[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47078-47083]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19802]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 595

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0108]
RIN 2127-AK22

Make Inoperative Exemptions; Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate
People With Disabilities, Head Restraints

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule updates and expands an existing exemption from
certain requirements of our head restraints standard that is available
in the context of vehicle modifications to accommodate people with
disabilities. The rule facilitates the mobility of drivers and
passengers with disabilities by updating the exemption to include the
corresponding portions of a new, upgraded version of the standard, the
right front passenger seating position, and an exemption for persons
with limited ability to support their head.

DATES: Effective Date: October 3, 2011.
    Petitions for Reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received by the agency by September 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule,
you should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document
and submit your petition to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590. The petition will be placed in the docket. Anyone
is able to search the electronic form of all documents received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78).
    For access to the docket to read background documents or comments
received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket. You may also visit DOT's Docket
Management Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001 for access to the
docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Ms. Gayle
Dalrymple, NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NVS-123,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>), fax<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    For legal issues: Mr. Jesse Chang, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel,
NCC-112, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>), fax<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    The mailing address for these officials is: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule amends one of the ``make
inoperative exemptions'' found in 49 CFR part 595. Specifically, this
final rule amends Subpart C, ``Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate
People With Disabilities,'' to update and expand a reference in an
exemption relating to our head restraints standard, Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 202. The notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM), on which this final rule is based, was published in
the Federal Register (74 FR 67156) on December 18, 2009 (Docket No.
NHTSA-2009-0065).

Regulatory Background

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301) (``Safety Act'') and NHTSA's regulations require vehicle
manufacturers to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (see 49 U.S.C. 30112; 49 CFR
part 567). A vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair
business generally may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a
device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle in
compliance with an applicable FMVSS (see 49 U.S.C. 30122). NHTSA has
the authority to issue regulations that exempt regulated entities from
the ``make inoperative'' provision (49 U.S.C. 30122(c)). The agency has
used that authority to promulgate 49 CFR part 595 subpart C, ``Vehicle
Modifications to Accommodate People with Disabilities.''
    49 CFR part 595 subpart C sets forth exemptions from the make
inoperative provision to permit, under limited circumstances, vehicle
modifications that take the vehicles out of compliance with certain
FMVSSs when the vehicles are modified to be used by persons with
disabilities after the first retail sale of the vehicle for purposes
other than resale. The regulation was promulgated to facilitate the
modification of motor vehicles so that persons with disabilities can
drive or ride in them. The regulation involves information and
disclosure requirements and limits the extent of modifications that may
be made.
    Under the regulation, a motor vehicle repair business that modifies
a vehicle to enable a person with a disability to operate or ride as a
passenger in the motor vehicle and that avails itself of the exemption
provided by 49 CFR part 595 subpart C must register itself with NHTSA.
The modifier is exempted from the make inoperative provision of the
Safety Act, but only to the extent that the modifications affect the
vehicle's compliance with the FMVSSs specified in 49 CFR 595.7(c) and
only to the extent specified in Sec.  595.7(c). Modifications that
would take the vehicle out of compliance with any other FMVSS, or with
an FMVSS listed in Sec.  595.7(c) but in a manner not specified in that
paragraph are not exempted by the regulation. The modifier must affix a
permanent label to the vehicle identifying itself as the modifier and
the vehicle as no longer complying with all FMVSS in effect at original
manufacture, and must provide and retain a document listing the FMVSSs
with which the vehicle no longer complies and indicating any reduction
in the load carrying capacity of the vehicle of more than 100 kilograms
(220 pounds).

Upgraded Head Restraint Standard and the Exemption in Part 595 Subpart
C

    Before today's final rule, 49 CFR part 595 subpart C allowed two
exemptions from FMVSS No. 202. Under 49 CFR 595.7(c)(8), modifiers were
exempted from the entirety of FMVSS No. 202 in any situation where the
driver or the front right passenger is seated in a wheelchair and no
seat is supplied with the vehicle. Under 49 CFR 595.7(c)(9), modifiers
were only exempted from the driver seat (and not passenger seat) head
restraint height and width requirements found in paragraphs S4.3(b)(1)-
(2) in order to accommodate rearward visibility for drivers who cannot
easily turn their head due to a disability.
    However, in 2004, this agency published a final rule that made two
changes to our head restraints standard which affect the make
inoperative exemptions in Sec.  595.7(c)(8)-(9). The 2004 final rule
established an upgraded head restraints standard, designated FMVSS No.
202a, to eventually replace FMVSS No. 202, while allowing a several
year period during which manufacturers could comply with either
standard.\1\ Additionally, the 2004 final

rule made certain changes to FMVSS No. 202 itself, which included
redesignating paragraphs S4.3(b)(1)-(2) (the height and width
requirements) as paragraphs S4.2(b)(1)-(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 69 FR 74848. We note that the upgraded standard was
subsequently amended. FMVSS No. 202a is titled Head restraints;
Mandatory applicability begins on September 1, 2009. FMVSS No. 202
is titled Head restraints; Applicable at the manufacturers option
until September 1, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, before today's final rule, the make inoperative exemption in
Sec.  595.7(c)(8)-(9) did not provide for an exemption to the head
restraint requirements for vehicles manufactured and certified under
FMVSS No. 202a. Further, Sec.  595.7(c)(9) did not correctly refer to
the re-designated height and width requirements of FMVSS No. 202.

Petition for Rulemaking

    On January 2, 2007 our agency received a petition for rulemaking
from Bruno Independent Living Aids, Inc. (Bruno) requesting that we
amend Part 595 to account for FMVSS No. 202a, including adding an
exemption for passengers' side head restraint systems. In submitting
its petition, Bruno wished to facilitate use of its product, called
Turning Automotive Seating (TAS), which provides access to motor
vehicles to people with disabilities. Bruno's description of its TAS
system in the petition is summarized below:
     The device consists of a rotating, motorized seat, which
replaces the OEM seat in a motor vehicle.
     The TAS pivots from the forward-facing driving position to
the side-facing entry position and extends outward and lowers to a
suitable transfer height, providing the driver and/or passenger easy
entry into the vehicle.
     The transfer into the seat takes place while outside the
vehicle, and the occupant remains in the seat during the entry process,
using OEM seat belts while traveling in the vehicle. Exiting the
vehicle is accomplished by reversing the process.
    Bruno also described another TAS option that has a mobility base.
This system converts the automotive seat into a wheelchair, eliminating
the need for transferring from the seat altogether. Bruno states that
TAS systems provide mobility-impaired persons with safer and easier
ways to enter and exit a vehicle.
    In its petition, Bruno states that the TAS provides substantial
safety benefits. As a basis for this claim, Bruno cites a NHTSA
research report published in 1997.\2\ In this note, the agency stated
that between 1991 and 1995, 7,121 wheelchair users were killed or
injured due to any of the following reasons: (1) Improper or no
securement, (2) lift malfunction, (3) transferring to or from a motor
vehicle, (4) falling on or off the ramp, or (5) a collision between the
wheelchair and a motor vehicle.\3\ According to Bruno's petition, the
TAS will help prevent 74% of those injuries--which includes all
injuries except those occurring when a wheelchair is struck by a motor
vehicle. Bruno contends that this is possible because the TAS will
provide wheelchair users an easy and safe way to enter and exit these
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Wheelchair Users Injuries and Deaths Associated with Motor
Vehicle related Incidents, September 1997, available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.
    \3\ Id., Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bruno indicated in its petition that the TAS currently complies
with FMVSS No. 202. However, the clearance between the top of the head
restraint and the door opening can restrict the number of viable
vehicle applications. Bruno also stated that the increased head
restraint height required by the new FMVSS No. 202a will significantly
reduce the number of available vehicle applications.
    To facilitate the installation of the TAS on vehicles, Bruno
requested that the make inoperative exemptions of 49 CFR part 595 (for
persons not riding in a wheelchair) be expanded and updated to cover
both driver and passenger side head restraints. Further, Bruno
requested that the make inoperative provisions that provide exemptions
to portions of FMVSS No. 202 be extended to cover the equivalent
portions of FMVSS No. 202a. Additionally, it requested that the
exemptions in Part 595 be expanded to cover several aspects of FMVSS
No. 202a that are not currently provided for in FMVSS No. 202.
Specifically, Bruno requested more broadly that Part 595 be updated to
include an exemption for 49 CFR 571.202a S4.2.1 through S4.2.7. These
paragraphs encompass requirements on minimum height, width, backsets,
gaps, energy absorption, height retention, backset retention,
displacement, and strength. Finally, Bruno also noted the error where
Sec.  595.7(c)(9) mistakenly refers to S4.3 of FMVSS No. 202, instead
of S4.2.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On December 18, 2009, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (74
FR 67156) an NPRM to amend Part 595. The agency proposed the exemptions
described in the following paragraphs in order to address two different
issues: (1) Amending Sec.  595.7(c)(8)-(9) to reflect the changes to
FMVSS No. 202 resulting from the 2004 final rule, and (2) the requested
expansion of the exemptions in order to accommodate accessibility
devices such as Bruno's TAS system.
    In regards to the first issue, we proposed to extend the exemption
for the entirety of FMVSS No. 202, in situations where the driver or
the front right passenger is seated in a wheelchair and no seat is
supplied with the vehicle, to also cover the entirety of FMVSS No. 202a
under 49 CFR 595.7(c)(8).\4\ Additionally, we proposed to exempt driver
head restraints from the height and width requirements in S4.3 (for
vehicles manufactured before March 14, 2005 \5\) and S4.2 (for vehicles
manufactured after March 14, 2005) under 49 CFR Part 595.7(c)(9) in
order to reflect the re-designation of S4.3 as S4.2 in FMVSS No.
202.\6\ Finally, we proposed to extend the exemption for the height and
width requirements in FMVSS No. 202 for the driver head restraint to
cover the equivalent provisions of FMVSS No. 202a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 74 FR 67156.
    \5\ March 14, 2005 was the effective date of the 2004 final
rule. We proposed to include the reference to S4.3 for vehicles
manufactured before March 14, 2005 because those vehicles would have
been certified to FMVSS No. 202 as written before it was amended by
the 2004 final rule.
    \6\ 74 FR 67156.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making these proposals, our agency sought to preserve the
original exemptions to FMVSS No. 202. The agency recognized in the NPRM
that, after the 2004 final rule, modifiers may seek to apply the
exemptions in Sec.  595.7(c)(8)-(9) to vehicles certified under either
FMVSS No. 202 or the upgraded FMVSS No. 202a (depending on the date of
vehicle manufacture). Thus, the agency sought to extend the exemptions
that applied to FMVSS No. 202 to the equivalent portions of FMVSS No.
202a and correct the reference to S4.3 (which had been re-designated as
S4.2 by the 2004 final rule).
    In regards to the second issue, we proposed to extend the exemption
from the height requirements (but not the width requirements) of FMVSS
No. 202a to cover the front passenger seat head restraint.\7\ We
recognized in the NPRM that this extension may create some additional
degradation of whiplash protection beyond the current exemptions.
However, the agency tentatively concluded that the benefits of safer
ingress and egress for persons with mobility needs would outweigh the
potential drawbacks. In spite of this tentative conclusion, the agency
sought to propose the narrowest appropriate exemption in order to
appropriately balance the mobility needs of people who must have
vehicle modifications to

accommodate a disability with the safety benefits of FMVSSs No. 202 and
202a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the exemption sought by the petitioner seemed for the purpose
of ensuring that the head restraint on the TAS seat cleared the door
frame to provide easy access, we tentatively concluded that the
aforementioned exemption only to the height requirements of FMVSSs No.
202 and 202a would be appropriate. Specifically, we were not aware of
any rationale that would support extending the exemptions to include
the width requirement for the front passenger head restraint or any of
the other additional exemptions requested by Bruno.\8\ However, we
requested comment in the NPRM in regards to whether the additional
exemptions requested by Bruno would be relevant to facilitating the
mobility needs of persons with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The NPRM did not propose to include exemptions for
paragraphs S4.2.1(a) and S4.2.3 through S4.2.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment

    The agency received one comment on the 2009 NPRM. This comment was
submitted by Bruno. Bruno stated that a more expansive exemption is
required in order to accommodate the functions of a type of TAS system
called the Carony Transportation System (Carony). In its comment, Bruno
described the Carony system as a TAS seat that has the ability to
detach from the vehicle and convert into a wheelchair. Intended to
function as a typical wheelchair outside of the vehicle, the seat
portion of the wheelchair detaches from the wheelbase and can reattach
to the TAS carriage and be repositioned into the vehicle. Bruno
contends that this type of seating device can be used to facilitate the
positioning needs of the person with a disability (such as high level
quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, or hydrocephalus) through the inclusion
of positioning belts, posture vests, body supports, lumbar supports,
and specialized head positioning devices devised by therapists.
    In subsequent conversations with a NHTSA staff member, Bruno
further clarified that it is seeking the additional exemptions from
FMVSS No. 202a in order to accommodate the needs of persons that have
limited or no muscle tone in the neck and do not have the ability to
support the head.\9\ Bruno asserts that such needs generally arise for
persons who use the Carony system and that their needs can require the
complete replacement of the head restraint in order to provide head
support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0065-0003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Final Rule

    Based on consideration of the available information, including
Bruno's petition and comment, this agency decided to issue this final
rule adopting the exemptions as proposed by the NPRM and also further
expanding the exemptions to enable modification or replacement of the
head restraint of the front passenger seat of a vehicle in order to
support or position the passenger's head or neck to accommodate a
disability.
    Specifically, this final rule amends Sec.  595.7(c)(8)-(9) to: (1)
Expand the exemption from all head restraint requirements in situations
where a wheelchair is used in place of a vehicle seat, (2) correctly
refer to the re-designated S4.2 in FMVSS No. 202, (3) extend the height
and width exemptions from the driver head restraint requirements in
FMVSS No. 202 to include FMVSS No. 202a, and (4) extend the height
exemption for the driver head restraint to cover the passenger head
restraint in FMVSS 202a. Further, this final rule also extends the
exemption to cover S4.2.1 through S4.2.7 of FMVSS No. 202a (and the
corresponding provisions of FMVSS No. 202) in order to accommodate the
neck positioning needs of persons with disabilities.
    The agency remains concerned about the potential for degradation in
head and neck whiplash protection and the negative effect that an
exemption may have on the safety benefits afforded to disabled persons
who require modifications to their vehicles. However, we are unaware at
this time of any other reasonable alternatives that can appropriately
balance the mobility needs of people who must have vehicle
modifications to accommodate a disability with the head restraint
requirements of FMVSS No. 202 and FMVSS No. 202a.

Updating Sec.  595.7(c)(8) To Include FMVSS No. 202a

    Today's final rule adopts the proposal in the NPRM to update Sec.
595.7(c)(8) to include an exemption for the entirety of FMVSS No. 202
and FMVSS No. 202a in situations where a person with a disability
requires the use of a wheelchair in place of a vehicle seat in order to
drive or ride in a motor vehicle. As stated in the NPRM, the original
purpose of this exemption was to enable wheelchair users to make
modifications to the motor vehicle so as to use the wheelchair in place
of the vehicle seat. In this situation, FMVSS No. 202 would be made
inoperative because the vehicle seat--along with the head restraint--
has been completely removed. The agency believes that this issue
continues with FMVSS No. 202a which requires more stringent
requirements for head restraints. For these reasons, the agency expands
the coverage of the exemption in Sec.  595.7(c)(8) to include FMVSS No.
202a through today's final rule.

Updating and Extending the Height and Width Exemptions in Sec.
595.7(c)(9)

    Today's final rule also adopts the proposals in the NPRM to update
and expand the exemptions from the height and width requirements for
head restraints in FMVSSs No. 202 and 202a. As discussed in the NPRM,
the original exemption in Sec.  595.7(c)(9) was established in order to
accommodate drivers with a limited range of motion turning their heads.
The agency reasoned that this accommodation was necessary in order to
facilitate the ability of these drivers to look backwards when
conducting lane change or backing maneuvers. As there is a continuing
need to accommodate drivers in this manner, we adopt the proposal in
the NPRM to extend the height and width exemptions from FMVSS No. 202
to cover the equivalent provision for FMVSS No. 202a.
    However, we decline to extend the exemption to cover the width
requirements of FMVSS No. 202a for the front passenger seat as Bruno
requested in its petition and comments to the NPRM. As the agency
desires to grant the narrowest exemption possible to balance both the
needs of persons with disabilities and the safety concerns, we decline
to extend the width exemption to the front passenger because front
passengers are not required to look backwards in the same manner as
drivers. In the NPRM, this agency requested comment on whether or not
there exists any other reason to expand the width exemption to the
front passenger seat. Since this agency did not receive any comments
that provided a rationale for extending the width requirement exemption
to the front passenger seat, this final rule adopts the proposal from
the NPRM which does not extend the width exemption from FMVSS No. 202a
to cover the front passenger seat.
    However, the advent of new products such as the TAS system by Bruno
prompted this agency to tentatively conclude in the NPRM that an
extension of the exemption from the height requirement of FMVSS No.
202a to cover the front passenger seat is necessary to accommodate
persons who require a chair such as the TAS system

in order to ride in a motor vehicle. Users of the TAS system and
similar systems require an exemption to the height requirement in FMVSS
No. 202a because a compliant head restraint may be too tall and can
prevent the seat portion of the TAS system from clearing the A-pillar
of a motor vehicle. Since users of these systems may be drivers or
passengers in a motor vehicle, this exemption is required for the front
passenger seat as well as the driver seat. As we stated in the NPRM,
such seating systems allow persons with disabilities to enter the
vehicle in a sitting position, without the need to perform the
sometimes dangerous act of ascending or descending into the vehicle.
Since this exemption may degrade the whiplash protection afforded to
users of the TAS system and other similar systems, we adopt in today's
final rule the proposal in the NPRM which extends only the exemption
from the height requirements of FMVSS No. 202a to the front passenger
seat.

Updating Sec.  595.7(c)(9) To Correctly Refer to S4.2 in FMVSS No. 202

    Today's final rule also adopts the proposal in the NPRM to update
Sec.  595.7(c)(9) to refer to S4.2 in FMVSS No. 202. As discussed in
the NPRM, the agency found that Sec.  595.7(c)(9) did not reflect the
2004 final rule's re-designation of the height and width requirements
for the head restraints in FMVSS No. 202 from S4.3 to S4.2. As there is
a continuing need to exempt driver seats from the height and width
requirements of FMVSS No. 202 for the reasons discussed in previous
paragraphs, today's final rule updates Sec.  595.7(c)(9) to correctly
refer to S4.2 instead of S4.3. However, for vehicles manufactured
before the effective date of the 2004 final rule (March 14, 2005),
Sec.  595.7(c)(9) will continue to refer to S4.3.

Expanding the Exemption To Account for Persons Who Require Head
Positioning Devices

    In the NPRM, the agency contemplated denying Bruno's request for
exemptions from S4.2.1 through S4.2.7 of FMVSS No. 202a beyond the
aforementioned exemptions, but sought public comment on this issue.
Today's final rule grants these exemptions (and their equivalent
exemptions in FMVSS No. 202) for the limited circumstance in which the
head restraint of the front passenger seat must be modified or
completely replaced in order to position or support the head of a
person with limited or no ability to support his or her head due to a
disability.
    After explaining that the agency was not aware of any rationale
that would support Bruno's request for additional exemptions, the NPRM
requested comment on whether any of the additional exemptions requested
by Bruno would be relevant in facilitating mobility for persons with
disabilities. In its comments, Bruno stated that it offers a type of
TAS system seat called the Carony which functions as a ``typical
wheelchair outside the vehicle'' and unlatches from the wheeled base in
order to be transferred into the motor vehicle. Bruno further stated in
its comments (and clarified through its subsequent conversations) that
this system facilitates special positioning needs for their clients
with high level quadriplegia, cerebral palsy, or hydrocephalus and can
require specialized alterations or replacement head restraints as
medically necessary.
    Based on this information, we believe that the additional
exemptions to S4.2.1 through S4.2.7 requested by Bruno are necessary in
order to accommodate the mobility needs of these individuals because
these modifications to the head restraint can involve replacing the
entire head restraint unit. In addition, NHTSA anticipates that similar
exemptions will be required for persons seeking to accommodate similar
medical needs for vehicles certified under FMVSS No. 202. Thus, in
addition to paragraphs S4.2.1 through S4.2.7 of FMVSS No. 202a, this
final rule adds exemption from the entirety of paragraph S4.2 (or
paragraph S4.3 for vehicles manufactured before March 14, 2005) of
FMVSS No. 202 in situations in which the head restraint must be removed
or modified to position or support a passenger's head or neck due to a
disability. However, in order to ensure that this exemption does not
cover situations beyond the mobility needs of these individuals, this
final rule establishes these exemptions for the front passenger seat
only and only for situations where the head restraint must be modified
or replaced in order to support or position the passenger's head or
neck due to a disability.
    As this final rule relieves the regulatory burdens on certain
entities, the agency believes that an effective date 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register is appropriate.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking
document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' It is not considered to
be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979). NHTSA has determined
that the effects are minor and that a regulatory evaluation is not
needed to support the subject rulemaking. Today's final rule imposes no
costs on the vehicle modification industry. If there is any effect, it
will be a cost savings due to the exemptions.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of proposed rulemaking or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
No regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Many dealerships and repair businesses
would be considered small entities, and some of these businesses modify
vehicles to accommodate individuals with disabilities. I certify that
this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. While many dealers and repair
businesses are considered small entities, this exemption does not
impose any new requirements, but instead provides additional
flexibility. Therefore, the impacts on any small businesses affected by
this rulemaking would not be substantial.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255; Aug. 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments, or their representatives
is

mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule does not have
``substantial direct effects 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.'' Today's
final rule does not impose any additional requirements. Instead, it
lessens burdens on the exempted entities.
    NHTSA rules can have preemptive effect in two ways. First, the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express
preemption provision:

    When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this
chapter, a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe
or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of
performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if
the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this
chapter.

49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that
preempts any non-identical State legislative and administrative law
address the same aspect of performance. However, this provision is not
relevant to this final rule as this rule does not involve the
establishing, amending or revoking of a Federal motor vehicle safety
standard.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e) Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules--even if not expressly preempted.
    This second way that NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon the
existence of an actual conflict between an FMVSS and the higher
standard that would effectively be imposed on motor vehicle
manufacturers if someone obtained a State common law tort judgment
against the manufacturer--notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance
with the NHTSA standard. Because most NHTSA standards established by an
FMVSS are minimum standards, a State common law tort cause of action
that seeks to impose a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers
will generally not be preempted. However, if and when such a conflict
does exist--for example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum
and a maximum standard--the State common law tort cause of action is
impliedly preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S.
861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, NHTSA has considered whether
this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of action.
The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's rule
and finds that this rule merely increases flexibility for certain
exempted entities. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule
preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard
on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's rule.
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not
conflict with the exemption announced here. Without any conflict, there
could not be any implied preemption of a State common law tort cause of
action. Further, we are unaware of any State law or action that would
prohibit the actions that this final rule would permit.

Civil Justice Reform

    When promulgating a regulation, agencies are required under
Executive Order 12988 to make every reasonable effort to ensure that
the regulation, as appropriate: (1) Specifies in clear language the
preemptive effect; (2) specifies in clear language the effect on
existing Federal law or regulation, including all provisions repealed,
circumscribed, displaced, impaired, or modified; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard,
while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies in
clear language the retroactive effect; (5) specifies whether
administrative proceedings are to be required before parties may file
suit in court; (6) explicitly or implicitly defines key terms; and (7)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship of regulations.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of today's final rule is discussed above. NHTSA notes further
that there is no requirement that individuals submit a petition for
reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceeding before they
may file suit in court.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA) (Pub. L. 104-113), ``all Federal agencies and departments shall
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means
to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies
and departments.'' Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. No voluntary standards exist regarding
this exemption for modification of vehicles to accommodate persons with
disabilities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually
(adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This exemption will
not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector in excess of $100 million
annually.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed today's final rule for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of today's final rule will not have any significant
impact on the quality of the human environment.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. Today's
final rule does not contain new reporting requirements or

requests for information beyond what is already required by 49 CFR Part
595 Subpart C.

Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
     Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
     Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
     Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
     Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
     Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
     Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
     What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
    If you have any responses to these questions, please notify the
agency in writing.

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 595

    Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.

    In consideration of the foregoing, we amend 49 CFR part 595 to read
as follows:

PART 595--MAKE INOPERATIVE EXEMPTIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 595 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, 30122 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Amend Sec.  595.7 by revising paragraphs (c)(8) and (c)(9) to read
as follows:

Sec.  595.7  Requirements for vehicle modifications to accommodate
people with disabilities.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (8) 49 CFR 571.202 and 571.202a, in any case in which:
    (i) A motor vehicle is modified to be operated by a driver seated
in a wheelchair and no other seat is supplied with the vehicle for the
driver;
    (ii) A motor vehicle is modified to transport a right front
passenger seated in a wheelchair and no other right front passenger
seat is supplied with the vehicle; or
    (9)(i) For vehicles manufactured before March 14, 2005, S4.3(b)(1)
and (2) of 49 CFR 571.202, in any case in which the driver's head
restraint must be modified to accommodate a driver with a disability.
    (ii) For vehicles manufactured on or after March 14, 2005 and
certified to FMVSS No. 202, S4.2(b)(1) and (2) of 49 CFR 571.202, in
any case in which the head restraint must be modified to accommodate a
driver with a disability.
    (iii) For vehicles manufactured on or after March 14, 2005 and
certified to FMVSS No. 202a, S4.2.1(b) of 49 CFR 571.202a, in any case
in which the head restraint must be modified to accommodate a driver or
a front outboard passenger with a disability.
    (iv) For vehicles manufactured on or after March 14, 2005 and
certified to FMVSS No. 202a, S4.2.2 of 49 CFR 571.202a, in any case in
which the head restraint must be modified to accommodate a driver with
a disability.
    (v) For vehicles manufactured before March 14, 2005 and certified
to FMVSS No. 202, S4.3 of 49 CFR 571.202, in any case in which the head
restraint of the front passenger seat of a vehicle must be modified or
replaced by a device to support or position the passenger's head or
neck due to a disability.
    (vi) For vehicles manufactured on or after March 14, 2005 and
certified to FMVSS No. 202, S4.2 of 49 CFR 571.202, in any case in
which the head restraint of the front passenger seat of a vehicle must
be modified or replaced by a device to support or position the
passenger's head or neck due to a disability.
    (vii) For vehicles manufactured on or after March 14, 2005 and
certified to FMVSS No. 202a, S4.2.1, S4.2.2, S4.2.3, S4.2.4, S4.2.5,
S4.2.6, and S4.2.7 of 49 CFR 571.202a, in any case in which the head
restraint of the front passenger seat of a vehicle must be modified or
replaced by a device to support or position the passenger's head or
neck due to a disability.
* * * * *

    Issued on: July 29, 2011.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-19802 Filed 8-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36868-36869]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15211]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0046; Notice 1]

Chrysler Group, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: Chrysler Group, LLC, (Chrysler), a wholly owned subsidiary of
Fiat S.p.A., has determined that certain model year (MY) 2014 Jeep
Cherokee multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV), and MY 2013-2014 Dodge
Dart passenger cars (PC) do not fully comply with paragraph S5.2.1 of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and
Displays and paragraph S5.5.5 of FMVSS No. 135,\1\ Light Vehicle Brake
Systems. Chrysler has filed an appropriate report dated March 4, 2014
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Subsequent to receiving Chrysler's petition, NHTSA was
notified by the petitioner that it had inadvertently referred to
FMVSS No. 105, a standard that does not apply to the subject
vehicles, in its petition.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is July 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: 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 Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Chrysler's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
(see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Chrysler submitted a
petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements
of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Chrysler's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 411 MY 2014 Jeep
Cherokee MPV manufactured between June 17, 2013 and January 14, 2014
and 22 MY 2013-2014 Dodge Dart PC manufactured between July 1, 2012 and
December 13, 2013.
    III. Noncompliance: Chrysler explains that the noncompliance is
that the telltale used for Brake Warning and Park Brake Warning is
displayed using International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
symbols instead of the telltale symbol required by S5.2.1 of FMVSS No.
101 and paragraph S5.5.5 of FMVSS No. 135.

    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.2.1 of FMVSS No. 101 requires in
pertinent part:

    S5.2.1 Except for the Low Tire Pressure Telltale, each control,
telltale and indicator that is listed in column 1 of Table 1 or
Table 2 must be identified by the symbol specified for it in column
2 or the word or abbreviation specified for it in column 3 of Table
1 or Table 2. If a symbol is used, each symbol provided pursuant to
this paragraph must be substantially similar in form to the symbol
as it appears in Table 1 or Table 2. If a symbol is used, each
symbol provided pursuant to this paragraph must have the
proportional dimensional characteristics of the symbol as it appears
in Table 1 or Table 2.

    Paragraph S5.5.5 of FMVSS No. 135 requires in pertinent part:

    S5.5.5. Labeling. (a) Each visual indicator shall display a word
or words in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 101 (49
CFR 571.101) and this section, which shall be legible to the driver
under all daytime and nighttime conditions when activated. Unless
otherwise specified, the words shall have letters not less than 3.2
mm (\1/8\ inch) high and the letters and background shall be of
contrasting colors, one of which is red. Words or symbols in
addition to those required by Standard No. 101 and this section may
be provided for purposes of clarity.
    (b) Vehicles manufactured with a split service brake system may
use a common brake warning indicator to indicate two or more of the
functions described in S5.5.1(a) through S5.5.1(g). If a common
indicator is used, it shall display the word ``Brake.'' . . .

    V. Summary of Chrysler's Analyses: Chrysler stated its belief that
the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
for the following reasons:
    1. Chrysler notes that the purpose of the brake telltale is to warn
the operator about either one of two conditions: (1) The parking brake
is applied or is malfunctioning; or (2) the service brakes may be
malfunctioning. The affected vehicles ``brake display telltale''
illuminates in red as required and, except for the missing identifier
word ``Brake,'' the vehicles comply with all other applicable FMVSS
requirements. When the telltale is not illuminated, there is no
degradation of brake performance. All braking system functionality,
including service brakes and the parking brake is unaffected by this
noncompliance and the subject vehicles will operate as intended. Even
though the word ``Brake'' is not used, Chrysler's stated its belief
that in the event one of the affected vehicles displayed the red-color
ISO brake telltale, the driver would recognize a possible brake system
malfunction.
    2. Chrysler states that the telltale functions as both the
vehicle's brake system symbol and the parking brake symbol. In the
Dart, the parking brake is engaged by pulling up on the parking brake
handle in view of the instrument cluster where the brake telltale is
illuminated. In the Cherokee, the parking brake is electronic where a 5
second ``Parking Brake Engaged'' message is displayed in the Electronic
Vehicle Information Center (EVIC) and the brake telltale is illuminated
in the instrument cluster. The brake telltale also illuminates during
the cluster warning lamp function check. Due to the ISO telltale
illumination during parking brake engagement and during lamp function
checks, an operator is conditioned to associate the telltale with the
braking system and would be alerted in the event of a possible brake
system malfunction. In the unlikely event the ISO brake telltale is
illuminated and the operator does not understand its meaning, the ISO
brake telltale graphic is shown and described in the Owner's Manual for
both vehicles. Thus, an operator could easily determine that the ISO
telltale relates to the brake system.
    3. Chrysler also believes that in the subject vehicles, in the
event the brake fluid level is less than the recommended level, the
brake telltale is illuminated and the EVIC will display a five second
``Brake Fluid Low'' message that continues until the condition is
corrected. This additional visual input to the operator helps
facilitate the association of the telltale with the braking system.
    4. Chrysler has stated its belief that NHTSA has previously granted
a similar inconsequential noncompliance petition regarding the use of
ISO symbols.
    5. Chrysler is not aware of any warranty claims, field reports,
consumer complaints, legal claims or any incidents or injuries related
to the subject noncompliance.
    Chrysler has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with
FMVSS No. 101 and FMVSS No. 135.
    In summation, Chrysler believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and
that its petition, to exempt Chrysler from providing recall
notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120
should be granted.
    NHTSA 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 vehicles that Chrysler no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
Chrysler distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant motor vehicles under their
control after Chrysler notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed.

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

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-15211 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: July 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 41062-41063]
[DOCID:fr17jy08-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. DI08-9-000]

Gary E. Hall; Notice of Declaration of Intention and Soliciting
Comments, Protests, and/or Motions To Intervene

July 10, 2008.
    Take notice that the following application has been filed with the
Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Declaration of Intention.
    b. Docket No: DI08-9-000.
    c. Date Filed: June 17, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Gary E. Hall.
    e. Name of Project: Potter Creek Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The proposed Potter Creek Hydroelectric Project will
be located on Potter Creek, near Olney, in Flathead County, Montana,
affecting T. 32 N, R. 24 W, sec. 23, Montana Meridian.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 817(b).
    h. Applicant Contact: Gary E. Hall, P.O. Box 133, Olney, Montana
59927; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Any questions on this notice should be addressed
to Henry Ecton,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and/or motions: August
11, 2008.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and/or
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. Any questions, please contact the Secretary's Office. See, 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing link.
    Please include the docket number (DI08-9-000) on any comments,
protests, and/or motions filed.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed Potter Creek Hydropower
Project will include: (1) An existing 3-foot-high, 50-foot-long dam
impounding a .07-acre-foot reservoir; (2) A proposed 100-foot-long, 4-
inch-diameter plastic penstock; (3) A proposed powerhouse containing a
50-Watt generator, directing power into a battery; and (4) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed project will not be connected to an interstate
grid. The project will occupy federal lands.

    When a Declaration of Intention is filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the Federal Power Act requires the Commission to
investigate and determine if the interests of interstate or foreign
commerce would be affected by the project. The Commission also
determines whether or not the project: (1) Would be located on a
navigable waterway; (2) would occupy or affect public lands or
reservations of the United States; (3) would utilize surplus water or
water power from a government dam; or (4) if applicable, has involved
or would involve any construction subsequent to 1935 that may have
increased or would increase the project's head or generating capacity,
or have otherwise significantly modified the project's pre-1935 design
or operation.
    l. Locations of the Application: Copies of this filing are on file
with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This
filing may be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link, select ``Docket'' and follow the
instructions. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTESTS'', AND/
OR ``MOTIONS TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Docket Number of
the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any
motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the
Applicant specified in the particular application.
    p. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-16299 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62825]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25010]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0915]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Newtown Creek, Dutch Kills,
English Kills and Their Tributaries, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the operation of the Metropolitan
Avenue Bridge across English Kills, mile 3.4, at Brooklyn, New York.
The bridge owner, New York City Department of Transportation, will be
performing electrical repairs at the bridge. This deviation is
necessary to allow the bridge to remain in the closed position for
three days to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on November 17, 2014
through 4 p.m. on November 20, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0915] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Metropolitan Avenue Bridge, across
English Kills, mile 3.4, at Brooklyn, New York, has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 10 feet at mean high water and 15
feet at mean low water. The bridge operating regulations are listed at
33 CFR 117.801(e).
    The waterway is transited by recreational and commercial vessels of
various sizes.
    The bridge owner, New York City Department of Transportation,
requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to
facilitate electrical repairs at the bridge.
    Under this temporary deviation the Metropolitan Avenue Bridge shall
remain in the closed position from 7 a.m. on November 17, 2014 through
4 p.m. on November 20, 2014.
    There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic; however, vessels
that can pass under the closed draws during this closure may do so at
any time. The bridge may be opened in the event of an emergency.
    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our
Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridges so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: October 9, 2014.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-25010 Filed 10-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 53428-53429]
[DOCID:fr11se06-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-301-145]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing

September 5, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 30, 2006, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR),
tendered for filing and approval amendments to Rate Schedule FTS-3
negotiated rate service agreements numbers 108179, 108181, and 110855
between ANR and Wisconsin Power and Light Company. These agreements are
being amended to include contractual rights of first refusal.

    ANR requests that the Commission accept and approve the subject
negotiated rate agreement amendments to be effective September 1, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-14962 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31533-31535]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10474]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97494; File No. SR-LTSE-2023-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Amend Rule 2.250 To Remove Obsolete Text

May 11, 2023.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 2, 2023, Long-Term Stock Exchange, Inc. (``LTSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend LTSE Rule 2.250 (Mandatory
Participation in Testing of Backup Systems) to remove obsolete rule
text regarding the process it employed to designate certain Members \3\
previously subject to the rule to participate in mandatory disaster
recovery testing pursuant to Regulation SCI and Rule 2.250 for calendar
year 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Member'' refers to any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. A
Member will have the status of a Member of the Exchange as that term
is defined in section 3(a)(3) of the Act. Membership may be granted
to a sole proprietor, partnership, corporation, limited liability
company, or other organization that is a registered broker or dealer
pursuant to section 15 of the Act, and which has been approved by
the Exchange. See, LTSE Rule 1.160(w).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at https://longtermstockexchange.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on 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 self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects 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 proposes to amend LTSE Rule 2.250 (Mandatory
Participation in Testing of Backup Systems) to remove obsolete rule
text regarding the process it employed to designate certain Members
previously subject to the rule to participate in mandatory disaster
recovery testing pursuant to Regulation SCI and Rule 2.250 for calendar
year 2020.
    Regulation SCI requires LTSE, as an SCI entity, to maintain
business continuity and disaster recovery plans that provide for
resilient and

geographically diverse backup and recovery capabilities that are
reasonably designed to achieve two-hour resumption of critical SCI
systems and next business day resumption of other SCI systems following
a wide-scale disruption.\4\ Rule 1004 under Regulation SCI and LTSE
Rule 2.250 also require LTSE to designate certain Members to
participate in business continuity and disaster recovery testing in a
manner specified by LTSE and at a frequency of not less than once every
12 months.\5\ Such testing ordinarily is part of an industry-wide test
conducted annually in the month of October.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73639 (November 19,
2014), 79 FR 72252 (December 5, 2014).
    \5\ See, LTSE Rule 2.250(a), (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LTSE Rule 2.250 governs mandatory participation in testing of
LTSE's backup systems, and states that LTSE will designate Members that
account for a meaningful percentage of executed volume on LTSE,
measured on a quarterly basis, as required to connect to LTSE's backup
systems and participate in functional and performance testing of such
system.\6\ Rule 2.250 further provides that if a Member has not
previously been subject to the rule, such Member will have until the
next calendar quarter before such requirements are applicable.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, LTSE Rule 2.250(a), (c).
    \7\ See, LTSE Rule 2.250(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In July 2020, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change, for
immediate effectiveness, to amend Rule 2.250 to provide for special
provisions to designate certain Members to participate in mandatory
disaster recovery training in calendar year 2020.\8\ The rule change
was based on the fact that the Exchange was not operational as of the
date of the rule filing, and did not become operational until September
9, 2020. As a result, for calendar year 2020, the Exchange did not have
two calendar quarters of trading data on which to base its Member
designation prior to the October 2020 test. Absent an amendment, Rule
2.250 would not have permitted the Exchange to designate any Members to
participate in the industry-wide test for 2020 because no Member would
have had a meaningful percentage of executed volume on LTSE upon which
a designation could have been made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, Exchange Act Release 34-89216 (July 2, 2020), 85 FR
41259 (July 9, 2020), SR-LTSE-2020-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the unique circumstances for disaster recovery testing
in 2020, the Exchange amended Rule 2.250 to add new paragraph (d),
which provided that for calendar year 2020, notwithstanding paragraphs
(b) and (c), which assign the Exchange responsibility of ``identifying
Members that account for a meaningful percentage of the Exchange's
overall volume,'' the Exchange would instead designate at least three
Members who have a meaningful percentage of trading volumes in NMS
stocks across the other equity exchanges. This rule change allowed the
Exchange to identify Members for industry-wide disaster recovery
testing in the absence of the LTSE-specific volume metrics that would
be used in the ordinary course to designate such firms.
    By its terms, Rule 2.250(d) was limited to the special
circumstances existing in calendar year 2020 given that the Exchange
did not become operational until September 2020, approximately one
month prior to the industry test. The special provisions of paragraph
(d) were not employed in the 2021 and 2022 industry-wide disaster
recovery testing and the Exchange instead relied on the provisions of
paragraphs (a) through (c) of the rule in establishing the standards to
be used for determining which Members contribute a meaningful
percentage of the Exchange's overall volume and thus are required to
participate in functional and performance testing.
    Accordingly, the Exchange is now proposing to delete paragraph (d)
of Rule 2.250 in its entirety as obsolete and unnecessary rule text.
b. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in
particular, in that it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that its proposed deletion of Rule 2.250(d),
which was limited by its terms to the required Regulation SCI testing
for calendar year 2020, is obsolete and was only followed for the 2020
testing. The Exchange's participation in the 2021 and 2022 industry
testing was based on the process outlined in paragraphs (a) through (c)
of Rule 2.250, as was the original intent of the rule. Paragraph (d)
was only added to account for the unique circumstances of industry-wide
testing occurring within a short time of when the Exchange commenced
trading operations and, as a result, the Exchange would not have had
the data to conduct the testing under the process outlined in Rule
2.250(a) through (c). The Exchange believes that its proposed deletion
of this obsolete text is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act
\11\ in that it assures that the Exchange's rules are current and up-
to-date, which operates to perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and national market system and in general with the protection of
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, supra, note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, as set forth in the SCI Adopting Release, ``SROs have the
authority, and legal responsibility, under section 6 of the Exchange
Act, to adopt and enforce rules (including rules to comply with
Regulation SCI's requirements relating to BC/DR testing) applicable to
their members or participants that are designed to, among other things,
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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.'' \12\ The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent
with such authority and legal responsibility in that it removes
obsolete text from Rule 2.250 and assures that the Exchange's rule
aligns with the requirements of Regulation SCI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 4, at 72350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed amendment is
intended solely to remove obsolete text from Rule 2.250 relating to
unique circumstances surrounding the Exchange's participation in
industry-wide Regulation SCI testing for calendar year 2020.
Consequently, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
change would impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change 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, it has become
effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \13\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of 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. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend 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.

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 email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-LTSE-2023-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LTSE-2023-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange.
    Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions;
you should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication
submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-LTSE-2023-03 and should
be submitted on or before June 7, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10474 Filed 5-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28173-28174]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11370]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30782; Amdt. No. 3425]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective May 16, 2011. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of May 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169; or
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability--All SIAPs are available online free of charge. Visit
http://nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and
Takeoff Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Programs Division,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and
Sec.  97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This
amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure
and the amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and
timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only
specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for

Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to
SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions
existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule
have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency
action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published
aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all
these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30
days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs
and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure
before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the
public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for
making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    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.
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. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2011.
Ray Towles,
Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 97, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by
amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC
on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. Sec.  97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, 97.35  [AMENDED]

    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      AIRAC date           State              City                 Airport          FDC No.      FDC date                      Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Jun-11.............  IN             New Castle..........  New Castle-Henry Co        1/5020       4/6/11  NDB RWY 27, Amdt 5A
                                                             Muni.
2-Jun-11.............  OH             Akron...............  Akron-Canton Rgnl...       1/5370      4/12/11  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig
2-Jun-11.............  OH             Akron...............  Akron-Canton Rgnl...       1/5371      4/12/11  VOR RWY 5, Amdt 3
2-Jun-11.............  KS             Syracuse............  Syracuse-Hamilton          1/5584      4/12/11  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
                                                             County Muni.
2-Jun-11.............  AR             Fort Smith..........  Fort Smith Rgnl.....       1/5585      4/12/11  Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 4
2-Jun-11.............  WI             Burlington..........  Burlington Muni.....       1/6902       4/1/11  VOR RWY 29, Amdt 8
2-Jun-11.............  LA             Baton Rouge.........  Baton Rouge                1/6922      4/19/11  RNAV (GPS) RWY 4L, Amdt 1B
                                                             Metropolitan.
2-Jun-11.............  PA             Washington..........  Washington County...       1/6932      4/19/11  ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Orig
2-Jun-11.............  MS             Tupelo..............  Tupelo Rgnl.........       1/6935      4/19/11  ILS OR LOC RWY 36, Amdt 9
2-Jun-11.............  IL             Peoria..............  General Downing-           1/9091       4/1/11  ILS OR LOC RWY 31, Amdt 7A
                                                             Peoria Intl.
30-Jun-11............  MT             Missoula............  Missoula Intl.......       1/3515      1/25/11  ILS Z RWY 11, Amdt 12A
30-Jun-11............  MT             Missoula............  Missoula Intl.......       1/3516      1/25/11  ILS Y RWY 11, Orig-A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-11370 Filed 5-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P