to be approved and the 

manufacturer shall be exempt from the 

standard for the line covered by the 

petition for the subsequent model year.2

Exemptions granted under part 543 

apply only to the vehicle line or lines 

that are subject to the grant and that are 

equipped with the antitheft device on 

which the line’s exemption was based, 

and are effective for the model year 

beginning after the model year in which 

NHTSA issues the notice of exemption, 

unless the notice of exemption specifies 

a later year. 

Sections 543.8(f) and (g) apply to the 

manner in which NHTSA’s decisions on 

petitions are to be made known. Under 

section 543.8(f), if the petition is sought 

under section 543.6, NHTSA publishes 

a notice of its decision to grant or deny 

the exemption petition in the Federal 

Register and notifies the petitioner in 

writing. Under section 543.8(g), if the 

petition is sought under section 543.7, 

NHTSA notifies the petitioner in writing 

of the agency’s decision to grant or deny 

the exemption petition. 

This grant of petition for exemption 

considers American Honda Motor Co., 

Inc.’s (Honda) petition for its Acura 

RDX vehicle line beginning in MY 2022. 

I. Specific Petition Content 

Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6 

Pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, 

Exemption from Vehicle Theft 

Prevention, Honda petitioned for an 

exemption for its specified vehicle line 

from the parts-marking requirements of 

the theft prevention standard, beginning 

in MY 2022. Honda petitioned under 49 

CFR 543.6, Petition: Specific content 

requirements, which, as described 

above, requires manufacturers to 

provide specific information about the 

antitheft device installed as standard 

equipment on all vehicles in the line for 

which an exemption is sought, the 

antitheft device’s capabilities, and the 

reasons the petitioner believes the 

device to be as effective at reducing and 

deterring theft as compliance with the 

parts-marking requirements. 

More specifically, section 543.6(a)(1) 

requires petitions to include a statement 

that an antitheft device will be installed 

as standard equipment on all vehicles in 

the line for which the exemption is 

sought. Under section 543.6(a)(2), each 

petition must list each component in the 

antitheft system, and include a diagram 

showing the location of each of those 

components within the vehicle. As 

required by section 543.6(a)(3), each 

petition must include an explanation of 

the means and process by which the 

device is activated and functions, 

including any aspect of the device 

designed to: (1) Facilitate or encourage 

its activation by motorists; (2) attract 

attention to the efforts of an 

unauthorized person to enter or move a 

vehicle by means other than a key; (3) 

prevent defeating or circumventing the 

device by an unauthorized person 

attempting to enter a vehicle by means 

other than a key; (4) prevent the 

operation of a vehicle which an 

unauthorized person has entered using 

means other than a key; and (5) ensure 

the reliability and durability of the 

device.3

In addition to providing information 

about the antitheft device and its 

functionality, petitioners must also 

submit the reasons for their belief that 

the antitheft device will be effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft, including any theft data and other 

data that are available to the petitioner 

and form a basis for that belief,4 and the 

reasons for their belief that the agency 

should determine that the antitheft 

device is likely to be as effective as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of part 541 in reducing 

and deterring motor vehicle theft. In 

support of this belief, the petitioners 

should include any statistical data that 

are available to the petitioner and form 

the basis for the petitioner’s belief that 

a line of passenger motor vehicles 

equipped with the antitheft device is 

likely to have a theft rate equal to or less 

than that of passenger motor vehicles of 

the same, or a similar line which have 

parts marked in compliance with part 

541.5

The following sections describe 

Honda’s petition information provided 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption 

from Vehicle Theft Prevention. To the 

extent that specific information in 

Honda’s petition is subject to a properly 

filed confidentiality request, that 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 47733 

6 49 CFR 512.20(a). 

7As discussed above, per 49 CFR 543.8(a), 

NHTSA processes the petition once the 

manufacturer submits all the information required 

by 49 CFR part 543. 

information was not disclosed as part of 

this notice.6

II. Honda’s Petition for Exemption 

In a petition dated January 12, 2021, 

as supplemented with additional 

information submitted on June 22, 

2021,7 Honda requested an exemption 

from the parts-marking requirements of 

the theft prevention standard for the 

Acura RDX vehicle line beginning with 

MY 2022. 

In its petition, Honda provided a 

detailed description and diagram of the 

identity, design, and location of the 

components of the antitheft device for 

the Acura RDX vehicle line. Honda 

stated that its MY 2022 Acura RDX 

vehicle line will be installed with an 

engine immobilizer device as standard 

equipment, as required by 543.6(a)(1). 

Honda stated that it will offer a ‘‘smart 

entry remote’’ (keyless key) system on 

its vehicle line. Honda also stated that 

the Acura RDX vehicle line will offer 

two types of remotes, one with remote 

engine start and one without remote 

start. Key components of the ‘‘smart 

entry remote’’ system will include a 

passive immobilizer, ‘‘smart entry’’ 

remote, powertrain control module 

(PCM), and body control module (BCM). 

Honda further stated that its vehicle line 

will be installed with a vehicle security 

alarm system as standard equipment 

which will activate a visible and audible 

alarm whenever unauthorized access is 

attempted. 

