Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 30993 

1See 49 CFR 571.108, S7.10.1, Table I–a. 

the human environment. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule 

involves establishing a safety zone 

under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of 

the Instruction. We seek any comments 

or information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add a new temporary zone 

§ 165.T11–201 to read as follows: 

§ 165.T11–201 Safety zone; Paddle for 

Clean Water; San Diego; California 

(a) Location. The limits of the safety 

zone would be as follows: 

32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W; 

32°45.10′ N, 117°15.30′ W; 

32°44.55′ N, 117°15.38′ W; 

32°44.43′ N, 117°15.19′ W; along the 

shoreline to 

32°45.00′ N, 117°15.12′ W. 

(b) Enforcement Period. This section 

will be enforced on September 13, 2009 

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. If the event 

concludes prior to the scheduled 

termination time, the Captain of the Port 

will cease enforcement of this safety 

zone and will announce that fact via 

Broadcast Notice to Mariners. 

(c) Definitions. The following 

definition applies to this section: 

designated representative, means any 

commissioned, warrant, and petty 

officers of the Coast Guard on board 

Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, 

and local, State, and Federal law 

enforcement vessels who have been 

authorized to act on the behalf of the 

Captain of the Port. 

(d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit 

through or anchoring within this safety 

zone is prohibited unless authorized by 

the Captain of the Port of San Diego or 

his designated on-scene representative. 

(2) Mariners requesting permission to 

transit through the safety zone may 

request authorization to do so from the 

Command Center (COMCEN). The 

COMCEN may be contacted on VHF–FM 

Channel 16. 

(3) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the 

designated representative. 

(4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast 

Guard patrol personnel by siren, radio, 

flashing light, or other means, the 

operator of a vessel shall proceed as 

directed. 

(5) The Coast Guard may be assisted 

by other Federal, State, or local 

agencies. 

Dated: June 17, 2009. 

D.L. Leblanc, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. E9–15187 Filed 6–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

No. 108; Lamp, Reflective Devices and 

Associated Equipment 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document denies a 

petition for rulemaking submitted by 

General Motors on December 20, 2001. 

The petitioner requested that the agency 

amend the Federal motor vehicle safety 

standard (FMVSS) on lamps, reflective 

devices, and associated equipment to 

require the installation of daytime 

running lamps on passenger cars, 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

trucks, and buses that have a gross 

vehicle weight rating under 4,536 

kilograms (10,000 lbs). NHTSA has 

reviewed the petition and performed an 

extensive analysis of real world crash 

data. Based on the results of our study 

we were unable to find solid evidence 

of an overall safety benefit associated 

with daytime running lamps and are 

therefore denying the petition for 

rulemaking. The agency maintains its 

neutral position with respect to the 

safety benefits from the use of daytime 

running lamps. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 

Markus Price, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards (Phone: 202–366–0098; FAX: 

202–366–7002). 

For legal issues, you may call Mr. Ari 

Scott, Office of the Chief Counsel 

(Phone: 202–366–2992; FAX: 202–366– 

3820). 

You may send mail to these officials 

at: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary 

II. Background 

III. Petition 

IV. Agency Analysis and Decision 

a. NHTSA Studies and Comparison 

b. Differences in Statistical Methodology 

V. Conclusion 

I. Summary 

This document denies a 2001 petition 

from General Motors (GM) requesting 

that the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) mandate the 

installation of daytime running lamps 

(DRLs) on all vehicles with a gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) under 

4,536 kilograms (10,000 lbs). The 

rationale for denying the petition is that, 

overall, studies of the effectiveness of 

DRLs have not indicated that they are an 

effective means of preventing crashes. 

While GM presented studies that appear 

to indicate a degree of effectiveness, 

NHTSA’s own studies contradict that 

finding. Furthermore, for reasons 

described in detail below, a careful 

analysis of the various studies of DRL 

effectiveness indicates flaws in the 

studies GM cites and that NHTSA 

should place greater weight on its own 

studies. Given the information currently 

available, the agency has been unable to 

determine if there are any demonstrable 

safety benefits associated with 

mandating DRLs, and therefore has 

decided that leaving them as a 

manufacturer option is the best course 

of action. 

II. Background 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps, 

reflective devices, and associated 

equipment, establishes lighting 

requirements for motor vehicles. 

Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs) are 

steady burning lamps that illuminate 

when the regular headlamps are not 

required for driving. While FMVSS No. 

108 does not require DRLs, it does 

specify requirements that they must 

meet if a vehicle manufacturer 

voluntarily decides to install them.1

The requirements for DRLs were first 

established on January 11, 1993 in 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
30994 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

2See 59 FR 3501 January 11, 1993. 

3 Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876–11. 

4 Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876–15. 

5 Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876–15 Steffey et 

al., p. 21. 

6 Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876–15 Steffey et al. 

page 38. 

7 DOT HS 808 645 Table 24 & 25 Available at 

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/pdf/ 

DRL7_RPT.pdf. 

8 DOT HS 809 760 Appendix B Available at 

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809760.PDF. 

9HS 811 029. 

response to a petition from General 

Motors (GM) that asked the agency to 

facilitate the introduction of DRLs on 

motor vehicles. At that time, GM’s view 

was that an amendment ‘‘would allow 

manufacturers to install DRLs on new 

vehicles without being in violation of 

the multitude of State laws’’ which at 

that time had ‘‘the unintended effect of 

prohibiting them.’’ Also, GM did not 

believe that there was justification for 

mandating DRLs as standard equipment 

because there was not yet evidence of a 

‘‘national safety need’’ in the United 

States. As a result of GM’s petition, 

FMVSS No. 108 was amended to permit, 

but not require, DRLs that comply with 

various marking and performance 

requirements.2

III. Petition 

On December 20, 2001, GM petitioned 

the agency requesting that DRLs be 

made required equipment on passenger 

vehicles, trucks and buses that have a 

gross vehicle weight rating under 4,536 

kilograms (10,000 lbs). In support of its 

petition, GM provided information from 

a study that reported a 5 percent 

decrease in daytime multiple vehicle 

crashes and a 9 percent reduction in 

vehicle to pedestrian crashes.3 GM 

claimed that this report ‘‘demonstrates 

that DRLs are preventing crashes and 

injuries, and saving lives.’’ The data 

supporting this study were collected in 

12 States from the years 1994 to 1997, 

using vehicle registration as a measure 

of exposure, and the ratio of crash rates 

estimated by the Poisson regression 

statistical method (described in detail 

below). 

As an update to the 2000 study, GM 

most recently sponsored a study written 

by Steffey, Lau, and Ray of Exponent, 

Inc in 2008.4 This study examined 

vehicles manufactured by GM, Saab, 

Toyota, Subaru, Volkswagen and Volvo. 

Crash data were analyzed from 18 States 

between the years 1996 and 2005. This 

study used two mathematical methods 

to determine if there was a link between 

DRLs and crash rates, the ratio of odds 

ratio method and the ratio of crash rates. 

This study reported the impact of DRLs 

on various types of vehicle crashes 

including head-on, rural area, highway, 

rain/fog, angle, urban area, sideswipe, 

pedestrian, and motorcycle. 

The Steffey et al. (2008) study 

reported a statistically significant 

reduction in crashes associated with 

DRLs. For passenger cars, it reported a 

reduction in daytime head-on multivehicle crashes of 12.35 percent using 

the ratio of crash rates method. This 

study also reported a significant 

reduction in rural area daytime multivehicle crashes of 9.1 percent for 

passenger cars using this method.5

Similar results were reported for light 

trucks. Similar to the 2001 GM study, 

this study reported a 5 percent decrease 

in daytime multiple vehicle crashes, but 

contrary to the 2001 study, a nonsignificant increase in vehicle to 

pedestrian crashes of 2.5 was observed. 

No statistically significant results were 

found for fatal crashes. 

This study also analyzed the data 

using the ratio of odds ratio technique. 

GM stated that this methodology 

produced findings that correlated DRLs 

with a reduction in certain crash types. 

However, NHTSA’s analysis found, with 

regard to the overall crash rates 

experienced by vehicles equipped with 

DRLs, the Steffey et al. study’s analysis 

using the ratio of odds ratios method 

did not produce a statistically 

significant decrease in the crash rates of 

those vehicles.6

IV. Discussion and Analysis 

After carefully reviewing the data in 

GM’s petition, NHTSA has come to the 

conclusion that the evidence linking 

DRLs to lower incidents of crashes is 

not persuasive. To begin, NHTSA 

believes that one of the statistical 

techniques used in the two GM studies, 

the ratio of crash rates method, is less 

effective in this case than the ratio of 

odds ratio method used in the three 

NHTSA studies (to be fair, this 

methodology was also employed in the 

Steffey et al. study). Additionally, 

certain correlations in the GM study 

raise questions as to the validity of its 

findings. Contrary to this, NHTSA’s 

studies do not show that DRLs are an 

effective means of crash avoidance. 

Given these issues, NHTSA does not 

believe that the case has been made to 

incorporate a change to require DRLs. 

A. NHTSA Studies and Comparison 

In 2000, NHTSA published a study 

that examined the effectiveness of DRLs 

installed on passenger cars 

manufactured in the 1990s.7 In that 

study, no statistically significant results 

were found using the ratio of odds ratio 

method. In 2004, NHTSA again reported 

on the effectiveness of DRLs on crashes 

within the U.S.8 Again, using a broader 

data set and a different control group, 

no results using the ratio of odds ratio 

method produced statistical 

significance. 

In 2008, NHTSA completed a new 

study on the effectiveness of DRLs.9 The 

data source is FARS (2000–2005), and 

State data from 9 States (2000–2005). 

The results of this NHTSA study (2008) 

are inconclusive regarding overall DRL 

effectiveness. When both light truck and 

cars are evaluated together, the result of 

DRL installation is a non-statistically 

significant decrease in two vehicle, all 

severity crashes of 0.3 percent (¥2.5– 

3.1, 0.95 confidence). A statistically 

significant decrease of 5.7 percent (0.7– 

10.7, 0.95 confidence) in two vehicle 

type crashes for light trucks is 

somewhat offset by a non-significant 2 

percent (¥5.4–1.4, 0.95 confidence) 

increase in passenger car crashes of the 

same type and severity. Further 

complicating attempts to find a 

definitive pattern of safety impact that 

DRLs have, this study finds a nonsignificant increase of 12.2 percent 

(¥50.1–25.7, 0.95 confidence) in light 

truck-motorcycle crashes. Contrarily, it 

also reports that a non-significant 

decrease of 1.2 percent (¥18.5–20.9, 

0.95 confidence) is observed for 

passenger cars of the same crash type. 

Continuing, this study was also unable 

to find a clear pattern of effectiveness 

between States. An overview of the 

results finds some positive and some 

negative results depending on crash 

type and crash severity. When all 

crashes are considered, a non-significant 

decrease of 0.1 percent is observed, 

demonstrating the overall safety benefits 

of DRLs in this study are inconclusive. 

The agency is aware of some groups’ 

concerns that DRLs may have a 

detrimental impact on motorcycle 

safety. The concern is that as 

motorcycles have historically been the 

only class of vehicles using DRLs, as 

other vehicle classes begin to use DRLs 

the unique conspicuity provided to 

motorcycles by DRLs will be 

diminished. Neither the GM, nor the 

agency’s studies are able to establish 

new evidence with respect to this 

concern. Therefore, the potential 

‘‘masking effect’’ is still unknown and 

was not considered in this denial notice 

analysis. 

The agency believes that the result 

derived based on the ratio of odds ratios 

are more plausible and defendable than 

those based on crash rates used in GM’s 

study. The Steffey et al. study found a 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 30995 

10 Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876–15 Steffey et 

al., p. 24–25. 

11 Docket No. NHTSA–2001–8876–15 Steffey et 

al. p. 20. 

4.28 percent decrease in nighttime 

multi-party car crashes as a result of 

DRL installation. It also found a 3.67 

percent decrease in single vehicle light 

truck crashes. Additionally, the report 

found that DRLs would reduce 

nighttime fatal crashes by 11.4 percent 

for passenger cars and daytime singlevehicle crashes by 9.4 percent for light 

trucks.10 These results cast doubt on the 

validity of the GM study because we do 

not believe these crash types are 

plausibly affected by DRL installation. 

The authors claim these numbers ‘‘serve 

as useful control groups and 

benchmarks for comparison.’’ 11 The 

agency respectfully disagrees, and 

believes this may demonstrate the lack 

of control for changes that may have 

occurred during the study period. 

Another limitation regarding this GM 

study is the different time period for 

which vehicle registration was recorded 

compared to the times that the crashes 

occurred. The registration numbers were 

recorded as a snapshot in time on July 

first, but the crashes occurred 

throughout the entire year. This time 

difference may cause inaccuracies in the 

number of vehicles in the exposure 

group. 

B. Differences in Statistical Methodology 

As discussed above, numerous studies 

exist that attempt to quantify the crash 

risk relative to the installation of DRLs. 

Among these studies, various statistical 

techniques have been used for 

determining the effectiveness in real 

world crashes, including the ratio of 

odds ratios method (used in the NHTSA 

studies), and the ratio of crash rates 

method (used in the GM studies). 

NHTSA believes that the ratio of odds 

ratios is the most effective means for the 

analysis in these studies. 

The primary statistical technique used 

in the studies submitted by GM in 

support of its petition is the ratio of 

crash rates method. This was used in 

the 2001 GM study, and was also used 

in certain parts of the 2008 Steffey et al. 

study. This technique compared the 

ratio of crashes to the number of 

vehicles of that type registered. This 

collision rate is calculated and 

compared for both vehicles with DRLs 

and for vehicles without DRLs. This 

comparison reportedly represents the 

effectiveness of the DRL. This is 

mathematically represented as follows: 

DRL = CollisionRate

CollisionRate =

Crashes

Ve

Effect

DRL

no-DRL

DRL

hicles-in-Use

Crashes

Vehicles-in-Use

DRL

no-DRL

no-DRL

Continuing, this expression is 

modeled using a Poisson regression 

model to estimate the overall DRL effect 

across all model pairs. Because this 

method uses vehicle registration as the 

measure of exposure, it may not reflect 

the actual on-road exposure of vehicles 

in use that, in actuality, may be 

involved in a crash. For example, this 

methodology would assign equal weight 

to a vehicle driven five miles per day as 

to a vehicle driven 25 miles per day, 

despite the fact that the latter vehicle is 

far more exposed to the risk of a crash. 

The ratio of odds ratios method, 

which was used in NHTSA’s studies 

and in some parts of the Steffey et al. 

study, avoids using vehicle registration 

as a method of exposure. This method 

compares the ratio of target crashes in 

the daytime with control crashes in the 

daytime. It continues by calculating the 

ratio of target crashes at night compared 

to the control crashes at night. The ratio 

of these ratios is then considered the 

odds of a vehicle becoming involved in 

a DRL relevant crash. This ratio is 

calculated for both a group of DRLequipped vehicles, and for a group of 

vehicles which do not have DRLs 

installed. A comparison of the two 

groups’ odds then determines the 

effectiveness of the DRL. This method is 

demonstrated as follows: 

DRL-EQUIPPED VEHICLES

Light condition Target crashes Control crashes 

Daytime .............................................................. N1 ...................................................................... N2. 

Nighttime ............................................................ N3 ...................................................................... N4. 

NON-DRL VEHICLES

Light condition Target crashes Control crashes 

Daytime .............................................................. N5 ...................................................................... N6. 

Nighttime ............................................................ N7 ...................................................................... N8. 

R N

N

N

N

N N

N N

R N

N

N

N

N N

N N

R R

R

1

1

3

2

4

1 4

2 3

2

5

7

6

8

5 8

6 7

1

2

=÷= ∗

∗ =÷= ∗∗

=


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALSEP29JN09.011</MATH> EP29jN09.012</MATH>
30996 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 123 / Monday, June 29, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

12Steffey et al., p. 34. 

13Steffey et al., p. 38. 

The value of R represents the relative 

odds of daytime target crashes 

involvements between DRL-equipped 

vehicles and non-DRL vehicles. The 

agency believes the ratio of odds ratio is 

the optimal method because it has a 

strong confounding-factor-control 

ability. With regard to the previous 

example, the ratio of odds ratios would 

factor in a higher expected crash rate for 

the vehicle driven 25 miles per day than 

the vehicle driven five. 

The ratio of odds ratios avoids using 

crash rates because the true exposure 

data generally do not exist. In GM’s 

case, with regard to the portion of the 

study that utilized the ratio of crash 

rates method, vehicle registrations were 

used as the exposure data. However, 

registration data do not differentiate 

driving between DRL and non-DRL 

vehicles. They do not separate daytime 

and nighttime driving. Consequently, 

vehicle registrations are not considered 

to be an appropriate exposure measure 

for a DRL study. The contradicting 

results from the GM study demonstrate 

this. In contrast, the ratio of odds ratios 

method compares the ratio of target 

crashes (DRL-relevant) to control 

crashes (non DRL-relevant) in the 

daytime. 

The Steffey et al. study incorporated 

both of the methodologies in arriving at 

its conclusions. Using the ratio of crash 

rates method, the study found an overall 

decrease in crash rates of 4.61 percent, 

which was noted as statistically 

significant.12 However, using the ratio of 

odds ratios method, the same report 

found a non-significant decrease in the 

crash rates of 1.36 percent.13 Given the 

significant divergence in results from 

the different methodologies, we feel that 

the results from the ratio of crash rates 

methodology should be assigned less 

weight in NHTSA’s analysis of the 

safety effect of DRLs. 

V. Conclusion 

The agency’s 2008 DRL study is a 

more robust study than previous 

attempts by the agency to quantify the 

effectiveness of DRLs. This newest 

study was unable to find solid evidence 

of overall safety benefits associated with 

DRLs installed on passenger vehicles 

using the ratio of odds ratio statistical 

technique. While DRLs may be 

beneficial for certain scenarios, the 

agency has been unable to document 

overall safety benefits due to DRL 

installation which could serve as a basis 

for mandating them. NHTSA is therefore 

denying this petition from GM. 

However, the agency is willing to reexamine the DRL issue if additional data 

is presented demonstrating overall 

safety benefits. Any such study should 

consider using the ratio of odds ratios 

technique as used in the latest NHTSA 

study, or provide compelling evidence 

that an alternative technique is superior 

at predicting the effectiveness of DRLs. 

In the meantime, the agency remains 

neutral with respect to a policy 

regarding the inclusion of DRLs in 

vehicles. Although we do not find data 

that provides a definitive safety benefit 

that justifies Federal regulation, we are 

not making recommendations that 

vehicle manufacturers should change 

their policies regarding DRLs. 

Manufacturers should continue to make 

individual decisions regarding DRLs in 

their vehicles. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 

30117 and 30166; delegation of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. 

Issued: June 23, 2009. 

Nathaniel Beuse, 

Director, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. E9–15314 Filed 6–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R8–ES–2009–0040; 92220–1113– 

0000–C5] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a 

Petition To Delist the Lost River 

Sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and the 

Shortnose Sucker (Chasmistes 

brevirostris) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

90-day finding on a petition to remove 

the Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) 

and the shortnose sucker (Chasmistes 

brevirostris) from the Federal List of 

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

(List) under the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (Act). We find that 

the petition does not present substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that removing the Lost River 

sucker or shortnose sucker from the List 

may be warranted. Therefore, we will 

not initiate a status review for either 

species in response to this petition. We 

ask the public to submit to us any new 

information that becomes available 

concerning the status of, or threats to, 

the Lost River and shortnose suckers or 

their habitat at any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on June 29, 2009. 

You may submit new information 

concerning this species for our 

consideration at any time. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov and http:// 

www.fws.gov/klamathfallsfwo. 

Supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this finding is available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours at the 

Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1936 

California Avenue, Klamath Falls, OR 

97601; telephone (541) 885–8481; 

facsimile (541) 885–7837. Please send 

any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions concerning this 

finding to the above street address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurie Sada, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). 

Persons who use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) may call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at (800) 877–8339, 24 hours a 

day, 7 days a week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that we 

make a finding on whether a petition to 

list, delist, or reclassify a species 

presents substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted. 

We are to base this finding on 

information provided in the petition, 

supporting information submitted with 

the petition, and information otherwise 

available in our files at the time we 

make the determination. To the 

maximum extent practicable, we are to 

make this finding within 90 days of our 

receipt of the petition, and publish our 

notice of the finding promptly in the 

Federal Register. 

This finding is based on the 

information included in and with the 

petition and information available in 

our files at the time of the petition 

review. Under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the 

Act and our regulations at 50 CFR 

424.14(b), our review is limited to a 

determination of whether the 

information in the petition meets the 

‘‘substantial scientific or commercial 

information’’ threshold. Our standard 

for substantial information with regard 

to a 90-day petition finding is ‘‘that 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS