[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19132-19138]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7626]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0037]
RIN 2127-AK20

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Bus Emergency Exits and
Window Retention and Release

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, which was preceded by a notice of proposed
rulemaking, NHTSA is making several housekeeping amendments to the
Federal motor vehicle safety standard for bus emergency exits. First,
based on a proposal made in response to a petition for rulemaking from
the School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council (SBMTC), NHTSA amends
the standard to specify that the exterior release (the exterior handle)
for school bus rear emergency exit doors may be located opposite the
door hinges, rather than located in the middle of the door. Second,
this final rule also clarifies the standard as to the number of force
applications that are required to open a window or roof emergency exit.
Third, in response to a comment on the proposed rule, this document
makes a technical correction by removing a reference to a no-longer
existent figure. These amendments correct or clarify the requirements
of the standard. We believe most, if not all, school buses are
currently designed to meet the corrected or clarified requirements.

DATES: The effective date is April 1, 2013. Manufacturers are provided
optional early compliance with this final rule beginning March 30,
2012.
    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received no later than May 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket number set forth above and be submitted to:
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, Mr. Conor
McCafferty, Office of Crashworthiness Standards (telephone: 202-366-
1046) (fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>), NVS-113. For legal issues, Ms. Deirdre
Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (fax:
202-366-3820), NCC-112. These officials can be reached at the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Location of Exterior Release Mechanism (Exterior Handle)
III. Figure 3D
IV. Window or Roof Emergency Exit Release
V. Removing Reference to Figure 6B
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, ``Bus
emergency exits and window retention and release,'' \1\ applies to
buses, including school buses, except buses manufactured for the
purpose of transporting persons under physical restraint. The purpose
of the standard is to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown
from the bus and to provide a means of readily accessible emergency
egress. The standard establishes requirements for the retention of
windows other than windshields in buses, and establishes operating
forces, opening dimensions, and markings for bus emergency exits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 571.217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, we make several housekeeping amendments to
FMVSS No. 217. First, NHTSA amends the standard to specify that the
exterior release (the exterior handle) for school bus rear emergency
exit doors may be located at the side opposite the door hinges, rather
than located in the middle of the door. Second, this final rule also
clarifies the standard as to the number of force applications that are
required to open a window or roof emergency exit. Third, this document
removes a reference to a no-longer existent figure.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) upon which this final rule
is based was published on December 28, 2009 (74 FR 68558) (Docket No.
NHTSA-2009-0190).
    We received seven comments on the NPRM from school bus
manufacturers and private individuals.\2\ None of the commenters
opposed the proposal, several made suggested changes to specific
provisions, and some commented on matters beyond the scope of the
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ NHTSA received comments from Blue Bird Body Company (Blue
Bird), Thomas Built Buses (Thomas Built), the National Truck
Equipment Association (NTEA), SBMTC, and W. Coffey, N. Horner, and
J. Walsh. This final rule does not discuss issues raised by
commenters that were beyond the scope of the rulemaking, such as
suggested ideas to possibly improve emergency egress or ideas to
improve overall school bus occupant protection. Comments can be read
at Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Location of Exterior Release Mechanism (Exterior Handle)

    FMVSS No. 217 (S<IP_ADDRESS>(a)) specifies requirements for the location
of the interior and exterior releases (handles) for side and rear
emergency door exits for school buses with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) greater than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) (``large
school buses'').
    The standard currently specifies at S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) and Figure 3D of
the standard that both the interior and exterior releases (handles) for
rear emergency exit doors be located in the center of the door.\3\
However, school bus manufacturers have always understood the standard
as requiring only interior releases (interior handles) to be in the
center of the door. They believed that the exterior handle may be near
the edge of the door on the side opposite the hinges. They further
believed that an exterior release (exterior handle) so located provides
more leverage and may be designed to require less force to open the
rear emergency exit door as compared to an exterior handle located in
the center of the door.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) specifies that the manual interior and outside
releases (handles) are located: ``Within the high force access
region shown in Figure 3A for a side emergency exit door, and in
figure 3D for a rear emergency exit door.'' Figure 3D consists of
two drawings. The left-side drawing shows the side-view of the high
force access region. As shown in the left-side drawing, the release
(handle) may be located at any point from the left side of the door
to the right. However, the right-side drawing, giving a different
perspective of the rear exit (front view), shows that the high force
access region is a narrow area in the center of the door. Since
S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) requires the interior and exterior releases (handles) to
be ``[w]ithin the high force access region shown in * * * figure 3D
for a rear emergency exit door,'' the releases must be in that
narrow area in the center of the door shown in the right-side
drawing of Figure 3D.
    \4\ All things being equal, the longer the distance between the
handle and the door hinges, the less force is required to open the
door. Thus, for optimum leverage, the handle should be operated from
the side of the door as far away as possible from the door hinges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SBMTC petitioned the agency to amend FMVSS No. 217 to specify that
the exterior release (exterior handle) for school bus rear emergency
exit doors may be located near the edge of the door on the side
opposite the hinges. Regarding interior releases (interior handles),
the petitioner believed that the interior handles should be in the
center of the door so that it is visible to bus occupants and not
obscured by seat backs if the door is wider than the bus's center
aisle.
    In the NPRM, we tentatively agreed that the school bus
manufacturers' current practice of placing the exterior rear emergency
exit door release (exterior handle) near the edge of the door on the
side opposite the hinges better meets the need for safety than placing
the exterior release in the center of the door. Releases (exterior
handles) placed opposite the hinges would require less force to pull
open the door for persons outside the school bus than comparable
releases located in the center.
    Accordingly, we proposed to amend FMVSS No. 217 to specify that the
exterior release (exterior handle) for the exit must only be in the
high force access region shown in the left-side drawing (side view) of
current Figure 3D; that is, only the vertical dimensions of the high
force region are specified for the location of the exterior handle. We
sought comment on whether we should require the exterior release to be
no further than 51 millimeters (mm) (two inches) away from the edge of
the door opposite the hinges.
    We also clarified the requirement that the interior release
(interior handle) for a rear emergency exit must be in the high force
access region shown in both drawings of current Figure 3D, i.e., in the
center of the door.
    In addition, to make Figure 3D easier to understand, we proposed to
rename the left-side drawing ``Figure 3D(1)'' and the right-side
drawing ``Figure 3D(2).''

Comments

    All commenters responding to this issue agreed with NHTSA that
FMVSS No. 217 should be amended so that it specifies that the exterior
release (exterior handle) for school bus rear emergency exit doors be
located near the edge of the door on the side opposite the hinges.
    However, no commenter supported the idea to limit placement of the
exterior release to no further than 51 mm (two inches) from the edge of
the door opposite the hinges. SBMTC stated that the NPRM did not give
an explanation on the reasoning behind this proposal. SBMTC stated that
the shaft of the exterior emergency door release handle on the majority
of school buses is located approximately 76 to 127 mm (3 to 5 inches)
from the edge of the door. SBMTC also noted that due to current school
bus emergency door construction and because emergency

exits are already required to meet release forces as specified in FMVSS
No. 217, it does not see any benefit or need to limit the maximum
distance from the edge of the door to 51 mm (two inches).
    Thomas Built believed that the 51 mm (two inch) limitation was
arbitrary. Thomas Built requested that the edge dimension be determined
by each individual manufacturer's design parameters because it would
give the manufacturers some tolerance and flexibility in their
respective designs.
    NTEA believed that most manufacturers' exterior release handles on
emergency doors are farther away than 51 mm (two inches) from the edge
of the door. NTEA is unaware of any safety need to require design
changes such that exterior release handles are no further than 51 mm (2
inches) from the edge of the door.

Response

    We are adopting the proposed amendment, except for the requirement
that the exterior release handle must be no further than 51 mm (two
inches) away from the edge of the door. The purpose of the limitation
would have been to ensure the emergency exit door opened within the
force requirements set forth in the standard. After reviewing the
comments, we agree with SBMTC that the force requirements specified in
the standard for opening emergency exits are sufficient to meet this
goal. It is the opening force, not the closeness to the edge of the
door, that is important for opening the door from the outside.
    We also agree with Thomas Built that the location of the exterior
release handle should be determined by the individual manufacturer's
design parameters because the door design may vary based on each
manufacturer's model. Thus, specifying an exact location would be
overly design restrictive when the standard already prescribes the
maximum force to open the exit.
    We received no comment on the issue of the effective date for the
changes to the exterior release handle for the school bus rear
emergency exit door.

III. Figure 3D

    In its comment, Blue Bird stated that Figure 3D already has the
required two drawings and only needs to change the width of the
``ACCESS REGION FOR HIGH FORCES'' in the right-hand drawing to span the
entire door. Blue Bird stated that the proposal to split Figure 3D into
Figures 3D(1) and 3D(2) did not seem necessary and may recreate the
problem of using a single two-dimensional drawing to communicate three-
dimensional information.

Response

    We do not agree with Blue Bird's suggestion that the high access
region depicted in Figure 3D(2) (right side drawing) extends across the
entire width of the door. The access region depicted in Figure 3D(2)
(front view of the access regions for the rear emergency exit without
rear obstruction) provides the location requirement for the interior
release mechanism (interior handle) and ensures that it is in a
location accessible from inside of the school bus. As we explained in
the NPRM, the interior release handle for the emergency exit was
intentionally required to be located in the center of the door so that
it is visible to bus occupants and the view of the handle is not
obstructed by seat backs. Further, as noted by SBMTC, the exit would be
opened from inside by a pushing motion rather than a pulling motion, so
locating the handle in the center of the door does not markedly
increase the difficulty of opening the door.
    Further, we do not agree with Blue Bird's suggestion not to split
Figure 3D into Figures 3D(1) and 3D(2). Splitting Figure 3D into two
parts allows referencing the two figures individually, to provide
separate location requirements for the interior and exterior release
mechanisms. As explained earlier, we intentionally described the
interior handle as being in the center of the door, as indicated by
Figures 3D(1) (side view) and 3D(2) (front view). However, for exterior
release handles, which are not at risk of being obscured, we are only
specifying the vertical dimensions of the high force region and are
providing flexibility to the manufacturer to place the exterior release
handle anywhere along the width of the door, as indicated by Figure
3D(1) alone (with vertical dimensions shown in the front view--3D(2)).

IV. Window or Roof Emergency Exit Release

    FMVSS No. 217 (S<IP_ADDRESS>) specifies the number, location, type, and
magnitude of force applications to open emergency exit windows in all
school buses, and S<IP_ADDRESS> does the same for school bus emergency roof
exits. At S5.3.2, the standard specifies the number, location, type and
magnitude of force applications to open emergency exits in buses other
than school buses.
    These paragraphs of the standard specify, among other things: ``In
the case of [an exit] with one release mechanism, the mechanism shall
require two force applications to release the exit. In the case of [an
exit] with two release mechanisms, each mechanism shall require one
[force] application to release the exit.'' The language first appeared
in a November 2, 1992 final rule (57 FR 49423).
    In a June 13, 1994 interpretation letter to Blue Bird, NHTSA stated
that the sentence in S<IP_ADDRESS>, ``In the case of windows with one
release mechanism, the mechanism shall require two force applications
to release the exit,'' was incorrect. The agency stated that the
sentence was meant to read: ``In the case of windows with one release
mechanism, the exit shall require two force applications to open.''
(Emphasis added.) That is to say, the agency intended a window or roof
exit with one release mechanism to be able to be opened with only two
force applications: One force application that undoes the release
mechanism, and a second force application that opens the exit. The
concern is that, because of the current wording of S<IP_ADDRESS>, the
paragraph could be read as specifying that two force applications are
used to activate the single mechanism and that a third force
application is applied to open the exit.
    The NPRM proposed to change the wording so that it states more
clearly what the agency had intended. NHTSA proposed to make S5.3.2,
S<IP_ADDRESS>, and S<IP_ADDRESS> clearer by separating the requirements for
operating an exit's release mechanism(s) from the requirements for
opening the exit. NHTSA proposed to specify, for exits with one release
mechanism, the exit must require two force applications to open: One to
release the mechanism and another to open the exit. For exits with two
release mechanisms, there must be a total of three force applications
to open the exit: One force application must be applied to each of the
two mechanisms to release the mechanism, and another force must be
applied to open the exit.
    We viewed this rulemaking as primarily a housekeeping measure and
stated our belief in the NPRM that all emergency window and roof exits
are currently designed to meet the requirements as the agency had
intended to be understood.

Comments

    We received no comments on this issue. Thus, no manufacturer
disagreed with our statement that all emergency window and roof exits
are currently designed to meet the existing requirements regarding the
number of

force applications. Blue Bird stated generally that it was ``supportive
of this NPRM's housekeeping measures,'' which we assume refers to this
as well as the other proposed amendments.

Response

    For the reasons in the NPRM, we are adopting the changes proposed
in the December 2009 NPRM.

V. Removing Reference to Figure 6B

    In its comment, Blue Bird pointed out another housekeeping measure.
In an August 12, 2005 final rule (70 FR 47131), we amended FMVSS No.
217 by, among other things, removing Figure 6B from the standard.
Inadvertently, we did not remove a reference to Figure 6B in the
regulatory text of S<IP_ADDRESS>(a). Today's final rule corrects S<IP_ADDRESS>(a)
by removing the reference to Figure 6B.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. 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). This final rule is of
a housekeeping nature. We believe that all vehicles currently meet the
changes discussed in this final rule and that there will be no costs
associated with this rule.

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
for any proposed 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), except as
provided below. The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13
CFR part 121 define a small business, in part, as a business entity
``which operates primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR
121.105(a)). No regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule is required
if the head of an agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The 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 rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The basis for the certification is that this final rule
is of a housekeeping nature. It does not change any FMVSS No. 217
requirements that school bus manufacturers are now meeting.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action does not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 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
this housekeeping rulemaking 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.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt 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 addressing the
same aspect of performance.
    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 such 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 there being 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 and 12988, 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 prescribes only housekeeping amendments.
Accordingly, NHTSA does not intend that this rule preempt state tort
law.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the

retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6)
addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general
draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This
document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The preemptive
effect of this 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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency unless
the collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number. There are no collections of information associated with
today's final rule. Thus, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs NHTSA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. 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 the agency to provide Congress,
through the OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    After carefully reviewing the available information, NHTSA has
determined that there are no voluntary consensus standards relevant to
this rulemaking, as this final rule clarifies existing FMVSS No. 217
requirements.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal 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 in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). This final rule will not result in the expenditure by
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of more than $100 million annually.

Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 18, 2001) applies to any
rulemaking that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under E.O. 12866, and is likely to have a significantly adverse
effect on the supply of, distribution of, or use of energy; or (2) that
is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. This rulemaking is
not subject to E.O. 13211.

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.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
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 (65 FR 19477 at 19478).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Labeling, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

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

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

0
2. Section 571.217 is amended by:
0
a. Revising S5.3.2;
0
b. Adding S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) and S<IP_ADDRESS>(b);
0
c. Revising S<IP_ADDRESS>(a);
0
d. Revising S<IP_ADDRESS>;
0
e. Adding S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(a) and S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(b);
0
f. Revising S<IP_ADDRESS>;
0
g. Adding S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(a) and S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(b);
0
h. Revising S<IP_ADDRESS>(a); and,
0
i. Revising Figure 3D.
    The revised and added text and figure read as follows:

Sec.  571.217  Bus emergency exits and window retention and release.

* * * * *
    S5.3.2 (a) When tested under the conditions of S6, both before and
after the window retention test required by S5.1, each emergency exit
not required by S5.2.3 shall allow manual release of the exit by a
single person, from inside the passenger compartment, using force
applications each of which conforms, at the option of the manufacturer,
either to S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) or S<IP_ADDRESS>(b).
    (b) Each exit described in S5.3.2(a) shall have no more than two
release mechanisms. For exits with one release mechanism, the exit
shall require two force applications to open the exit: One force
application shall be applied to the mechanism and another force
application shall be applied to open the exit. The force application
for the release mechanism must differ by not less than 90 degrees and
not more than 180 degrees from the direction of the initial motion to
open the exit. For exits with two release mechanisms, there shall be a
total of three force applications to open the exit: One force
application shall be applied to each of the two mechanisms to release
each mechanism, and another force shall be applied to open the exit.
The force application for at least one of the release mechanisms must
differ by not less than 90 degrees and not more than 180 degrees from
the direction of the initial motion to open the exit. The force
applications for the mechanism(s) must conform to either S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) or
S<IP_ADDRESS>(b), as appropriate.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) Low-force application.
    (1) Location: As shown in Figure 1 or Figure 3.
    (2) Type of motion: Rotary or straight.
    (3) Magnitude: Not more than 90 N.
    (b) High-force application.
    (1) Location: As shown in Figure 2 or Figure 3.
    (2) Type of motion: Straight and perpendicular to the undisturbed
exit surface.
    (3) Magnitude: Not more than 270 N.
    S5.3.3 * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> * * *
    (a) Location: Within the high force access region shown in Figure
3A for a side emergency exit door, within the high force access region
shown in both

Figure 3D(1) and Figure 3D(2) for an interior release mechanism for a
rear emergency exit door, and within the high force access region shown
in Figure 3D(1) for an exterior release mechanism for a rear emergency
exit door.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> When tested under the conditions of S6., both before and
after the window retention test required by S5.1, each school bus
emergency exit window shall allow manual opening of the exit by a
single person, from inside the passenger compartment. Each exit shall
have no more than two release mechanisms. The mechanism(s) must be
located in either the specified low-force or high-force regions (at the
option of the manufacturer), with force applications and types of
motions that conform to either S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(a) or (b) of this section, as
appropriate. For exits with one release mechanism, the exit shall
require two force applications to open the exit: One force application
shall be applied to the mechanism and another force application shall
be applied to open the exit. The force application for the release
mechanism must differ by not less than 90 degrees and not more than 180
degrees from the direction of the initial motion to open the exit. For
exits with two release mechanisms, there shall be a total of three
force applications to open the exit: One force application shall be
applied to each of the two mechanisms to release each mechanism, and
another force shall be applied to open the exit. The force application
for at least one of the release mechanisms must differ by not less than
90 degrees and not more than 180 degrees from the direction of the
initial motion to open the exit. Each release mechanism shall operate
without the use of remote controls or tools, and notwithstanding any
failure of the vehicle's power system. When a release mechanism is
unlatched and the vehicle's ignition is in the ``on'' position, a
continuous warning shall be audible at the driver's seating position
and in the vicinity of that emergency exit.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(a) Emergency exit windows--Low-force application.
    (1) Location: Within the low-force access regions shown in Figures
1 and 3 for an emergency exit window.
    (2) Type of motion: Rotary or straight.
    (3) Magnitude: Not more than 90 N.
    (b) Emergency exit windows--High-force application.
    (1) Location: Within the high-force access regions shown in Figures
2 and 3 for an emergency exit window.
    (2) Type of motion: Straight and perpendicular to the undisturbed
exit surface.
    (3) Magnitude: Not more than 180 N.
    S<IP_ADDRESS> When tested under the conditions of S6., both before and
after the window retention test required by S5.1, each school bus
emergency roof exit must allow manual opening of the exit by a single
person, from inside the passenger compartment. Each exit shall have no
more than two release mechanisms. The mechanism(s) must be located in
either the specified low-force or high-force regions (at the option of
the manufacturer), with force applications and types of motions that
conform to either S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(a) or (b) of this section, as appropriate.
For exits with one release mechanism, the exit shall require two force
applications to open the exit: One force application shall be applied
to the mechanism and another force application shall be applied to open
the exit. The force application for the release mechanism must differ
by not less than 90 degrees and not more than 180 degrees from the
direction of the initial motion to open the exit. For exits with two
release mechanisms, there shall be a total of three force applications
to open the exit: One force application shall be applied to each of the
two mechanisms to release each mechanism, and another force shall be
applied to open the exit. The force application for at least one of the
release mechanisms must differ by not less than 90 degrees and not more
than 180 degrees from the direction of the initial motion to open the
exit.
    S<IP_ADDRESS>.1(a) Emergency roof exits--Low-force application.
    (1) Location: Within the low force access regions shown in Figure
3B, in the case of buses whose roof exits are not offset from the plane
specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(5). In the case of buses which have roof exits
offset from the plane specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(5), the amount of offset
shall be used to recalculate the dimensions in Figure 3B for the offset
exits.
    (2) Type of motion: Rotary or straight.
    (3) Magnitude: Not more than 90 N.
    (b) Emergency roof exits--High-force application.
    (1) Location: Within the high force access regions shown in Figure
3B, in the case of buses whose roof exits are not offset from the plane
specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(5). In the case of buses which have roof exits
offset from the plane specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(5), the amount of offset
shall be used to recalculate the dimensions in Figure 3B for the offset
exits.
    (2) Type of motion: Straight and perpendicular to the undisturbed
exit surface.
    (3) Magnitude: Not more than 180 N.
* * * * *
    S<IP_ADDRESS> * * *
    (a) In the case of side emergency exit doors, any portion of the
wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by the
interior side wall and emergency exit door opening, transverse vertical
planes 305 mm (12 inches) forward and rearward of the center of any
side emergency exit door restricted area, and a longitudinal vertical
plane through the longitudinal centerline of the school bus, as shown
in Figure 6A.
* * * * *

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30MR12.000

* * * * *

    Issued on: March 23, 2012.
David L. Strickland,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-7626 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20807-20808]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09714]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ18-11-000]

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 23, 2018, Oncor Electric Delivery Company
LLC submitted its tariff filing: Oncor Tex-La Tariff Rate Changes to be
effective 11/27/2017.
    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, 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 on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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 5 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 website that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 14, 2018.

    Dated: May 2, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09714 Filed 5-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 3449 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation 2. OMB control number b. X None a. __ __ __ __  __ __ __ __ 2060 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NESHAP for Mercury Cell Chlor Alkali Plants ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart IIIII) ( Final Rule)

8. Agency form number( s) 2046.02 9. Keywords Air emissions control, Chlorine production, End box ventilation system, Hazardous air pollutants, Hydrogen by product stream, Mercury cell chloralkali process, Mercury recovery process, Mercury Thermal Recovery Unit, Recordkeeping and reporting.

10. Abstract Respondents are owners and operators of mercury cell chlor alkali plants. Respondents would keep records and submit notifications and information to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the proposed NESHAP. This information is needed by EPA to determine if compliance has been achieved.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 9 b. Total annual responses 9 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 2,231 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 2,231 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2,231 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 87 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 122 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 209 d. Current OMB inventory $ 0 e. Difference $ 209 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change $ 209 2. Adjustment $ 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Iliam Rosario, EPA/ OAR/ OAQPS/ ESD/ MG Phone: ( 919) 541 5308 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Doreen Sterling, Acting Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


      MEMORANDUM

      DATE:03/04/2015
      FROM: 		Laura Farris/EPA Region 8
      TO:CLEAN Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602
      SUBJECT:	Davis, Graham, and Stubbs Air Quality Summit on 03/03/2015

      SUMMARY:
      Shaun McGrath delivered a keynote address and Carl Daly participated on a panel discussion on 03/03/2015 on the Clean Power Plan. The meeting was held in Denver, Colorado. The Clean Power Plan was proposed on June 2, 2014.

      ATTENDEES:

EPA
      Shaun McGrath, EPA Region 8
      Carl Daly, EPA Region 8

      External Stakeholders
	Rusty Frishmuth, Bill Barrett Corp.
	Laura Higgins, DCP Midstream
	Ursula Rick, Atmospheric Scientist
	Dave Neslin, DGS
	John Jacus, DGS
	Will Allison, Colorado Air Pollution Control Division
	Ralph Morris, ENVIRON
	Ken Lloyd, Regional Air Quality Council
	Randy Dann, DGS
	Jack Ihle, Xcel Energy
	Martha Rudolph
	Eric Waeckerlin, DGS
      General public


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 46237]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1030-000.
    Applicants: Fieldwood Energy LLC, Fieldwood Energy Offshore LLC,
QuarterNorth Energy LLC, GOM Shelf LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition of Fieldwood Energy LLC et al for
Limited Waiver of ``shipper-must-have-title'' Policy, Request for
Expedited Action and Shortened Comment Period.
    Filed Date: 8/11/21.
    Accession Number: 20210811-5078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/18/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1031-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 202108012 Carlton Flow
Obligation to be effective 11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 8/12/21.
    Accession Number: 20210812-5043.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-1032-000.
    Applicants: DBM Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing to be
effective 8/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 8/12/21.
    Accession Number: 20210812-5084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at:http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 12, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17707 Filed 8-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 45 (Friday, March 6, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12998-12999]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04422]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0665; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-7]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airways V-56, and V-209 in the Vicinity
of Kewanee, MS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
airways V-56 and V-209, in the vicinity of Kewanee, MS. This action is
necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the Kewanee, MS, VORTAC
navigation aid, which provides navigation guidance for segments of the
routes.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, May 21, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Policy Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the route structure in the National Airspace
System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air
traffic.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2017-0665 in the Federal Register (82 FR 40737; August 28, 2017)
amending VOR Federal airways V-56, and V-209 due to the planned
decommissioning of the Kewanee, MS, VORTAC. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal. One comment was received.

Discussion of Comment

    The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) stated that, when
VOR NAVAIDs are to be decommissioned and routes correspondingly
removed, the FAA should create an Area Navigation (RNAV) waypoint (WP)
at the previous NAVAID location, and retain all fixes and intersections
along the removed route by converting them to RNAV waypoints.
    The FAA established the KWANE, MS, WP located near the current
location of the Kewanee VORTAC. In a separate rulemaking action, the
FAA established a new RNAV route, designated T-239 that replaces V-56
between Meridian, MS, and Montgomery, AL; and RNAV route T-292 that
replaces V-209 between the YARBO, AL, fix, and the EUTAW, AL, fix.
Selected fixes along the affected route sections are incorporated in T-
239 and T-292.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
7400.11D dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways
listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Differences From the NPRM

    The NPRM incorrectly listed the wrong location for the Kewannee

VORTAC; correct location is Kewannee, MS. The NPRM proposed to amend V-
56 by removing the airway segments between Meridian, MS, and Tuskegee,
AL. The FAA has decided to retain the segment between Montgomery, AL
and Tuskegee, AL in order to join T-290 at Montgomery.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-56 and V-209. The planned
decommissioning of the Kewanee, MS, VORTAC has made these actions
necessary. The VOR Federal airway changes are outlined below.
    V-56: V-56 currently extends between the Meridian, MS, VORTAC and
the New Bern, NC, VOR/DME. This rule removes the airway segments
between the Meridian, MS, VORTAC and the Montgomery, AL, VOR/DME. As
amended, V-56 extends between Montgomery, AL, and New Bern, NC as
currently charted.
    In a separate action, (84 FR 64989; November 26, 2019) the FAA
established RNAV route T-290 that extends between the HABJE, MS, fix
(west of the Meridian, MS, VORTAC) and the JACET, GA, waypoint. T-290
replaces V-56 between Meridian, MS, and Montgomery, AL.
    V-209: V-209 currently extends between the Semmes, AL, VORTAC and
the Choo Choo, TN, VORTAC. This action removes the Kewanee, AL, VORTAC
from the route, resulting in a gap in the airway between the
intersection of the Semmes, AL, 356[deg] and Eaton, MS, 080[deg]
radials (i.e., the charted YARBO, AL, fix, located approximately 43 NM
north of Semmes, AL), and the intersection of the Bigbee, MS
139[deg](T)/135[deg](M) and Brookwood, AL 230[deg](T)/230[deg](M)
radials (i.e., the charted EUTAW, AL, fix, located approximately 41 NM
northeast of Kewanee). Therefore, the amended V-209 route consists of
two sections: first, between Semmes, AL, and the YARBO fix; and, after
the gap, V-209 resumes between the EUTAW fix to Choo Choo, TN as
currently charted.
    In the above separate action, the FAA established RNAV route T-292
that extends between Semmes, AL, and the JACET, GA, WP. T-292 replaces
V-209 between the YARBO, AL, fix and the EUTAW, AL, fix.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal
airways V-56 and V-209 near Kewanee, MS, qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and its
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with
FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action
is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019 and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-56 [Amended]

    From Montgomery, AL; Tuskegee, AL; Columbus, GA; INT Columbus
087[deg] and Macon, GA, 266[deg] radials; Macon; Colliers, SC;
Columbia, SC; Florence, SC; Fayetteville, NC, 41 miles 15 MSL, INT
Fayetteville 098[deg] and New Bern, NC 256[deg] radials; to New
Bern.

V-209 [Amended]

    From Semmes, AL, to INT Semmes 356[deg] and Eaton, MS, 080[deg]
radials. From INT Bigbee, MS 139[deg] and Brookwood, AL 230[deg]
radials; Brookwood; Vulcan, AL; INT Vulcan 097[deg] and Gadsden, AL,
233[deg] radials; Gadsden; INT Gadsden 042[deg] and Choo Choo, TN,
214[deg] radials; Choo Choo.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 25, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-04422 Filed 3-5-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61954-61955]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24395]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-550-000; RP13-1362-000]

ONEOK, Inc.; ONE Gas, Inc.; Notice of Application and Petition

    Take notice that on September 27, 2013, ONEOK, Inc. (ONEOK) and ONE
Gas, Inc. (ONE Gas), 100 West Fifth Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103,
jointly filed in Docket No. CP13-550-000 an application pursuant to
sections 7(b), 7(c), and 7(f) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts
157 and 284 of the Commission's regulations for authorizations required
to implement the transfer certain natural gas distribution assets
located in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas from ONEOK to

ONE Gas pursuant to a corporate reorganization. ONEOK's natural gas
distribution operating divisions to be transferred are Oklahoma Natural
Gas Company, Texas Gas Service, and Kansas Gas Service. In the same
document, ONEOK and ONE Gas jointly petition in Docket No. RP13-1362-
000, pursuant to section 385.207(a)(5) of the Commission's rules of
practice and procedure, for the grant of temporary waiver of the
Commission's capacity release rules.
    The authorizations requested by the applicants include: (1)
Authorization pursuant to Section 7(b) of the NGA for ONEOK to abandon
by transfer: (a) its Part 284 authority for interruptible interstate
service; (b) its Section 7(c) limited jurisdiction certificate to
transport natural gas on a no-fee basis; and (c) its Section 7(f)
service area determination; and contemporaneously with such
abandonment, (2) the necessary authorizations for ONE Gas to perform
the same services as ONEOK's successor in interest, including: (a) Part
284 authority for interruptible interstate service; (b) a limited
jurisdiction certificate pursuant to Section 7(c) of the NGA for ONE
Gas to transport natural gas pursuant to a No-Fee Gas Exchange
Agreement; (c) a limited service area determination pursuant to Section
7(f) of the NGA.
    In addition, ONE Gas requests: (1) Commission determination that
the limited jurisdiction certificate will not affect the non-
jurisdictional status of the remainder of the natural gas distribution
facilities it shall receive from ONEOK pursuant to the reorganization;
and (2) Commission waiver of the requirements of part 154 of the
Commission's regulations for as long as no fee is charged in connection
with the No-Fee Exchange Agreement. Applicants also petition for a
temporary waiver of the Commission's capacity release rules in order to
permit the release of pipeline transportation service agreements from
ONEOK to ONE Gas as necessary to implement orderly corporate
restructuring and reorganization. Applicants request that the
Commission consider the application and petition together and grant the
authorizations, effective upon the closing of the transaction between
ONEOK and ONE Gas, in an order issued by November 21, 2013.
    Any questions regarding the joint application should be directed to
Vicky C. Benedict, Vice President and Associate General Counsel, 100
West Fifth Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103, by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Lawrence G. Acker, Counsel for
ONEOK, Inc. and ONE Gas, Inc., Van Ness Feldman, LLP, 1050 Thomas
Jefferson Street NW., 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20007, by phone at
(202) 298-1915, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit an original and 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and
must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the
proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
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 7 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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: October 16, 2013.

    Dated: October 1, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24395 Filed 10-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11514-11515]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05290]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9975-02]

Access to Confidential Business Information by Accelera
Solutions, Inc

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its contractor, Accelera Solutions, Inc. of
Fairfax, VA, to access information which has been submitted to EPA
under all sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of
the information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data occurred on or about February
22, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Scott Sherlock, Environmental
Assistance Division (7408M), Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8257; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute
industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under EPA contract number (GS-35F-0391P, order number EP-G18H-
01472), contractor Accelera of 12150 Monument Drive, Suite 800,
Fairfax, VA, is assisting the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT) in the operations, maintenance and infrastructure support for
the Confidential Business Information Local Area Network (CBI LAN).
This includes the existing hardware, associated operating systems,
security artifacts and COTS products, currently in use on the OPPT CBI
LAN and ADMIN LAN. In addition, the contractor is providing assistance
on the virtual desktop solution, which will streamline the process of
bilateral use of CBI and business processes, to support headquarters
and region offices. Furthermore, they are assisting in establishing
expertise in secure virtual environments.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under
EPA contract number (GS-35F-0391P, order number EP-G18H-01472),
Accelera required access to CBI submitted to EPA under all sections of
TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the contract.
Accelera personnel were given access to information submitted to EPA
under all sections of TSCA. Some of the information may be claimed or
determined to be CBI.
    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information
under all sections of TSCA that EPA has provided Accelera access to
these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA
CBI under this contract is taking place at EPA Headquarters in
accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.
    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until February
13, 2022. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue
for the duration of the extended contract without further notice.
    Accelera personnel have signed nondisclosure agreements and were
briefed on appropriate security procedures before they were permitted
access to TSCA CBI.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: February 28, 2018.
Pamela S. Myrick,
Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2018-05290 Filed 3-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER:

This OMB form has been recreated in WP6.0 by OPPTS staff. The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attenti on to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task:

 Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise yo u'll have to delete a space for each letter you add.

 Use the same font ( Times New Roman 8pt).

 Do not change table lines ( although you can delete an extra spac e line to provide more space elsewhere.

 It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5.1, so the text will scramble.

If you have any problems or questions, please call your RID Desk Officer @ 260 2 706. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewe d, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Infor mation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503. 1. Agency/ Subagency originating request Environmental Protection Agency/ OAR/ OMS 2. OMB control number b. X None a_ _ _ _ _ __ 2060 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. New collection b. Revision of a currently approved collection c. x Extension of a currently approved collection d. Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. x Regular b. Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested ex piration date a. x Three years from approval date b. Other Specify: / /___ 7. Title: Emission Defect Information and Voluntary Emission Recall Reports for On Highway, Light Duty Vehicles.

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 1 9 1 6. 0 1 9. Keywords defects, recalls, vehicles 10. Abstract Vehicle manufacturers are required to submit certain reports co ncerning emissions related defects or voluntary recalls. The defect reports con tain data regarding the types of vehicles or engines, the number and types of de fects, and the effects on emissions and performance. The recall reports must co ntain information about the recall and progress of the recall. The Agency uses these reports to monitor compliance by the manufacturers.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Voluntary b. Required to obtain or retain benefits c. X Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 18 b. Total annual responses 176 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total hours requested 1256 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 1256 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment 1256 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burd en ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0.8 c. Total annualized cost requested 0.8 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 .8 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 2. Adjustment 0.8 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others tha t apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. X_ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that appl y) a. x Recordkeeping b. Third party disclosure c. x Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Weekly 3. Monthly 4. x Quarterly 5. Semi annually 6. Annual ly 7. Biannually 8. Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? Yes x No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Steve Albrink Phone: ( 202) 564 8997 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information e ncompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b )( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made wi th reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of i nformation, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is unders tandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current r eporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 13 20.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resour ces for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note i n Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify t he item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Margo T. Oge, Director Office of Mobile Sources Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Joseph Retzer, Director Regulatory Information Division Office of Regulatory Management and Evaluation ( OPPE) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collec tion of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Offi cial or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such cert ification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency , including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably a ccessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on person s who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C " 601( 6)), th e use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or time tables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respon d; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance a nd reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximu m extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time pers ons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under " 13 20.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resou rces for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shal l enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropr iate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information tech nology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsi veness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used t o further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestion s for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( ci ting authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions)

10/ 95


[Federal Register: April 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 73)]
[Notices]
[Page 17871]
[DOCID:fr17ap09-79]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0345]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Current Good Manufacturing Practices
and Related Regulations for Blood and Blood Components; and
Requirements for Donor Testing, Donor Notification, and ``Lookback''

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Current Good Manufacturing
Practices and Related Regulations for Blood and Blood Components; and
Requirements for Donor Testing, Donor Notification, and `Lookback'''
has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information
Management (HFA-710), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of November 12, 2008
(73 FR 66901), the agency announced that the proposed information
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0116.
The approval expires on February 29, 2012. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: April 10, 2009.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-8776 Filed 4-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S