Pursuant to Section 543.6(a)(3), 

Honda explained that its ‘‘smart entry 

and start’’ system is part of the normal 

operation of the ignition key and 

activates automatically when the 

ignition switch is in the ‘‘OFF’’ position. 

Honda further explained that if a smart 

entry remote without a matching code is 

within operating range and the engine 

start/stop button is pressed, the PCM 

will prevent fueling of the engine and 

the engine will not start. Honda also 

stated that the immobilizer system is 

deactivated when a valid smart entry 

remote and matching codes are verified, 

allowing the engine to continue normal 

operations. Honda further stated that the 

security indicator flashes continuously 

when the immobilizer is activated, and 

turns off when it is deactivated. 

Honda stated that the audible and 

visible vehicle security alarm system 

installed on its Acura RDX vehicles will 

monitor any attempts of unauthorized 

entry and attract attention to an 

unauthorized person attempting to enter 

its vehicles without the use of a ‘‘smart 

entry’’ remote or its built-in mechanical 

door key. Specifically, Honda stated that 

whenever an attempt is made to open 

one of its vehicle doors, hood or trunk 

without using the ‘‘smart entry’’ remote 

or turning a key in the key cylinder to 

disarm the vehicle, the vehicle’s horn 

will sound and its lights will flash. 

Honda stated that its vehicle security 

system is activated when all of the doors 

are locked and the hood and trunk are 

closed and locked. Honda further stated 

that its vehicle security system is 

deactivated by using the key fob buttons 

to unlock the vehicle doors or having 

the ‘‘smart entry’’ remote within 

operating range when the operator grabs 

either of the vehicle’s front door 

handles. 

Honda also stated that in addition to 

the standard security system on all 2022 

MY Acura RDX models, additional 

security features include counterfeit 

resistant vehicle identification number 

(VIN) plates, secondary VINs, a hood 

release located inside the vehicle, and 

its smart entry remote will utilize 

rolling codes for the lock and unlock 

functions of its vehicles. 

As required in section 543.6(a)(3)(v), 

Honda provided information on the 

reliability and durability of its proposed 

device. To ensure reliability and 

durability of the device, Honda 

provided a list of requirements for the 

characteristics and durability testing 

along with its results. Honda stated that 

its device does not require the presence 

of a ‘‘smart entry’’ remote battery to 

function nor does it have any moving 

parts (i.e., the PCM, BCM, ‘‘smart entry’’ 

remote and the corresponding electrical 

components found within its own 

housing units), which it believes 

reduces the chance for deterioration and 

wear from normal use. 

Honda believes that installation of the 

antitheft immobilizer device as standard 

equipment reduces the vehicle theft rate 

by making conventional methods of 

theft obsolete, i.e., punching out the 

steering column or hot-wiring the 

ignition. Additionally, Honda stated 

that the proposed immobilizer system 

was first installed on its MY 2007 Acura 

RDX as standard equipment which was 

the first year of its introduction. Honda 

referenced NHTSA’s theft rate 

information for the Acura RDX showing 

theft rates for MYs 2007–2014 were 

below the theft rate median. Also, 

Honda stated that its proposed 

immobilizer system is similar to the 

design offered on its Lexus RX vehicles 

which have been granted an exemption 

by the agency. Honda also referenced 

NHTSA’s theft rate information for its 

Lexus RX showing theft rates for MYs 

2012–2014 that were below the theft 

rate median. 

III. Decision To Grant the Petition 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 

CFR 543.8(b), the agency grants a 

petition for exemption from the partsmarking requirements of part 541, either 

in whole or in part, if it determines that, 

based upon substantial evidence, the 

standard equipment antitheft device is 

likely to be as effective in reducing and 

deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of part 541. The agency 

finds that Honda has provided adequate 

reasons for its belief that the antitheft 

device for its vehicle line is likely to be 

as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

theft prevention standard. This 

conclusion is based on the information 

Honda provided about its antitheft 

device. NHTSA believes, based on 

Honda’s supporting evidence, the 

antitheft device described for its vehicle 

line is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard. 

The agency concludes that Honda’s 

antitheft device will provide the five 

types of performance features listed in 

section 543.6(a)(3): Promoting 

activation; attracting attention to the 

efforts of unauthorized persons to enter 

or operate a vehicle by means other than 

a key; preventing defeat or 

circumvention of the device by 

unauthorized persons; preventing 

operation of the vehicle by 

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 

reliability and durability of the device. 

The agency notes that 49 CFR part 

541, Appendix A–1, identifies those 

lines that are exempted from the theft 

prevention standard for a given model 

year. 49 CFR 543.8(f) contains 

publication requirements incident to the 

disposition of all part 543 petitions. 

Advanced listing, including the release 

of future product nameplates, the 

beginning model year for which the 

petition is granted and a general 

description of the antitheft device is 

necessary in order to notify law 

enforcement agencies of new vehicle 

lines exempted from the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard. 

If Honda decides not to use the 

exemption for its requested vehicle line, 

the manufacturer must formally notify 

the agency. If such a decision is made, 

the line must be fully marked as 

required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
47734 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices 

(marking of major component parts and 

replacement parts). 

NHTSA notes that if Honda wishes in 

the future to modify the device on 

which this exemption is based, the 

company may have to submit a petition 

to modify the exemption. Section 

543.8(d) states that a part 543 exemption 

applies only to vehicles that belong to 

a line exempted under this part and 

equipped with the antitheft device on 

which the line’s exemption is based. 

Further, section 543.10(c)(2) provides 

for the submission of petitions ‘‘to 

modify an exemption to permit the use 

of an antitheft device similar to but 

differing from the one specified in the 

exemption.’’ 

The agency wishes to minimize the 

administrative burden that section 

543.10(c)(2) could place on exempted 

vehicle manufacturers and itself. The 

agency did not intend in drafting part 

543 to require the submission of a 

modification petition for every change 

to the components or design of an 

antitheft device. The significance of 

many such changes could be de 

minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests 

that if Honda contemplates making any 

changes, the effects of which might be 

characterized as de minimis, it should 

consult the agency before preparing and 

submitting a petition to modify. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full Honda’s petition 

for exemption for the Acura RDX 

vehicle line from the parts-marking 

requirements of 49 CFR part 541, 

beginning with its MY 2022 vehicles. 

Issued under authority delegated in 

49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8. 

Raymond R. Posten, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2021–18419 Filed 8–25–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2021–0052] 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration Pipeline Safety: 

Request for Special Permit; Sabal Trail 

Transmission, LLC 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA); DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this 

notice to solicit public comments on a 

request for special permit received from 

the Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC 

(STT). The special permit request is 

seeking relief from compliance with 

certain requirements in the federal 

pipeline safety regulations. At the 

conclusion of the 30-day comment 

period, PHMSA will review the 

comments received from this notice as 

part of its evaluation to grant or deny 

the special permit request. 

DATES: Submit any comments regarding 

this special permit request by 

September 27, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference 

the docket number for this special 

permit request and may be submitted in 

the following ways: 

• E-Gov Website: http://

www.Regulations.gov. This site allows 

the public to enter comments on any 

Federal Register notice issued by any 

agency. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management System: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, M–30, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket Management 

System: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00 

a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: You should identify the 

docket number for the special permit 

request you are commenting on at the 

beginning of your comments. If you 

submit your comments by mail, please 

submit two (2) copies. To receive 

confirmation that PHMSA has received 

your comments, please include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Internet 

users may submit comments at http://

www.Regulations.gov. 

Note: There is a privacy statement 

published on http://

www.Regulations.gov. Comments, 

including any personal information 

provided, are posted without changes or 

edits to http://www.Regulations.gov. 

Confidential Business Information: 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

is commercial or financial information 

that is both customarily and actually 

treated as private by its owner. Under 

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

(5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from 

public disclosure. If your comments 

responsive to this notice contain 

commercial or financial information 

that is customarily treated as private, 

that you actually treat as private, and 

that is relevant or responsive to this 

notice, it is important that you clearly 

designate the submitted comments as 

CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) § 190.343, you may 

ask PHMSA to give confidential 

treatment to information you give to the 

agency by taking the following steps: (1) 

Mark each page of the original 

document submission containing CBI as 

‘‘Confidential’’; (2) send PHMSA, along 

with the original document, a second 

copy of the original document with the 

CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the 

information you are submitting is CBI. 

Unless you are notified otherwise, 

PHMSA will treat such marked 

submissions as confidential under the 

FOIA, and they will not be placed in the 

public docket of this notice. 

Submissions containing CBI should be 

sent to Kay McIver, DOT, PHMSA– 

PHP–80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. Any 

commentary PHMSA receives that is not 

specifically designated as CBI will be 

placed in the public docket for this 

matter. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone 

at 202–366–0113, or by email at 

kay.mciver@dot.gov. 

Technical: Mr. Steve Nanney by 

telephone at 713–272–2855, or by email 

at steve.nanney@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA 

received a special permit request from 

STT, a joint venture between Spectra 

Energy Partners, LP (Enbridge), NextEra 

Energy, Inc., and Duke Energy, which is 

operated by Enbridge Inc., seeking a 

waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR 

192.611: Change in class location: 

Confirmation or revision of maximum 

allowable operating pressure. This 

special permit is being requested in lieu 

of pipe replacement or pressure 

reduction for one (1) special permit 

segment totaling 53,486 feet 

(approximately 10.130 miles) on the 

STT Line 1 Pipeline. The proposed 

special permit segment is located in 

Sumter County, Florida. The STT Line 

1 Pipeline class location in the special 

permit segment has changed from a 

Class 1 to a Class 3 location. The STT 

Line 1 Pipeline special permit segment 

is a 36-inch diameter pipeline with an 

existing maximum allowable operating 

pressure of 1,456 pounds per square 

inch gauge. The installation of the 

special permit segment occurred in 

2017. 

The special permit request, proposed 

special permit with conditions, and 

Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) 

for the above listed STT pipeline 

segments are available for review and 

public comments in Docket No. 

PHMSA–2021–0052. PHMSA invites 

interested persons to review and submit 

comments on the special permit request 

and DEA in the docket. Please include 

any comments on potential safety and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES