[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48756-48760]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17135]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0030; Notice 2]

Collins Bus Corporation, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Collins Bus Corporation (Collins) has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2012 2020 Ford and Chevrolet school buses do not fully
comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus
Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Collins filed a
noncompliance report dated April 15, 2020. Collins subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on April 30, 2020, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces the denial of Collins's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Lind, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Collins has determined that certain MY 2012-2020 Ford
and Chevrolet school buses do not fully comply with the requirements of
paragraph S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window
Retention and Release (49 CFR 571.217). Collins filed a noncompliance
report dated April 15, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Collins subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on April 30, 2020, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR
part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of Collins's petition was published in the
Federal Register (85 FR 84463) with a 30-day public comment period, on
December 28, 2020. No comments were received. To view the petition and
all supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2020-0030.''
    II. Buses Involved: Approximately 11,079 MY 2012-2020 Ford and
Chevrolet school buses manufactured by Collins, as the final stage
manufacturer, between February 2, 2012, and April 3, 2020, are
potentially involved:

 Ford TH 400
 Ford Sh416, models SL, SH, DH, DE, TH, and TL
 Chevrolet DE516
 Chevrolet DH516
 Chevrolet DH500
 Ford TL 400
 Ford T24
 Chevrolet DH400

    III. Noncompliance: Collins explains that the noncompliance is that
the letter height for the operating instructions label describing the
motions necessary to unlatch and open the emergency exits in the
subject school buses does not fully comply with the requirements set
forth in paragraph S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 217. Specifically, the
operating instructions describing the motions necessary to unlatch and
open the emergency window exits are only eight (8) millimeters in
height rather than the required one (1) centimeter.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 217
includes the requirements relevant to this petition. Paragraph
S5.5.3(b) requires that concise operating instructions describing the
motions necessary to unlatch and open the emergency exit shall be
located within 15 centimeters of the release mechanism on the inside
surface of the bus. These instructions shall be in letters at least 1
centimeter high and of a color that contrasts with its background.
    V. Summary of Collins's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of Collins's Petition,'' are
the views and arguments provided by Collins and do not reflect the
views of the Agency. Collins describes the subject noncompliance and
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Collins offers the following reasoning:
    1. The Noncompliance is Inconsequential to Motor Vehicle Safety:
Collins states that the 2-millimeter deficiency in the letter height is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The actual height of the
emergency window exit operating instructions letters--eight (8)
millimeters--is 80 percent of the height required by FMVSS No. 217 (ten
(10) millimeters). NHTSA has previously granted inconsequential
noncompliance petitions for labeling defects across various motor
vehicle safety standards, including for more significant lettering
height deficiencies:
     Notice Granting Petition by Kia Motors: Letters as little
as 53.1 percent of the minimum height requirement. See 69 FR 41333
(July 8, 2004) (Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17439).
     Notice Granting Petition by General Motors: Lettering
height 76.3 percent of the minimum height requirement. See 81 FR 92963
(Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0093).
     Notice Granting Petition by Hyundai: Letters as little as
78.1 percent of the minimum height requirement. See 69 FR 41568 (Docket
No. NHTSA-2004-17439).
     Notice Granting Petition by Mercedes-Benz: Letters ``about

78[percent] of the minimum height required for such letters.'' Pet. at
3 (emphasis omitted). See 67 FR 72026 (Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12544).
    2. Further, the instruction label includes the words ``Emergency
Exit'' in letters with a height of 11 millimeters, which not only meets
but substantially exceeds the 1-centimeter requirement. See 67 FR 72026
(noting that some of the letters did meet the minimum height
requirements in finding that insufficient height of other letters did
not have an adverse effect on vehicle safety).
    3. Collins claims that the height discrepancy does not affect the
readability of the instructions. See 67 FR 72026 (finding that letters
which were roughly 78 percent of the required size (which required size
was nearly one-third of the relevant one-centimeter letter height
requirement at issue here) would not ``degrade the legibility'' of the
words); 81 FR 92964 (finding ``the lettering height for the park brake
applied indicator `Park' at 2.44 mm versus the FMVSS No. 135
requirement of 3.2 mm poses little if any risk to motor vehicle
safety'').
    4. Further, Collins says the discrepancy does not compromise the
conspicuity of the instructions. The instructions are not only in a
color that sharply contrasts with their background (red) as required by
FMVSS No. 217, the letters are additionally in bold and block capital
letters, which is not required by the standard but which preserves the
8-millimeter height across the width of the words and increases the
visibility of the instructions. See 81 FR 92964 (finding the use of all
capitalized letters, where not required, provided ``a more pronounced
indicator''). And as noted above, some of the words in the instruction
label (i.e., ``Emergency Exit'') not only meet but exceed the minimum
height requirement, thereby increasing the visibility of the
instructions.
    5. Collins states that NHTSA has previously granted petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance under FMVSS No. 217 for conditions that
present a more direct safety risk than the potential safety risk (if
any) created here. See New Flyer of America, Inc.; Grant of Application
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 63 FR 32694 (granting
petition for inconsequential noncompliance where buses were
manufactured with only one emergency exit instead of two); IC
Corporation, Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 70 FR 24464 (granting petition for inconsequential
noncompliance where school buses were manufactured with two emergency
doors under the same post and roof bow panel space).
    6. Finally, Collins states that the emergency window exit
instructions on the affected vehicles meet all other labeling
requirements of FMVSS No. 217 and do not affect the actual operation of
the emergency window exit, and Collins has not received any complaints
regarding the size or visibility of the instructions and is not aware
of any injuries associated with the size or visibility of the
instructions. Collins has corrected the noncompliance in all buses
remaining within its possession.
    Collins concludes by again contending that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    Collins's complete petition and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the FDMS website at https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online search instructions to
locate the docket number as listed in the title of this notice.
    VII. NHTSA's Analysis:

A. General Principles

    Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
of 1966 (the Safety Act) with the express purpose of reducing motor
vehicle accidents, deaths, injuries, and property damage. See 49 U.S.C.
30101. To this end, the Safety Act empowers the Secretary of
Transportation to establish and enforce mandatory Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (FMVSS). See 49 U.S.C. 30111. The Secretary has
delegated this authority to NHTSA. See 49 CFR 1.95.
    NHTSA adopts a FMVSS only after the Agency has determined that the
performance requirements are objective and practicable and meet the
need for motor vehicle safety. See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Thus, there is a
general presumption that the failure of a motor vehicle or item of
motor vehicle equipment to comply with a FMVSS increases the risk to
motor vehicle safety beyond the level deemed appropriate by NHTSA
through the rulemaking process. To protect the public from such risks,
manufacturers whose products fail to comply with a FMVSS are normally
required to conduct a safety recall under which they must notify
owners, purchasers, and dealers of the noncompliance and provide a free
remedy. See 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. However, Congress has recognized
that, under some limited circumstances, a noncompliance could be
``inconsequential'' to motor vehicle safety. It therefore established a
procedure under which NHTSA may consider whether it is appropriate to
exempt a manufacturer from its notification and remedy (i.e., recall)
obligations. See 49 U.S.C. 30118(d), 30120(h). The Agency's regulations
governing the filing and consideration of petitions for
inconsequentiality exemptions are set out at 49 CFR part 556.
    Under the Safety Act and Part 556, inconsequentiality exemptions
may be granted only in response to a petition from a manufacturer, and
then only after notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for
interested members of the public to present information, views, and
arguments on the petition. In addition to considering public comments,
the Agency will draw upon its own understanding of safety-related
systems and its experience in deciding the merits of a petition. An
absence of opposing argument and data from the public does not require
NHTSA to grant a manufacturer's petition.
    Neither the Safety Act nor Part 556 define the term
``inconsequential.'' Rather, the Agency determines whether a particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based upon the
specific facts before it in a particular petition. An important issue
to consider in determining inconsequentiality based upon NHTSA's prior
decisions on noncompliance issues was the safety risk to individuals
who experience the type of event against which the recall would
otherwise protect.\1\ NHTSA also does not consider the absence of
complaints or injuries to show that the issue is inconsequential to
safety. The Safety Act is preventive, and manufacturers cannot and
should not wait for deaths or injuries to occur in their vehicles
before they carry out a recall. See, e.g., United States v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Indeed, the very purpose of
a recall is to protect individuals from risk. See id. ``Most
importantly, the

absence of a complaint does not mean there have not been any safety
issues, nor does it mean that there will not be safety issues in the
future.'' \2\ ``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and
swift reaction have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that
good luck will continue to work.'' \3\ Arguments that only a small
number of vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment are affected
have also not justified granting an inconsequentiality petition.\4\
Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions based on the assertion that
only a small percentage of vehicles or items of equipment are likely to
actually exhibit a noncompliance. The percentage of potential occupants
that could be adversely affected by a noncompliance does not determine
the question of inconsequentiality. Rather, the issue to consider is
the consequence to an occupant who is exposed to the consequence of
that noncompliance.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \2\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \3\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
    \4\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
    \5\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco, Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Response to Collins's Arguments

    NHTSA reviewed Collins's arguments that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Collins contends that the
letter heights of the operating instructions describing the motions
necessary to unlatch and open the emergency window exit not meeting the
Emergency Exit Identification requirements as specified in paragraph
S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 217, poses little, if any, risk to motor vehicle
safety. NHTSA does not agree. NHTSA's decision considered the
following:
    The purpose of FMVSS No. 217 is to minimize the likelihood of
occupants being thrown from the bus and to provide a means of readily
accessible emergency egress (See 49 CFR 571.217 S2). The Emergency Exit
Identification requirements at S5.5.3(b) of FMVSS No. 217, at issue
here, are specific to the operating instructions required for emergency
exits in school buses. These requirements are fourfold: (1) operating
instructions must be ``concise'' and describe ``the motions necessary
to unlatch and open the emergency exit,'' (2) operating instructions
must ``be located within 15 centimeters of the release mechanism on the
inside surface of the bus,'' (3) operating instructions must ``be in
letters at least 1 centimeter high,'' and (4) operating instructions
must be ``of a color that contrasts with [their] background.''
    In the present case, the instruction labels at issue contain the
following text: ``EMERGENCY EXIT LIFT HANDLE PUSH WINDOW TO OPEN.'' The
labels therefore contain operating instructions (LIFT HANDLE PUSH
WINDOW TO OPEN) which concisely describes the motions necessary to
unlatch and open the emergency exit. The labels are located within 15
centimeters of the release mechanism on the inside surface of the bus
and are of a color that contrasts with their background. However,
although the words ``EMERGENCY EXIT'' on the instruction labels meet
the minimum letter height requirement, the remaining text containing
the actual operating instructions fail to meet the letter height
requirement at S5.5.3(b)--the operating instructions do not consist of
``letters at least 1 centimeter high.'' This point is further discussed
below.
    Regarding Collins's argument that the words ``EMERGENCY EXIT'' have
a letter height of 11 mm ``which not only meets but substantially
exceeds the 1-centimeter requirement,'' Collins's argument is not
compelling in how the difference of 1 mm in the words ``EMERGENCY
EXIT'' improves the legibility of the words ``LIFT HANDLE PUSH WINDOW
TO OPEN'' having a letter height of only 8 mm, a full 2 mm below the 1-
centimeter requirement. Further, NHTSA notes that Collins's statement
that 1 mm of letter height is ``substantial'' when above the 1 cm
requirement, however ``the 2-millimeter deficiency in the letter height
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety,'' indicates a lack of
consistency in Collins's argument. Collins also referenced a previous
petition granted by NHTSA in support of this claim, which is addressed
below, and which is unrelated to school bus emergency exit
identification and operation. As such, NHTSA is not persuaded by
Collins's argument that having the words ``EMERGENCY EXIT'' being 1 mm
taller than the letter height requirements at S5.5.3(b) mitigates the
noncompliance for the operating instructions ``LIFT HANDLE PUSH WINDOW
TO OPEN'' being 2 mm shorter than the requirement. Furthermore, NHTSA
is not persuaded by Collins's argument that a 2 mm measurement is any
less substantial than a 1 mm measurement, as no evidence was provided
in support of this claim.
    Regarding the readability of the operating instructions, NHTSA does
not agree with Collins that the readability of the operating
instructions is unaffected by the noncompliance with the letter height
requirement. Collins referenced two previous petitions granted by NHTSA
in support of this claim, which are addressed below, that are unrelated
to school bus emergency exit identification and operation. As such,
NHTSA is not persuaded by Collins's argument that the readability of
the operating instructions is unaffected by the noncompliance with the
letter height requirement, as no evidence was provided in support of
this claim.
    Regarding the conspicuity of the operating instructions, NHTSA
agrees with Collins that the operating instructions are ``in a color
that sharply contrasts with their background (red)'' and are ``in bold
and block capital letters, which is not required by the standard but
which preserves the 8-millimeter height across the width of the words
and increases the visibility of the instructions,'' but does not agree
with Collins that compliance with the conspicuity requirements for the
operating instructions impacts compliance with the letter height
requirements for the operating instructions for emergency exits in
school buses. Collins referenced a previous petition granted by NHTSA
in support of this claim, which is addressed below, that are unrelated
to school bus emergency exit identification and operation. As such,
NHTSA is not persuaded by Collins's argument that meeting the
conspicuity requirements for the operating instructions mitigates the
noncompliance with the letter height requirement, as no evidence was
provided in support of this claim.

C. Remaining Arguments

    Collins referenced six inconsequential noncompliance petitions
NHTSA had previously granted to support its petition.
    The first petition, from Kia Motors America, Inc., and Kia Motors
Corp.

(Kia) (See 69 FR 41333), involved passenger vehicles which did not meet
the letter height requirements for brake system warning lights,
specifically for the abbreviation ``ABS'' and in some cases the word
``brake,'' as required by FMVSS No. 101, 105, and 135. In this case,
these passenger vehicles did not meet the minimum letter height
requirement of 3.2 mm. The Agency decided that ``due to the
positioning, color, use of the ISO symbol, and combined size of both
the lettering and symbols, it is very unlikely that a vehicle user
would either fail to see or fail to understand the meaning of the brake
or ABS warning light in the affected vehicles'' and granted the
petition. NHTSA does not agree that granting this prior petition
supports granting Collins's petition here, for four reasons: (1)
compliance with FMVSS No. 217 was not at issue, (2) emergency exit
identification within the vehicle was not at issue, (3) the warning
lights in Kia's petition both ``illuminated in red (brake warning
light) or yellow (ABS light)'' and also ``include[d] an International
Standards Organization (ISO) symbol combined with the word `brake' or
the abbreviation `ABS,''' which are two features distinctly different
from the emergency exit labels at issue here (which do not illuminate
or contain any symbol), and (4) the warning lights in Kia's petition
were related to the driver's attention, whereas the emergency exit
operating instructions in Collins's petition is for school bus
passenger use in the event of an emergency.
    The second petition, from General Motors, LLC (GM) (See 81 FR
92963), involved passenger vehicles which did not meet the letter
height requirements for the park brake telltale (identified by the word
``PARK''), as required by FMVSS No. 101 and 135. In this case, these
passenger vehicles did not meet the minimum letter height requirement
of 3.2 mm for the word ``PARK.'' The Agency decided that
``[i]llumination of both the `PARK' indicator combined with the
information center statement `Park Brake Set' provides ample
communication to the driver that the parking brake has been applied,''
and granted the petition. NHTSA does not agree that granting this prior
petition supports granting Collins's petition here, for five reasons:
(1) compliance with FMVSS No. 217 was not at issue, (2) emergency exit
identification within the vehicle was not at issue, (3) the park brake
telltale lights in GM's petition ``illuminated,'' which is a feature
distinctly different from the emergency exit labels at issue here
(which do not illuminate), (4) activation of the park brake telltale
light in GM's petition would simultaneously activate a second
illuminated message, which is a feature distinctly different from the
emergency exit labels at issue here (which do not activate a second
message), and (5) the park brake telltale lights in GM's petition were
related to the driver's attention, whereas the emergency exit operating
instructions in Collins's petition is for school bus passenger use in
the event of an emergency.
    The third petition, from Hyundai Motor Company (Hyundai) (See 69 FR
41668), involved passenger vehicles which did not meet the letter
height requirements for the abbreviation ``ABS'' and in other cases the
word ``brake,'' as required by FMVSS No. 105 and 135. In this case,
these passenger vehicles did not meet the minimum letter height
requirement of 3.2 mm. The Agency decided that ``[d]ue to the
positioning, color, use of the ISO symbol, and combined size of both
the lettering and symbols, it is very unlikely that a vehicle user
would either fail to see or fail to understand the meaning of the brake
or ABS warning light in the affected vehicles,'' and granted the
petition. NHTSA does not agree that granting this prior petition
supports granting Collins's petition here, for four reasons: (1)
compliance with FMVSS No. 217 was not at issue, (2) emergency exit
identification within the vehicle was not at issue, (3) the warning
lights in Hyundai's petition both ``illuminated'' and also included an
``International Standards Organization (ISO) symbol for the ABS,''
which are two features distinctly different from the emergency exit
labels at issue here (which do not illuminate or contain any symbol),
and (4) the warning lights in Hyundai's petition were related to the
driver's attention, whereas the emergency exit operating instructions
in Collins's petition is for school bus passenger use in the event of
an emergency.
    The fourth petition, from Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., Inc. (MBUSA) (See
67 FR 72026), involved passenger vehicles which did not meet the letter
height requirements for the brake warning indicator lamp, as required
by FMVSS No. 135. In this case, these passenger vehicles did not meet
the minimum letter height requirement of 3.2 mm for the letters ``r,''
``a,'' and ``e'' in the word ``Brake.'' The Agency decided that ``the
Agency does not believe that the noncompliance will degrade the
legibility of the brake malfunction telltale, or will have an adverse
effect on vehicle safety,'' and granted the petition. NHTSA does not
agree that granting this prior petition supports granting Collins's
petition here, for six reasons: (1) compliance with FMVSS No. 217 was
not at issue, (2) emergency exit identification within the vehicle was
not at issue, (3) the brake warning indicator lamp in MBUSA's petition
``illuminated,'' which is a feature distinctly different from the
emergency exit labels at issue here (which do not illuminate), (4)
activation of the brake warning indicator lamp in MBUSA's petition
would simultaneously activate a second illuminated message, which is a
feature distinctly different from the emergency exit labels at issue
here (which do not activate a second message), (5) activation of the
second illuminated message in MBUSA's petition would ``[trigger] an
audible signal,'' which is a feature distinctly different from the
emergency exit labels at issue here (which do not trigger an audible
signal), and (6) the brake warning indicator lamp in MBUSA's petition
was related to the driver's attention, whereas the emergency exit
operating instructions in Collins's petition is for school bus
passenger use in the event of an emergency.
    The fifth petition, from New Flyer of America, Inc. (See 63 FR
32694), involved transit buses that had only one emergency exit on the
right side of the bus instead of two, as required by FMVSS No. 217. In
this case, these buses had 3.28 times the required exit area, with two
emergency exit windows on the left side, one emergency exit window on
the right side and two roof exits. Thus, the buses had the minimum
number of emergency exits required by FMVSS No. 217. However, these
exits were not distributed properly. Instead of a second emergency exit
on the right side, these buses had an additional roof exit. The Agency
decided that the additional roof exit provided for an additional level
of safety during a rollover event and granted the petition. NHTSA does
not agree that the granting of this prior petition supports granting
Collins's petition here, because emergency exit identification and
operation within the vehicle was not at issue.
    The sixth petition, from IC Corporation (IC) (See 70 FR 24464),
involved school buses where two side emergency exit doors were located
opposite each other within the same post and roof bow panel space. IC
argued that the requirement prohibiting two exit doors from being
located in this manner appeared to be related to the structural
integrity of a bus body with this configuration. IC indicated that it
had no reports of any structural failures in the area around the
emergency doors

but stated that it would extend to owners of the noncompliant vehicles
a 15-year warranty for any structural or panel failures related to the
location of the doors. NHTSA agreed with IC that, in this case, the
noncompliance did not compromise safety in terms of emergency exit
capability in proportion to maximum occupant capacity, access to side
emergency doors, visibility of the exits, or the ability of bus
occupants to exit after an accident. NHTSA does not agree that the
granting of this prior petition supports granting Collins's petition
here, because emergency exit identification and operation within the
vehicle was not at issue.
    None of the previous six petitions Collins provided in support of
its current petition were related to labeling for emergency egress of
school buses. Emergency egress occurs under states of emergency, which
may include fire, smoke, panicked children, etc. As such, the dilution
of these emergency egress marking requirements in school buses is
consequential to motor vehicle safety.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that Collins has not met its burden of persuasion that the
subject FMVSS No. 217 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Collins's petition is hereby denied and Collins is
consequently obligated to provide notification of and free 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)

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-17135 Filed 8-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61645-61646]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24307]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]

Society of Clinical Research Associates--Food and Drug
Administration: Food and Drug Administration Clinical Trial
Requirements, Regulations, Compliance, and Good Clinical Practice;
Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an educational
conference co-sponsored with the Society of Clinical Research
Associates (SoCRA). The public workshop regarding FDA's clinical trial
requirements is designed to aid the clinical research professional's
understanding of the mission, responsibilities, and authority of FDA
and to facilitate interaction with FDA representatives. The program
will focus on the relationships among FDA and clinical trial staff,
investigators, and institutional review boards (IRB). Individual FDA
representatives will discuss the informed consent process and informed
consent documents; regulations relating to drugs, devices, and
biologics; as well as inspections of clinical investigators, IRB, and
research sponsors.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on November 5 and
6, 2014, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the Wyndham Lake
Buena Vista Hotel, 1850 Hotel Plaza Blvd., Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830,
407-828-4444.
    Attendees are responsible for their own accommodations. Please
mention SoCRA to receive the hotel room rate of $95.00 plus applicable
taxes (available until October 6, 2014, or until the SoCRA room block
is filled).
    Contact: C. Stewart Watson, Food and Drug Administration, 555
Winderley Pl., Suite 200, Maitland, FL 32751,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 407-
475-4768, or Society of Clinical Research Associates (SoCRA), 530 West
Butler Ave., Suite 109, Chalfont, PA 18914,<PHONE_NUMBER> or 215-822-
8644, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Web site:
www.socra.org.
    Registration: The registration fee will cover actual expenses
including refreshments, lunch, materials and speaker expenses. Seats
are limited; please submit your registration as soon as possible.
Workshop space will be filled in order of receipt of registration.
Those accepted into the workshop will receive confirmation. The cost of
the registration is as follows: SoCRA member--$575; SoCRA nonmember
(includes membership)--$650; Federal Government member--$450.00;
Federal Government SoCRA nonmember--$525.00; FDA Employee--Fee Waived.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please
contact SoCRA (see Contact) at least 21 days in advance.
    Extended periods of question and answer and discussion have been
included in the program schedule. SoCRA designates this education
activity for a maximum of 13.3 continuing education (CE) credits for
SoCRA CE and continuing nursing education (CNE). SoCRA designates this
live activity for a maximum of 13.3 American Medical Association
Physicians Recognition Award Category 1 Credit(s).TM
Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of
their participation. Continuing Medical Education for physicians: SoCRA
is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical
Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. CNE
for nurses: SoCRA is an approved provider of continuing nursing
education by the Pennsylvania State Nurses Association (PSNA), an
accredited approver by the American Nurses Credentialing Center's
Commission on Accreditation (ANCC). ANCC/PSNA Provider Reference
Number: 205-3-A-09.
    Registration Instructions: To register, please submit a
registration form with your name, affiliation, mailing address,
telephone, fax number, and email, along with a check or money order
payable to ``SoCRA''. Mail to: SoCRA (see Contact for address). To
register via the Internet, go to http://www.socra.org/html/FDA_Conference.htm. (FDA has verified the Web site addresses throughout
this document, but we are not responsible for any subsequent changes to
the Web

sites after this document is published in the Federal Register.)
Payment by major credit card is accepted (Visa/MasterCard/AMEX only).
For more information on the meeting registration, or for questions on
the workshop, contact SoCRA (see Contact).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The public workshop helps fulfill the
Department of Health and Human Services' and FDA's important mission to
protect the public health. The public workshop will provide those
engaged in FDA-regulated (human) clinical trials with information on a
number of topics concerning FDA requirements related informed consent,
clinical investigation requirements, institutional review board
inspections, electronic record requirements, and investigator initiated
research Topics for discussion include the following: (1) The Role of
the FDA District Office Relative to the Bioresearch Monitoring Program
(BIMO); (2) Modernizing FDA's Clinical Trials/BIMO Programs; (3) What
FDA Expects in a Pharmaceutical Clinical Trial; (4) Medical Device
Aspects of Clinical Research; (5) Adverse Event Reporting--Science,
Regulation, Error, and Safety; (6) Working with FDA's Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research; (7) Ethical Issues in Subject
Enrollment; (8) Keeping Informed and Working Together; (9) FDA Conduct
of Clinical Investigator Inspections; (10) Investigator Initiated
Research; (11) Meetings with FDA--Why, When, and How; (12) Part 11
Compliance--Electronic Signatures; (13) IRB Regulations and FDA
Inspections; (14) Informed Consent Regulations; (15) The Inspection is
Over--What Happens Next? Possible FDA Compliance Actions; (16) Question
and Answer Session/Panel Discussion.
    FDA has made education of the drug and device manufacturing
community a high priority to help ensure the quality of FDA-regulated
drugs and devices. The public workshop helps to achieve objectives set
forth in section 406 of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C.
393), which includes working closely with stakeholders and maximizing
the availability and clarity of information to stakeholders and the
public. The workshop also is consistent with the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), as
outreach activities by Government agencies to small businesses.

    Dated: October 7, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-24307 Filed 10-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: August 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 42374-42377]
[DOCID:fr21au09-140]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance;
Indianapolis International Airport, Indianapolis, IN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
proposal to change a portion of the airport from aeronautical use to
non-aeronautical use and to authorize the release of 17.79 acres of
airport property for non-aeronautical development. The land consists of
portions of 7 original airport acquired parcels. These parcels were
acquired under grants: 6-18-0038-01; 3-18-0038-45; and 3-180038-47 or
without federal participation. The land currently has three empty
office buildings previously used by air carriers. The future use of the
property is for nonaviation office development.
    There are no impacts to the airport by allowing the Indianapolis
Airport Authority to dispose of the property.
    The land is not needed for aeronautical use. Approval does not
constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the sale or
lease of the subject airport property nor a determination of
eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
    In accordance with section 47107(h) of title 49, United States
Code, this notice is required to be published in the Federal Register
30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that requires the
property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 21, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered
or mailed to: Melanie Myers, Program Manager, Chicago Airports District
Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Myers, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Great Lakes Region, Detroit Airports
District Office, CHI-ADO 609, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL
60018 Telephone Number<PHONE_NUMBER>)/FAX Number<PHONE_NUMBER>).
Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at this same
location or at Indianapolis International Airport, Indianapolis,
Indiana.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Parcel A

    Part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 15 North,
Range 2 East, of the Second Principal Meridian, all in Marion County,
Indiana, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the
Northeast Corner of said Southeast Quarter Section; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along the East line of said Quarter
Section 531.08 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of
Washington Street (US 40); thence South 68 degrees 50 minutes 00
seconds West along said right-of-way line 12.88 feet; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along a line being parallel with and
12 feet West of the East line of the above mentioned Quarter Section
466.59 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds West
perpendicular to the aforesaid East line 239.65 feet; thence North 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds East 62.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees
52 minutes 55 seconds West 283.00 feet to the point of beginning of
this description; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West
176.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East 55.00
feet; thence South 26 degrees 26 minutes 49 seconds East 33.54 feet;
thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West 140.80 feet; thence
South 89 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds East 15.00 feet; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West 303.00 feet to a point on the North
right-of-way line of the Penn Central Transportation Company; thence
Southwesterly 453.76 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of
2789.93 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 84
degrees 04 minutes 16 seconds West and a length of 453.26 feet; thence
North 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds East 756.23 feet to a point on
the South right-of-way line of Washington Street (US 40); thence North
68 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds East along said South right-of-way
line 345.00 feet; thence South 29 degrees 14

minutes 04 seconds East 90.32 feet; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes
05 seconds West 105.00 feet to the place of beginning containing 7.670
acres, more or less, subject however to all legal highways, right-of-
way, easements and restrictions of record, including not limited to the
following described easements:

Easement 1

    Part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 15 North,
Range 2 East, of the Second Principal Meridian, all in Marion County,
Indiana, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the
Northeast Corner of said Southeast Quarter Section; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along the East line of said Quarter
Section 531.08 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of
Washing Street (US 40); thence south 68 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds
West along said right-of-way line 12.88 feet; thence South 00 degrees
07 minutes 05 seconds West along a line being parallel with and 12 feet
West of the East line of the above mentioned Quarter Section 466.59
feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds West perpendicular
to the aforesaid East line 239.65 feet; thence North 00 degrees 07
minutes 05 seconds East 62.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes
55 seconds West 283.00 feet to the point of beginning of this
description; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West 176.00
feet; thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East 55.00 feet;
thence South 26 degrees 26 minutes 49 seconds East 33.54 feet; thence
South 00 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds West 15.00 feet; thence North 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds East 106.10 feet; thence North 40 degrees
20 minutes 18 seconds West 64.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52
minutes 55 seconds West 38.47 feet; thence North 00 degrees 07 seconds
05 minutes East 23.00 feet; thence North 10 degrees 06 minutes 12
seconds East 57.67 feet; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds
East 182.47 feet; thence North 29 degrees 14 minutes 04 seconds West
117.32 feet to the South right-of-way line of Washington Street (US
40); thence North 68 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds East along said
South right-of-way line 30.30 feet; thence South 29 degrees 14 minutes
04 seconds East 90.32 feet; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05
seconds West 105.00 feet to the place of beginning, containing 0.276
acres, more or less.

Easement 2

    Part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 15 North,
Range 2 East, of the Second Principal Meridian, all in Marion County,
Indiana, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the
northeast Corner as said Southeast Quarter Section; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along the East line of said Quarter
Section 531.08 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of
Washington Street (US 40); thence South 68 degrees 50 minutes 00
seconds West along said right-of-way line 12.88 feet; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along a line being parallel with and
12 feet West of the East line of the above mentioned Quarter Section
466.59 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds West
perpendicular to the aforesaid East line 239.65 feet; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West 543.04 feet to a point on the North
right-of-way of the Penn Central Transportation Company; thence
Southwesterly 203.08 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of
2789.93 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 77
degrees 19 minutes 35 seconds West and a length of 203.04 feet to the
point of beginning of this description; thence continuing along said
North right-of-way line Southwesterly 453.76 feet along a curve to the
right having a radius of 2789.93 feet and subtended by a long chord
having bearing of South 84 degrees 04 minutes 16 seconds West and a
length of 453.26 feet; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds
East 40.00 feet; thence North 79 degrees 28 minutes 06 seconds East
179.45 feet; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West 48.85
feet to the place of beginning, containing 0.467 acres more or less.

Easement 3

    Part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 15 North,
Range 2 East, of the Second Principal Meridian, all in Marion County,
Indiana, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the
Northeast Corner of said Southeast Quarter Section; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along the East line of said Quarter
Section 531.08 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of
Washington Street (US 40); thence South 68 degrees 50 minutes 00
seconds West along said right-of-way line 12.88 feet; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along a line being parallel with and
12 feet West of the East line of the above mentioned Quarter Section
466.59 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds West
perpendicular to the aforesaid East line 239.65 feet; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West 543.04 feet to a point on the North
right-of-way line of the Penn Central Transportation Company; thence
Southwesterly 203.08 feet along a curve to the right having a radius of
2789.93 feet and subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 77
degrees 19 minutes 35 seconds West and a length of 203.04 feet to the
point of beginning of this description; thence continuing along said
North right-of-way line Southwesterly 30.50 feet along a curve to the
right having a radius of 2789.93 feet and subtended by a long chord
having a bearing of South 79 degrees 43 minutes 30 seconds West and a
length of 30.50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds
East 308.90 feet; thence South 89 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds West
30.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West 303.00
feet to the place of beginning, containing 0.211 acres more or less.

Parcel B

    Part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 15 North,
Range 2 East, of the Second Principal Meridian, all in Marion County,
Indiana, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the
Northeast Corner of said Southeast Quarter Section; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along the east line of said Quarter
Section 531.08 feet to a point on the South Right-of-Way line of
Washington Street (US 40); thence South 68 degrees 50 minutes 00
seconds West along said right-of-way line 12.88 feet; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along a line being parallel with and
12 feet West of the East line of the above mention Quarter Section
466.59 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds West
perpendicular to the aforesaid East line 239.65 feet to the point of
beginning of this description; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05
seconds West 543.04 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of
Penn Central Transportation Company; thence Southwesterly 203.08 feet
along a curve to the right having a radius of 2789.93 feet and
subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 77 degrees 19
minutes 35 seconds West and a length of 203.04 feet; thence North 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds East 303.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees
07 minutes 30 seconds West 15.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 07
minutes 05 seconds East 140.80 feet; thence North 26 degrees 26 minutes
49 seconds West 33.54 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 55
seconds West 55.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds
East 176.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East
283.00 feet;

thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West 62.00 feet to the
place of beginning, containing 3.266 acres more or less, subject to
however all legal highways, right-of-ways, easements, and restrictions
of record, including but not limited to the following described
easements:

Easement 1

    Part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 15 North,
Range 2 East, of the Second Principal Meridian, all in Marion County,
Indiana, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the
Northeast Corner of said Southeast Quarter Section; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along the East line of said Quarter
Section 531.08 feet to a point on the South Right-of-Way line of
Washington Street (US 40); thence South 68 degrees 50 minutes 00
seconds West along said right-of-way line 12.88 feet; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along a line being parallel with and
12 feet West of the East line of the above mentioned Quarter Section
466.59 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds West 239.65
feet; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds East 32.00 feet to
the point of beginning of this description; thence North 89 degrees 52
minutes 55 seconds West 215.00 feet; thence South 01 degrees 27 minutes
07 seconds East 146.54 feet; thence South 26 degrees 26 minutes 49
seconds East 29.04 feet; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds
West 144.54 feet; thence North 89 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds West
15.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds East 140.80
feet; thence North 26 degrees 26 minutes 49 seconds West 33.54 feet;
thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds West 55.00 feet; thence
North 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds East 176.00 feet; thence South
89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East 283.00 feet; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West 30.00 feet to the place of beginning
containing 0.489 acres, more or less.

Easement 2

    Part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 15 North,
Range 2 East, of the Second Principal Meridian, all in Marion County,
Indiana, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the
Northeast Corner of said Southeast Quarter Section; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along the East line of said Quarter
Section 531.08 feet to a point on the South Right-of-Way line of
Washington Street (US 40); thence South 68 degrees 50 minutes 00
seconds West along said right-of-way line 12.88 feet; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along a line being parallel with and
12 feet West of the East line of the above mentioned Quarter Section
466.59 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds West
perpendicular to the aforesaid East line 239.65 feet to the point of
beginning of this description; thence South degrees 07 minutes 05
seconds West 543.04 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of
the Penn Central Transportation Company; thence Southwesterly 203.08
feet along a curve to the right having a radius of 2789.93 feet and
subtended by a long chord having a bearing of South 77 degrees 19
minutes 35 seconds West and a length of 203.04 feet; thence North 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds East 48.85 feet; thence North 79 degrees
28 minutes 06 seconds East 170.30 feet; thence North 01 degrees 39
minutes 58 seconds East 123.00 feet; thence North 47 degrees 28 minutes
46 seconds West 58.68 feet; thence North 89 degrees 07 minutes 30
seconds West 115.00 feet; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds
East 20.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 07 minutes 30 seconds East
159.93 feet; thence North 01 degrees 39 minutes 58 seconds East 299.22
feet; thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East 30.00 feet;
thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West 32.00 feet to the
place of beginning, containing 0.865 acres more or less.

Parcel C

    Part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15; Township 15 North,
Range 2 East, of the Second Principal Meridian, all in Marion County,
more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast
Corner of said Southeast Quarter Section; thence South 00 degrees 07
minutes 05 seconds West along the East line of said Quarter Section
531.08 feet to a point on the South Right-of-Way line of Washington
Street (US 40); thence South 68 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds West
along said right-of-way line 12.88 feet to the point of beginning of
this description; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West
along a line being parallel with and 12 feet West of the East line of
the above mentioned Quarter Section 466.59 feet; thence North 89
degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds West 239.65 feet; thence North 00 degrees
07 minutes 05 seconds East 62.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52
minutes 55 seconds West 107.46 feet; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes
05 seconds East 269.36 feet to a point on the South Right-of-Way line
of Washington Street (US 40); thence North 68 degrees 50 minutes 00
seconds East along said South right-of-way line 372.52 feet to the
point of beginning and containing 3.026 acres, more or less, subject
however to all legal highways, right-of-way, and restrictions of record
including but not limited to the following described easement: Part of
the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 15 North, Range 2 East,
of the Second Principal Meridian, all in Marion County, Indiana, more
particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast Corner
of said Southeast Quarter Section; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes
05 seconds West along the East line of said Quarter Section 531.08 feet
to a point on the South Right-of-Way line of Washington Street (US 40);
thence South 68 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds West along said right-of-
way line 12.88 feet; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West
along a line being parallel with and 12 feet West of the East line of
the above mentioned Quarter Section 388.59 feet to the point of
beginning of this description; thence continuing South 00 degrees 07
minutes 05 seconds West 30.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes
55 seconds West 239.65 feet; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 05
seconds East 14.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds
East 16.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East
347.11 feet to the place of beginning containing 0.204 acres more or
less.

Parcel D

    Part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15; Township 15 North,
Range 2 East, of the Second Principal Meridian, all in Marion County,
Indiana more particularly described as follows:
    Commencing at the Northeast Corner of said Southeast Quarter
Section; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along the
East line of said Quarter Section 531.08 feet to a point on the South
Right-of-Way line of Washington Street (US 40); thence South 68 degrees
50 minutes 00 seconds West along said right-of-way line 12.88 feet;
thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West along a line being
parallel with and 12 feet West of the East line of the above mentioned
Quarter Section 466.59 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 55
seconds West perpendicular to the aforesaid East line 239.65 feet;
thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds East 62.00 feet; thence
North 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds West 107.46 feet to the point of
beginning of this description; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 05
seconds East 269.36 feet to a point on the South Right-of-Way line

of Washington Street (US 40); thence South 68 degrees 50 minutes 00
seconds West along said South right-of-way line 235.91 feet; thence
South 29 degrees 14 minutes 04 seconds East 90.32 feet; thence South 00
degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West 105.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees
52 minutes 55 seconds East 175.54 feet to the place of beginning
containing 0.996 acres, more or less, subject however to all legal
highways, rights-of-way, easements, and restrictions of record,
including but not limited to the following described easement: Part of
the Southeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 15 North, Range 2 East,
of the Second Principal Meridian, all in Marion County, Indiana, more
particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast Corner
of said Southeast Quarter Section; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes
05 seconds West along the East line of said Quarter Section 531.08 feet
to a point on the South Right-of-Way line of Washington Street (US 40);
thence South 68 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds West along said right-of-
way 12.88 feet; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West
along a line being parallel with and 12 feet West of the East line of
the above mentioned Quarter Section 466.59 feet; thence North 89
degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds West 239.65 feet; thence North 00 degrees
07 minutes 05 seconds East 62.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 52
minutes 55 seconds West 107.46 feet to the point of beginning of this
description; thence North 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds East 16.00
feet; thence North 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds West 108.80 feet;
thence North 01 degrees 27 minutes 07 seconds West 208.82 feet to a
point on the South Right-of-Way line of Washington Street (US 40);
thence South 68 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds West along said South
right-of-way line 113.00 feet; thence South 29 degrees 14 minutes 04
seconds East 90.32 feet; thence South 00 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds
West 105.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East
175.54 feet to the place of beginning containing 0.403 acres, more or
less.

Parcel E

    Part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15; Township 15 North,
Range 2 East, Marion County, Indiana, described as follows: Commencing
at the Southwest Corner of said Southeast Quarter, said corner being
marked by a bronze disc inscribed ``Indianapolis Airport Authority 22-
C'' set in concrete, thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 01 seconds East
(bearings based on NAD 1983 per Indianapolis Airport Authority Master
Plan) along the South line of said Southeast Quarter 1736.32 feet;
thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes 59 seconds West 1086.94 feet to the
point of beginning, said point being marked by a fence post at the
Southeast corner of a chain link fence; thence South 89 degrees 58
minutes 32 seconds West 162.45 feet to a fence post at the Southwest
corner of said fence; thence North 00 degrees 08 minutes 40 seconds
East 275.21 feet to a fence post at the Northwest corner of said fence,
thence South 89 degrees 55 minutes 52 seconds East 162.30 feet to a
fence post at the Northeast corner of said fence; thence South 00
degrees 06 minutes 53 seconds West 274.94 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 1.025 acres, more or less.

Parcel F

    Part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 15; Township 15 North,
Range 2 East, Marion County, Indiana, described as follows:
    Commencing at the Southwest Corner of said Southeast Quarter, said
corner being marked by a bronze disc inscribed ``Indianapolis Airport
Authority 22-C'' set in concrete, thence North 89 degrees 49 minutes 01
seconds East (bearings based on NAD 1983 per Indianapolis Airport
Authority Master Plan) along the South line of said Southeast Quarter
1736.32 feet; thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes 59 seconds West
1086.04 feet; thence North 00 degrees 06 minutes 53 seconds East 274.94
feet to the point of beginning, said point being marked by a fence post
at the Northeast corner of a chain link fence; thence North 89 degrees
55 minutes 52 seconds West 162.30 feet to a fence post at the Northwest
corner of said fence, thence North 00 degrees 06 minutes 53 seconds
East 138.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 55 minutes 52 seconds East
162.30 feet to a North-South fence line; thence South 00 degrees 06
minutes 53 seconds West along said fence line 138.00 feet to the point
of beginning, containing 0.514 acres, more or less.

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on July 30, 2009.
Jack Delaney,
Acting Manager, Chicago Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes
Region.
[FR Doc. E9-20124 Filed 8-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63276-63279]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24729]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Interim Policy, FAA Review of Solar Energy System Projects on
Federally Obligated Airports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of interim policy; opportunity to comment.

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

SUMMARY: This notice establishes interim FAA policy for proposals by
sponsors of federally obligated airports to construct solar energy
systems on airport property. FAA is adopting an interim policy because
it is in the public interest to enhance safety by clarifying and adding
standards for measuring ocular impact of proposed solar energy systems
which are effective upon publication. FAA will consider comments and
make appropriate modifications before issuing a final policy. The
policy applies to any proposed on-airport solar energy system that has
not received from the FAA either an unconditional airport layout plan
approval or a ``no objection'' finding on a Notice of Proposed
Construction or Alteration Form 7460-1.

DATES: The effective date of this interim policy is October 23, 2013.
    Comments must be received by November 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You can get an electronic copy of the interim policy and the
comment form on the FAA Airports Web site at http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/.
    You can submit comments using the Comments Matrix, using any of the
following methods:
    Electronic Submittal to the FAA: Go to http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/ and follow the instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
    Mail: FAA Office of Airports, Office of Airport Planning and
Programming, Routing Symbol APP-400, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Room
615, Washington, DC 20591. Please send two copies.
    Fax: 1-202-267-5302.
    Hand Delivery: To FAA Office of Airports, Office of Airport
Planning and Programming, Routing Symbol APP-400, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Room 615, Washington, DC 20591; between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please provide two
copies.
    For more information on the notice and comment process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/, including any personal
information you provide.
    Comments Received: To read comments received, go to http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/ at any time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ralph Thompson, Manager, Airport
Planning and Environmental Division, APP-400, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites interested persons to join
in this notice and comment process by filing written comments, data, or
views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include
supporting data.

Availability of Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of this interim policy by visiting
the FAA's Airports Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/.

Authority for the Policy

    This notice is published under the authority described in Subtitle
VII, part B, chapter 471, section 47122 of title 49 United States Code.

Background

    There is growing interest in installing solar photovoltaic (PV) and
solar hot water (SHW) systems on airports. While solar PV or SHW
systems (henceforth referred to as solar energy systems) are designed
to absorb solar energy to maximize electrical energy production or the
heating of water, in certain situations the glass surfaces of the solar
energy systems can reflect sunlight and produce glint (a momentary
flash of bright light) and glare (a continuous source of bright light).
In conjunction with the United States Department of Energy (DOE), the
FAA has determined that glint and glare from solar energy systems could
result in an ocular impact to pilots and/or air traffic control (ATC)
facilities and compromise the safety of the air transportation system.
While the FAA supports solar energy systems on airports, the FAA seeks
to ensure safety by eliminating the potential for ocular impact to
pilots and/or air traffic control facilities due to glare from such
projects.
    The FAA established a cross-organizational working group in 2012,
to establish a standard for measuring glint and glare, and clear
thresholds for when glint and glare would impact aviation safety. The
standards that this working group developed are set forth in this
notice.
    A sponsor of a federally-obligated airport must request FAA review
and approval to depict certain proposed solar installations (e.g.,
ground-based installations and collocated installations that increase
the footprint of the collocated building or structure) on its airport
layout plan (ALP), before construction begins.\1\ A sponsor of a
federally-obligated airport must notify the FAA of its intent to
construct any solar installation \2\ by filing FAA Form 7460-1,
``Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration'' under 14 CFR Part 77
for a Non-Rulemaking case (NRA) 3 4. This includes the
intent to permit airport tenants, including Federal agencies, to build
such

installations. The sponsor's obligation to obtain FAA review and
approval to depict certain proposed solar energy installation projects
at an airport is found in 49 U.S.C. 47107(a)(16) and Sponsor Grant
Assurance 29, ``Airport Layout Plan.'' Under these latter provisions,
the sponsor may not make or permit any changes or alterations in the
airport or any of its facilities which are not in conformity with the
ALP as approved by the FAA and which might, in the opinion of the FAA,
adversely affect the safety, utility or efficiency of the airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ FAA Technical Guidance for Evaluating Selected Solar
Technologies on Airports, Section 2.3.5, states that ``solar
installations of any size, located on an airport, that are not
collocated on an existing structure (i.e., roof of an existing
building) and require a new footprint, need to be shown on the
Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Collocated solar installations need to be
shown on the ALP only if these installations substantially change
the footprint of the collocated building or structure. Available at:
http://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/policy_guidance/media/airport_solar_guide_print.pdf. Title 49 of the United States Code
(USC), sec. 47107(a), requires, in part, a current ALP approved by
the FAA prior to the approval of an airport development project. See
Grant Assurance No. 29, AC No. 150/5070-6B, and FAA Order No.
5100.38.
    \2\ Any solar installation means any ground-based solar energy
installation and those solar energy installations collocated with a
building or structure (i.e., rooftop installations).
    \3\ FAA Technical Guidance for Evaluating Selected Solar
Technologies on Airports Section 3.1 reads in part ``All solar
projects at airports must submit to FAA a Notice of Proposed
Construction Form 7460 . . .''. This section further states ``Even
if the project will be roof mounted . . . the sponsor must still
submit a case'' [i.e., file a Form 7460-1].
    \4\ The requirements of this policy are not mandatory for a
proposed solar installation that is not on an airport and for which
a form 7460-1 is filed under part 77 and is studied under the
Obstruction Evaluation Program. However, the FAA urges proponents of
off-airport solar-installations to voluntarily implement the
provisions in this policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Airport sponsors and project proponents must comply with the
policies and procedures in this notice to demonstrate to the FAA that a
proposed solar energy system will not result in an ocular impact that
compromises the safety of the air transportation system. This process
enables the FAA to approve amendment of the ALP to depict certain solar
energy projects or issue a ``no objection'' finding to a filed 7460-1
form. The FAA expects to continue to update these policies and
procedures as part of an iterative process as new information and
technologies become available.
    Solar energy systems located on an airport that is not federally-
obligated or located outside the property of a federally-obligated
airport are not subject to this policy. Proponents of solar energy
systems located off-airport property or on non-federally-obligated
airports are strongly encouraged to consider the requirements of this
policy when siting such systems.
    This interim policy clarifies and adds standards for measurement of
glint or glare presented in the 2010 Technical Guidance document. Later
this year the FAA plans to publish an update to the ``Technical
Guidance for Evaluating Selected Solar Technologies on Airports,''
(hereinafter referred to as ``Technical Guidance'') dated November
2010. This update to the technical guidance will include the standards
for measuring glint and glare outlined in this notice. It will also
provide enhanced criteria to ensure the proper siting of a solar energy
installation to eliminate the potential for harmful glare to pilots or
air traffic control facilities.
    In advance of the planned update, as part of this Notice, we are
clarifying one aspect of the Technical Guidance relating to airport
sponsor and FAA responsibilities for evaluating the potential for solar
energy systems installed on airports to either block, reflect, or
disrupt radar signals, NAVAIDS, and other equipment required for safe
aviation operations. Section 3.1 of the Technical Guidance, entitled
``Airspace Review,'' correctly states that this role is exclusively the
responsibility of FAA Technical Operations (Tech Ops). However
subsection 3.1.3, ``System Interference,'' states: ``[s]tudies
conducted during project siting should identify the location of radar
transmission and receiving facilities and other NAVAIDS, and determine
locations that would not be suitable for structures based on their
potential to either block, reflect, or disrupt radar signals.''
    Reading the two sections together, what is meant is that the
airport sponsor, in siting a proposed solar energy system, is
responsible for limiting the potential for inference with
communication, navigation, and surveillance (CNS) facilities. The
sponsor should do so by ensuring that solar energy systems remain clear
of the critical areas surrounding CNS facilities. FAA Advisory Circular
(AC) 5300-13, ``Airport Design,'' Chapter 6, defines the critical areas
for common CNS facilities located on an airport. Sponsors may need to
coordinate with FAA Technical Operations concerning CNS facilities not
in AC 5300-13. As stated in Section 3.1, the FAA is responsible for
evaluating if there are any impacts to CNS facilities. The FAA will
conduct this review after the Form 7460-1 is filed for the construction
of a new solar energy system installation on an airport. In summary,
airport sponsors do not need to conduct studies on their own to
determine impacts to CNS facilities when siting a solar energy system
on airport. Section 3.1.3 will be revised accordingly in the next
version of the Technical Guidance.

Interim Policy Statement

    The following sets forth the standards for measuring ocular impact,
the required analysis tool, and the obligations of the Airport Sponsor
when a solar energy system is proposed for development on a federally-
obligated airport.
    The FAA is adopting an interim policy because it is in the public
interest to enhance safety by clarifying and adding standards for
measuring ocular impact of proposed solar energy systems. FAA will
consider comments and make appropriate modifications before issuing a
final policy in a future Federal Register Notice. The policy applies to
any proposed solar energy system that has not received unconditional
airport layout plan approval (ALP) or a ``no objection'' from the FAA
on a filed 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration.

Standard for Measuring Ocular Impact

    FAA adopts the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Plot shown in Figure 1
below as the standard for measuring the ocular impact of any proposed
solar energy system on a federally-obligated airport. To obtain FAA
approval to revise an airport layout plan to depict a solar
installation and/or a ``no objection'' to a Notice of Proposed
Construction Form 7460-1, the airport sponsor will be required to
demonstrate that the proposed solar energy system meets the following
standards:
    1. No potential for glint or glare in the existing or planned
Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) cab, and
    2. No potential for glare or ``low potential for after-image''
(shown in green in Figure 1) along the final approach path for any
existing landing threshold or future landing thresholds (including any
planned interim phases of the landing thresholds) as shown on the
current FAA-approved Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The final approach path
is defined as two (2) miles from fifty (50) feet above the landing
threshold using a standard three (3) degree glidepath.
    Ocular impact must be analyzed over the entire calendar year in one
(1) minute intervals from when the sun rises above the horizon until
the sun sets below the horizon.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN23OC13.002

Tool To Assess Ocular Impact

    In cooperation with the DOE, the FAA is making available free-of-
charge the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool (SGHAT). The SGHAT was
designed to determine whether a proposed solar energy project would
result in the potential for ocular impact as depicted on the Solar
Glare Hazard Analysis Plot shown above.
    The SGHAT employs an interactive Google map where the user can
quickly locate a site, draw an outline of the proposed solar energy
system, and specify observer locations (Airport Traffic Control Tower
cab) and final approach paths. Latitude, longitude, and elevation are
automatically recorded through the Google interface, providing
necessary information for sun position and vector calculations.
Additional information regarding the orientation and tilt of the solar
energy panels, reflectance, environment, and ocular factors are entered
by the user.
    If glare is found, the tool calculates the retinal irradiance and
subtended source angle (size/distance) of the glare source to predict
potential ocular hazards ranging from temporary after-image to retinal
burn. The results are presented in a simple, easy-to-interpret plot
that specifies when glare will occur throughout the year, with color
codes indicating the potential ocular hazard. The tool can also predict
relative energy production while evaluating alternative designs,
layouts, and locations to identify configurations that maximize energy
production while mitigating the impacts of glare.
    Users must first register for the use of the tool at this web
address: www.sandia.gov/glare.

Required Use of the SGHAT

    As of the date of publication of this interim policy, the FAA
requires the use of the SGHAT to demonstrate compliance with the
standards for measuring ocular impact stated above for any proposed
solar energy system located on a federally-obligated airport. The SGHAT
is a validated tool specifically designed to measure glare according to
the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Plot. All sponsors of federally-
obligated airports who propose to install or to permit others to
install solar energy systems on the airport must attach the SGHAT
report, outlining solar panel glare and ocular impact, for each point
of measurement to the Notice of Proposed Construction Form 7460-1. The
FAA will consider the use of alternative tools or methods on a case-by-
case basis. However, the FAA must approve the use of an alternative
tool or method prior to an airport sponsor seeking approval for any
proposed on-airport solar energy system. The alternative tool or method
must evaluate ocular impact in accordance with the Solar Glare Hazard
Analysis Plot.
    Please contact the Office of Airport Planning and Programming,
Airport Planning and Environmental Division, APP-400, for more
information on the validation process for alternative tools or methods.
    Airport sponsor obligations have been discussed above under
Background. We caution airport sponsors that under preexisting airport
grant compliance policy, failure to seek FAA review of a solar
installation prior to construction could trigger possible compliance
action under 14 CFR Part 16, ``Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted
Airport Enforcement Proceedings.'' Moreover, if a solar installation
creates glare that interferes with aviation safety, the FAA could
require the airport to pay for the elimination of solar glare by
removing or relocating the solar facility.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 27, 2013.
Benito De Leon,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2013-24729 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33094-33096]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0200]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; International Bridge 50th Anniversary Celebration
Fireworks, St. Mary's River, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Locks, Sault
Sainte Marie, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
specified waters of Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie zone. This
safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from certain portions of
water areas within Sector Sault Sainte Marie Captain of the Port zone,
as defined by 33 CFR 3-45.45. This temporary safety zone is necessary
to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with
fireworks displays.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10 p.m. until 12 a.m. on June 28,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2012-0200 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0200 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email MST3 Kevin Moe, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector
Sault Sainte Marie, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On April 12, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; International Bridge 50th Anniversary
Celebration Fireworks, St Mary's River, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Locks, Sault Sainte Marie, MI; in the Federal Register (77 FR 21893).
We received 1 public submission commenting on the proposed rule. No
public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Basis and Purpose

    On the evening of 28 June 2012, The International Bridge
Administration will be celebrating the International Bridge 50th
Anniversary. As part of that celebration, fireworks will be launched
from the northeast pier of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Soo Locks.
The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie has determined that the
fireworks event poses various hazards to the public, including
explosive dangers associated with fireworks, and debris falling into
the water.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received 1 public submission from an anonymous
source commenting on the benefits of promoting safety in firework
displays, but not commenting on the specifics of this rule.

Discussion of Rule

    This rule and its associated safety zone are necessary to ensure
the safety of vessels and people during the aforementioned fireworks
event. The temporary safety zone will encompass all waters within a
750-foot radius around the eastern portion of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Soo Locks North East Pier, centered on position:

46[deg]30'19.66'' N, 084[deg]20'31.61'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    In accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a), the Captain of the Port Sault
Sainte Marie will use all appropriate means to notify the affected
segments of the public when the safety zone will be enforced.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte
Marie or his or her designated representative. All persons and vessels
permitted to enter the safety zone established by this rule shall
comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or
the designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his or her
designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive Order 12866
or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management
and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and
procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude
that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we
anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not
interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of
any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or
policy issues. The safety zone will be relatively small and will exist
for only a minimal time. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels
may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by proper
authority.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in the vicinity of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Soo
Locks North East Pier between 10 p.m. and 12 a.m. on June 28, 2012.
    This temporary safety zone will not have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons: This rule will only be enforced for a short period of time.
Vessels may safely pass outside the safety zone during the event. In
the event that this temporary safety zone affects shipping, commercial
vessels may request permission from the Captain of the Port, Sector
Sault Sainte Marie, to transit through the safety zone. The Coast Guard
will give notice to the public via a Broadcast to Mariners that the
regulation is in effect.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism. On April 12, 2012, we published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; International Bridge 50th
Anniversary Celebration Fireworks, St. Mary's River, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Locks, Sault Sainte Marie, MI; in the Federal Register (76 FR
22064). We received 1 public submission commenting on the proposed
rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble. On April 12, 2012, we published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; International Bridge 50th
Anniversary Celebration Fireworks, St. Mary's River, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Locks, Sault Sainte Marie, MI; in the Federal Register (76 FR
22064). We received 1 public submission commenting on the proposed
rule.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights. On April 12, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; International Bridge 50th Anniversary
Celebration Fireworks, St. Mary's River, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Locks, Sault Sainte Marie, MI; in the Federal Register (76 FR 22064).
We received 1 public submission commenting on the proposed rule.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. On April 12, 2012, we published
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone;
International Bridge 50th Anniversary Celebration Fireworks, St. Mary's
River, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Locks, Sault Sainte Marie, MI; in
the Federal Register (76 FR 22064). We received 1 public submission
commenting on the proposed rule.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children. On April 12, 2012, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone;
International Bridge 50th

Anniversary Celebration Fireworks, St. Mary's River, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Locks, Sault Sainte Marie, MI; in the Federal Register (76 FR
22064). We received 1 public submission commenting on the proposed
rule.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. On April 12, 2012, we
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone;
International Bridge 50th Anniversary Celebration Fireworks, St. Mary's
River, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Locks, Sault Sainte Marie, MI; in
the Federal Register (76 FR 22064). We received 1 public submission
commenting on the proposed rule.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211. On April 12, 2012, we published a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety Zone; International
Bridge 50th Anniversary Celebration Fireworks, St. Mary's River, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Locks, Sault Sainte Marie, MI; in the Federal
Register (76 FR 22064). We received 1 public submission commenting on
the proposed rule.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. On April 12, 2012,
we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Safety
Zone; International Bridge 50th Anniversary Celebration Fireworks, St.
Mary's River, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Locks, Sault Sainte Marie,
MI; in the Federal Register (76 FR 22064). We received 1 public
submission commenting on the proposed rule.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction because it involves the establishment of a safety zone.
A final environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0200 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0200  Safety Zone International Bridge 50th Anniversary
Celebration Fireworks, St. Mary's River, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Locks, Sault Sainte Marie, MI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All
U.S. navigable waters of the St. Mary's River within a 750-foot radius
around the eastern portion of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Soo Locks
North East Pier, centered on position: 46[deg]30'19.66'' N,
084[deg]20'31.61'' W [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This rule is effective and
will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 12 a.m. on June 28, 2012.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or his or her on-scene
representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or
his or her on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Sector Sault Sainte Marie, is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port,
Sector Sault Sainte Marie, to act on his or her behalf. The on-scene
representative of the Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie,
will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie,
or his or her on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so.
The Captain of the Port, Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or his or her on-
scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel
operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must
comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port,
Sector Sault Sainte Marie, or his or her on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 21, 2012.
J.C. McGuiness,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2012-13518 Filed 6-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P