[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 132 (Friday, July 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39832-39835]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16936]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0109; Notice 2]

RECARO Child Safety, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: RECARO Child Safety, LLC (Recaro) determined that certain
Recaro child restraints do not fully comply with the system integrity
requirements of paragraph S5.1.1(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Recaro filed an
appropriate report, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, that was received by NHTSA on
July 30, 2014. Recaro also submitted a petition for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on
the basis of the petitioner's belief that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA published a notice of
receipt of the petition and requested comment on the petition. After
consideration of Recaro's analysis and other information, NHTSA has
decided to deny the petition.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Zachary
Fraser, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d)
and 30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Recaro
submitted a petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis of the petitioner's
belief that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on November 21, 2014 in the Federal Register (79
FR 69551). Comments were received, from an individual, Sean Stewart,
and from Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates). Both
commenters opposed the petition. Mr. Stewart believes that child
restraint manufacturers should be required to meet the applicable
requirements in FMVSS No. 213 regardless of the manufacturer's
instructions and warnings. Advocates believes that ``the reasons
provided by RECARO fail to justify determining that the non-compliance
is inconsequential.'' To view the petition, the comments, and all
supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2014-0109.''
    II. Child Restraints Involved: Affected are approximately 78,339
Recaro ProRIDE child restraints manufactured between April 9, 2010 and
July 8, 2014, and approximately 42,303 Recaro Performance RIDE child
restraints manufactured between January 15, 2013 and July 8, 2014.
    III. Noncompliance: Recaro explains that the subject child
restraints do not comply with the system integrity requirements of
FMVSS No. 213, paragraph S5.1.1(a), when subjected to the dynamic test
requirements of FMVSS No. 213 S6.1. During NHTSA's compliance tests
with the Hybrid II six-year-old child dummy and the Hybrid III weighted
six-year-old child dummy connected to the child restraints with the
internal harness and the child restraints attached to the test bench
with a lap belt and top tether, the tether belt separated at the
attachment point to the child restraints. The top tether belt
separation exhibited a complete separation of a load bearing structural
element. Therefore, the child restraints do not comply with the
requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 213 S5.1.1(a).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Petitioner informed NHTSA that production and distribution
of the subject child restraints affected by the noncompliance were
corrected effective July 9, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S5.1.1 of FMVSS No. 213 requires, in
pertinent part:

    S5.1.1 Child restraint system integrity. When tested in
accordance with S6.1, each child restraint system shall meet the
requirements of paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section.
    (a) Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing
structural element and no partial separation exposing either
surfaces with a radius of less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with
protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent
surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the
system.
* * * * *

    Under S6.1 of FMVSS No. 213, NHTSA tests child restraints with a
child test dummy selected for use in accordance with the provisions of
S7 of the standard. Under S7, the selection is based on the heights and
weights of the children for whom the child restraint is sold. Under
S7.1.2(d), NHTSA uses the Hybrid II (HII) or Hybrid III (HIII) six-
year-old child test dummy to test CRSs recommended for children with
masses greater than 18 kg (40 lb). Under S7.1.2(e), NHTSA uses the HIII
weighted six-year-old child test dummy to test CRSs for children with
masses above 22.7 kg (50 lb). The children for whom Recaro sold the
subject CRSs included children with masses from 18 kilograms (kg) (40
pounds (lb)) to 30 kg (65 lb). Thus, under FMVSS No. 213, Recaro's
child restraints were required to meet the child restraint system
integrity requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when tested with the six-year-
old

and weighted six-year-old test dummies.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The six-year-old dummy weighs approximately 47 lb and the
weighted six-year-old dummy weighs approximately 62 lb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    V. Summary of Recaro's Position: Recaro believes that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the
following reasons.
    (A) Recaro believes that the FMVSS No. 213 test procedure ``is a
direct violation of the instructions and warnings included with each
ProRIDE and Performance RIDE child restraint and would constitute a
misuse of the child restraint by the consumer.'' Petitioner refers to
page 36 of the ProRIDE/Performance RIDE instruction manuals and states
that Recaro designed and tested the ProRIDE/Performance RIDE child
restraints ``to meet FMVSS requirements when tested according to the
instruction manual.'' Recaro highlights a statement on page 36 that
states: ``Additionally, LATCH and top tether anchors are designed to a
maximum limit which can vary by vehicle. Due to this variation, RECARO
requires use of the vehicle seat belt for any child weighing more than
52 lbs (23.6 kg).'' \3\ Petitioner states that installation in
accordance with the instruction manuals decreases the likelihood of top
tether anchor failure from the vehicle. Recaro states that it has
limited lower anchor and top tether use for the ProRIDE/Performance
RIDE since the inception of the RIDE platform, and recently lowered the
LATCH limit to 45 pounds from the previously stated 52 pounds to meet
current FMVSS No. 213 requirements. Recaro also mentions that ``NHTSA
noted in its' [sic] 2012 FMVSS 213 Final Rule response, limitations
were added to the lower anchors to `prevent lower LATCH anchor loads
from exceeding their required strength level specified in FMVSS 225.'
'' Recaro states that it ``used this same rationale when they developed
the RIDE platform in 2010 and concluded that a load limit of 52 pounds
would be the safest for consumers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``LATCH'' refers to Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children,
an acronym developed by manufacturers and retailers to refer to the
child restraint anchorage system required by FMVSS No. 225, ``Child
restraint anchorage systems,'' for installation in motor vehicles.
[Footnote not in text.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Recaro states that ``post-crash structural integrity of the
occupant compartment is more insignificant to safety when compared to
the injury values and excursion data gathered from testing.''
Petitioner also states that ``technology has shown repeatedly that
collapse, breakage, and crumpling of material minimizes energy and
increases the rate of survival for the occupant in the event of a
collision.'' Recaro believes that child restraint technology has fallen
in-line with vehicle technology in recent years and that other child
restraints have been designated ``compliant'' even though their
convertible shell-to-base connection has been designed to crack and
break during the peak loading in a crash. Recaro further states that
the top tether webbing has been designed to rip and break apart under
extreme loads to allow the deceleration time to increase for the
occupant in the crash event. Petitioner states that, ``As long as the
injury criterion meets industry standards, controlled breakage has
proven multiple times to be a positive outcome in the event of a
vehicle crash, as seen in the RIDE platform.''
    (C) Recaro states that the ``2013 LATCH Manual'' published by Safe
Ride News Publication ``confirms that top tether anchors in vehicles
are becoming limited more frequently in the weight to which they can be
subjected.'' Recaro argues that ``a majority of vehicles on the road
instruct consumers to use top tether with load limit restrictions that
align with RECARO's top tether load limit of 65 pounds minus the 20
pound weight of the child restraint equaling a 45 pound load limit.''
Recaro also refers to documents NHTSA placed in Docket No. NHTSA-2011-
0176 regarding a 2012 final rule amending FMVSS No. 213 (77 FR 11626,
February 27, 2012). Petitioner believes that the documents ``give
validation to the reasoning by RECARO to limit the use of the top
tether.''
    (D) Recaro states that it is aware that NHTSA has a clear precedent
of denying child restraint manufacturers' petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance concerning top tether separation. However, Recaro
believes that ``the environment in which those decisions were made has
changed.'' Recaro claims that the methodology it uses to limit top
tether loads actually increases safe installations of child restraints
by limiting the pounds of force applied and decreasing the chance
tether anchor load failures. Recaro also believes that in the event of
tether separation, the increase to risk of safety is non-existent
because the head excursion limits were not exceeded in NHTSA's
compliance tests. Petitioner indicates that the risk of the subject
child restraints impacting objects in the vehicle is identical to, or
better than, other compliant child restraints because both restraints
meet the same head excursion requirements.
    Recaro states that in a previous denial of a petition for
inconsequential noncompliance, NHTSA noted that if it granted the
petition it would be contradictory to NHTSA's mission to promote
greater use of LATCH and tether. Recaro believes that this reasoning is
no longer relevant because in the aftermath of the February 2012 final
rule, ``consumers are now more aware of the variation of tether load
limits by vehicle manufacturers and consumers are also now becoming
accustomed to reviewing limits to the LATCH system. This falls in line
with the information and limits in the owner's manual provided with the
ProRIDE and Performance RIDE.''
    (E) Recaro states that its accident reports for the four years that
the subject restraints have been on the market indicate no incidents of
separation in the tether anchorage area. Petitioner surmises the reason
that tether separation occurs in testing is due to an outdated test
bench seat and testing apparatus.
    In summation, Recaro believes that the described noncompliance of
the subject child restraints is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition to exempt Recaro 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.
    VI. NHTSA Decision:
    NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA has reviewed Recaro's analysis and has
decided that the subject ProRIDE and Performance RIDE restraints'
noncompliance is not inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    We will now specifically address each of Recaro's arguments in the
order presented in its petition.
    (A) Recaro first characterizes NHTSA's installation of the ProRIDE
and Performance RIDE with a top tether as ``a direct violation of the
instructions and warnings . . . and would constitute a misuse''
condition. The petitioner's reasoning is unpersuasive. Recaro
apparently argues (the petitioner's arguments are unclear) that NHTSA
should not have tested the child restraints attached to the test seat
assembly with a lap belt and tether because the manufacturer instructs
consumers to use the ``vehicle seat belt for any child weighing more
than 52 lbs (23.6 kg).'' The petitioner is unclear but we surmise that
Recaro is saying that because it instructs users not to use the top
tether with children weighing more than 52 lb, NHTSA's tethering the
CRS was in error.

    This view constitutes an incorrect reading of FMVSS No. 213. FMVSS
No. 213 requires that the ProRIDE/Performance RIDE meet FMVSS No. 213's
dynamic test requirements when installed as specified by the standard.
Recaro recommended (marketed) the ProRIDE/Performance RIDE child
restraints for children with masses from 18 kg (40 lb) to 30 kg (65
lb). Under FMVSS No. 213, child restraints sold for children in this
mass range are required to meet the standard's performance
requirements, including the system integrity requirements, when tested
with the six-year-old and weighted six-year-old test dummies. These
test dummies represent the children for whom the child restraint is
sold, and are used by NHTSA to assess the performance of the child
restraint in protecting children intended for the restraint. If a top
tether is necessary to meet FMVSS No. 213's 720 millimeter (mm) (28
inch) head excursion requirement,\4\ the tether is attached when
dynamically testing the CRS with those test dummies.\5\ The standard
seeks to test CRSs as consumers would use the CRSs in the real world.
There is no provision in FMVSS No. 213 that enables manufacturers to
exclude themselves from the requirements of the standard by way of
``fine print'' or other restrictions in instruction manuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ S<IP_ADDRESS>(a)(1).
    \5\ Table to S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If Recaro did not wish to have its child restraints tested with the
six-year-old and weighted six-year-old test dummies in the tethered
condition, the manufacturer could have recommended its CRSs for
children weighing up to 18 kg (40 lb), not 30 kg (65 lb). Since Recaro
marketed the CRS as suitable for children over 18 kg (40 lb), the
manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that its CRSs meet all the
requirements of FMVSS No. 213 when tested as specified by FMVSS No.
213, and cannot absolve itself of those responsibilities by using its
instruction manual to limit NHTSA's assessment of the CRS in a
compliance test.
    Mr. Stewart states in his comment opposing the petition that, ``If
a manufacturer is allowed to bypass FMVSS 213 standards simply by
mandating or prohibiting certain actions in the instruction manual,
what is the point of having standards?'' NHTSA concurs with the
commenter that FMVSS No. 213's effectiveness would be substantially
diminished if manufacturers were generally permitted to bypass the
standard's requirements simply by mandating or prohibiting certain
actions in the instruction manual.
    The ProRIDE/Performance RIDE demonstrated structural integrity
failure when the top tether belt separated at the attachment point to
the child restraints. The top tether belt separation exhibited a
complete separation of a load bearing structural element and therefore
does not comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph S5.1.1(a)
of FMVSS No. 213. Failure of a child restraint system in this manner
increases the likelihood of head injury to the occupant, which is not
insignificant or inconsequential to safety.
    (B) NHTSA does not agree with Recaro's line of reasoning that its
petition should be granted because ``technology has shown repeatedly
that collapse, breakage, and crumpling of material minimizes energy and
increases the rate of survival for the occupant in the event of a
collision.'' The agency has consistently viewed tether strap separation
in FMVSS No. 213 sled tests as a load bearing structural failure. A
portion of the load of the child restraint and dummy is transferred to
the vehicle by the top tether. A tether attachment failure in a
compliance sled test indicates that the minimum level of occupant
protection established by FMVSS No. 213 has not been provided.
    In requiring the upper tether anchorage on vehicles and the tether
strap on CRSs, NHTSA noted that, ``Test data show that an attached
tether substantially improves the ability of a child restraint to
protect against head impacts in a crash.'' \6\ NHTSA does not agree
with Recaro's assertion that the failure of the top tether demonstrates
a design to allow tether breakage in order to mitigate crash forces and
reduce the likelihood of injury to children. Rather, NHTSA believes
that the total separation of the top tether, as seen in the Recaro
compliance tests, demonstrates a failure of the load bearing element
(top tether) to control forward motion of the dummy and, therefore, a
liability in the child restraint that increases the potential for
injury to children in real world crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 64 FR 10786, 10802; March 5, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its comment, Advocates states that--

    The damage to the child restraints in this case is unrelated to
controlled breakage, of the RECARO restraint. For one thing, RECARO
does not assert that the complete separation of the upper tether was
a planned design feature of the child restraint. In addition, many
other manufacturers have made use of controlled breakage techniques
while still meeting all federal regulations. In this case, the
failure of the top tether was not planned and its failure mode is
not compliant with federal regulation. The consequences of
unplanned, uncontrolled complete separation of a load bearing
structural element are unknown and can be significantly dangerous if
the failure leads to components becoming projectiles in the vehicle
or if the failure induces a shock load to other load bearing
structural elements.

    NHTSA concurs with Advocates' observation that the ripping out of
the top tether on the Recaro CRSs was likely an unplanned, uncontrolled
event, far from a sought-after engineering feat of child restraint
technology.
    Moreover, FMVSS No. 213 does recognize the role that purposeful
breakage in child restraint design can have in improving energy
absorption performance. However, such breakage is and must be limited
by the standard. S5.1.1 permits partial separations that do not result
in sharp edges that may contact an occupant. Breakage of the CRS such
as that demonstrated by the Recaro child restraints demonstrates a lack
of system integrity and is prohibited by S5.1.1, FMVSS No. 213.
    We disagree with Recaro's statement that ``post-crash structural
integrity of the occupant compartment is more insignificant to safety
when compared to the injury values and excursion data gathered from
testing.'' Each of the requirements in FMVSS No. 213 addresses a safety
need. The commenters address this issue well. Advocates states: ``NHTSA
specifically included the prohibition against complete separation of
any load bearing structural element specifically because the dangers
associated with this occurrence were not addressed by the injury
criteria alone.'' Mr. Stewart observes: ``If a seat breaks in half
during testing but the dummy records lower injury measurement does the
manufacturer get away with claiming that they designed it to break in
half on purpose--as a way to manage energy?'' Child restraints must be
able to hold together in a crash and safely manage the crash forces on
the child occupant. To accomplish this, all requirements of the
standard must be met.
    We further note that the weighted six-year-old child test dummy is
not instrumented and is not used to measure injury values and excursion
limits when testing CRSs under FMVSS No. 213.\7\ Accordingly, the
structural integrity requirement is especially pertinent in assessing
the crash performance of the subject Recaro child restraints when used
with children weighing above 22.7 kg (50 lb), since

that is the only dynamic performance requirement that applies to the
CRSs. Failure to comply with the requirement is not inconsequential to
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See S5(d) of FMVSS No. 213.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has taken enforcement action for similar failures. In 2001,
the agency notified Britax Child Safety, Inc., (Britax) of a potential
noncompliance due to the detachment of a tether strap during dynamic
testing of one of its child restraint models. Britax initiated a recall
campaign to provide owners of the affected model with repair kits. In
2007, the agency notified Britax of a potential noncompliance due to
the tether hook opening during dynamic testing of one of its child
restraint models. Britax initiated a recall campaign to provide owners
of the affected model with new tether hooks.
    (C) The materials cited by the petitioner have no bearing on the
merits of Recaro's petition. As explained above in NHTSA's response to
Recaro's first argument, FMVSS No. 213 requires that the ProRIDE and
Performance RIDE child restraints meet the structural integrity
requirements when installed with the top tether. NHTSA does not know of
any current material published on use of child restraint top tethers
that supports not using the child restraint's top tether.
    (D) Recaro's statement that ``the environment in which [previous
denials of inconsequentiality petitions on tether failures] were made
has changed'' is incorrect. NHTSA does not know of any current material
published on use of child restraint top tethers that supports not using
the child restraint's top tether. Moreover, granting the petition would
be contradictory to NHTSA's mission to promote greater use of the top
tether.
    (E) The shortcoming in Recaro's design to meet the applicable FMVSS
No. 213 dynamic test requirements poses an unacceptable safety risk.
The risk exists and is unacceptable even if there has been no incident
of separation in the tether anchorage area thus far.\8\ NHTSA does not
agree that the tether separation occurs in testing due to the testing
equipment \9\ but rather as a shortcoming in Recaro's design to meet
the applicable FMVSS No. 213 dynamic test requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ If in fact consumers are not using the tether with children
over 52 lb in accordance with Recaro's instructions, then it follows
that there would not be reports of tether failure. However, the
children would not be benefiting from use of the tether in a crash.
Recaro should have designed its restraints such that they could meet
the structural integrity requirement when tethered, to afford the
children the benefits of a structurally sound CRS and the benefits
of the tether.
    \9\ No data or information was submitted by the petitioner to
support this claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA'S Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that the ProRIDE and Performance RIDE's noncompliance poses a
risk to safety and is therefore not inconsequential. Recaro has not met
its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 213 noncompliance
identified in Recaro's noncompliance information report is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Recaro's petition
is hereby denied and Recaro is obligated to provide notification of,
and a remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

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

Frank S. Borris,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2015-16936 Filed 7-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 215 (Friday, November 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68758-68759]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31042; Amdt. No. 3665]

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 removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) 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 November 6, 2015. 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 November 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 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 and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Dunham III, Flight
Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs
Divisions, 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 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part Sec.  97.20. The
applicable FAA forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A,
and 8260-15B when required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
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, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFRs and specifies
the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable
effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its
location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and

contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C.
553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than
30 days.
    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,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 9, 2015.
John Duncan,
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
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
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:

Effective 12 NOVEMBER 2015

Auburn, IN, De Kalb County, VOR-A, Amdt 10
North Adams, MA, Harriman-And-West, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle
DP, Orig
Sidney, OH, Sidney Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10, Amdt 1
Sidney, OH, Sidney Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt 1
Sidney, OH, Sidney Muni, VOR-A, Orig
Sidney, OH, Sidney Muni, VOR OR GPS RWY 23, Amdt 12B, CANCELED

Effective 10 DECEMBER 2015

Bakersfield, CA, Meadows Field, ILS OR LOC RWY 30R, Amdt 31
Bakersfield, CA, Meadows Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30R, Amdt 2
Monterey, CA, Monterey Rgnl, GPS RWY 28R, Orig-A, CANCELED
Monterey, CA, Monterey Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 10R, Amdt 28
Monterey, CA, Monterey Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10L, Orig, CANCELED
Monterey, CA, Monterey Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 10R, Amdt 1
Monterey, CA, Monterey Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 10R, Orig, CANCELED
Oakland, CA, Metropolitan Oakland Intl, ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 28R, Amdt
37
Oakland, CA, Metropolitan Oakland Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 28R, Amdt 3
Oakland, CA, Metropolitan Oakland Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 28R, Amdt 2
Delta, CO, Blake Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Orig
Delta, CO, Blake Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Dodge City, KS, Dodge City Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 1A
Dodge City, KS, Dodge City Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, Amdt 2
Enid, OK, Enid Woodring Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 35, Amdt 1
Enid, OK, Enid Woodring Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
4
Enid, OK, Enid Woodring Rgnl, VOR RWY 35, Amdt 15
Humboldt, TN, Humboldt Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 4, Orig
Humboldt, TN, Humboldt Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22, Orig
Humboldt, TN, Humboldt Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
1
Humboldt, TN, Humboldt Muni, VOR/DME-A, Amdt 5A, CANCELED
Fort Worth, TX, Fort Worth Alliance, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16R, Orig
Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 17, ILS RWY
17 (SA CAT I), ILS RWY 17 (SA CAT II), Amdt 14
Salt Lake City, UT, Salt Lake City Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 17, Amdt 2

[FR Doc. 2015-28117 Filed 11-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P