[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52814-52815]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21556]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services,

100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-2736.

Extension:
    Voluntary XBRL-Related Documents, SEC File No. 270-550, OMB
Control No. 3235-0611.

    Notice is hereby given that, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``Paperwork Reduction Act''), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') a request for
extension of the previously approved collection of information
discussed below.
    As part of our evaluation of the potential of interactive data
tagging technology, the Commission permits registered investment
companies (``funds'') to submit on a voluntary basis specified
financial statement and portfolio holdings disclosure tagged in
eXtensible Business Reporting Language (``XBRL'') format as an exhibit
to certain filings on the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering,
Analysis and Retrieval System (``EDGAR''). The current voluntary
program permits any fund to participate merely by submitting a tagged
exhibit in the required manner. These exhibits are publicly available
but are considered furnished rather than filed. The purpose of the
collection of information is to help evaluate the usefulness of data
tagging and XBRL to registrants, investors, the Commission, and the
marketplace.
    We estimate that no funds participate in the voluntary program each
year. This information collection, therefore, imposes no hour burden;
however, we are requesting a burden of one hour for administrative
purposes. We also estimate that the information collection imposes no
cost burden.
    Estimates of the average burden hours and costs are made solely for
the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act and are not derived from a
comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules and forms. Participation in the program is voluntary.
Submissions under the program will not be kept confidential. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: August 26, 2015.
 Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21556 Filed 8-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68292-68294]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26823]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0051]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review and Approval; Request
for Comment; Effects of Education on Speeding Behavior

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a new information
collection.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR)
abstracted below will be submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review. The ICR describes the nature of the
information collection and its expected burden. A Federal Register
notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting public comments on the
following information collection was published on August 30, 2019.
NHTSA received one comment, from the Insurance Institute of Highway
Safety (IIHS), that was critical of the proposed information
collection.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk
Officer for NHTSA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheppard, Research Psychologist,
Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NPD-320), National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, W46-499, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Sheppard's phone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and her email address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Before a Federal agency can collect certain
information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). In compliance with these requirements,
this notice announces that the following information collection request
has been forwarded to OMB.
    A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
public comments on the following information collection was published
on August 30, 2019.\1\ NHTSA received one comment, from the Insurance
Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS), that was critical of the proposed
information collection. IIHS stated that stand-alone education programs
have not been found to be effective at addressing driver behaviors like
speeding and that pursuing an education program is not an effective use
of the agency's resources. They cited NHTSA's Speed Management Program
Plan as having other activities with more promise for reducing
speeding.\2\ They also indicated that NHTSA's Countermeasures that Work
report promotes communications in support of enforcement but not
education alone.\3\ They stated their view that incentives for
intelligent speed adaptation outlined in the National Transportation
Safety Board's (NTSB) Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving
Passenger Vehicles safety report was a more effective use of
resources.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 84 FR 45827.
    \2\ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal
Highway Administration, & Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration. (2014, May). Speed management program plan (Report
No. DOT HS 812 028). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812028-speedmgtprogram.pdf.
    \3\ Richard, C.M., Magee, K., Bacon-Abdelmoteleb, P., & Brown,
J. L. (2018, April). Countermeasures that work: A highway safety
countermeasure guide for State Highway Safety Offices, Ninth edition
(Report No. DOT HS 812 478). Washington, DC: National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. Available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/36719.
    \4\ National Transportation Safety Board. (2017, July). Reducing
Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles (Safety Study
NTSB/SS-17/01). Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety
Board. Available at https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We appreciate the comments from IIHS and thank them for
thoughtfully considering the described collection. We agree with IIHS
that stand-alone education programs that are not part of a larger
comprehensive approach tend to have limited effects. However, as IIHS
points out, NHTSA has a Speed Management Program Plan that includes an
education component as well as a variety of other strategies. The
program associated with this collection is one potential education
program that could be part of a larger speeding management strategy
that includes many of the additional elements IIHS describes. NHTSA's
Countermeasures that Work indicates that communications and outreach
supporting speeding enforcement is a promising strategy (p. 3-31), and
NTSB's Reducing Speeding-Related Crashes Involving Passenger Vehicles
concluded that ``traffic safety campaigns that include highly
publicized, increased enforcement can be an effective speeding
countermeasure'' (p. 55). Additionally, NTSB recommended that NHTSA
``collaborate with other traffic safety stakeholders to develop and
implement an ongoing program to increase public awareness of speeding
as a national traffic safety issue'' (p. 57).
    A 2011 meta-analysis by Phillips, Ulleberg, and Ross found that
traffic safety public information and education campaigns reduced
crashes by 9% on average but that campaigns focused on speeding did not
indicate a statistically significant reduction.\5\ Many of the
education programs described by IIHS and included in the meta-analysis
above are public awareness campaigns where messages are delivered
through mass media or at the roadside. These education programs are not
focused on drivers who speed but rather on all drivers. These broad
education programs may appear less effective, especially on their own,
because many drivers who receive the messages do not tend to speed.
Education focused on people who have already received a

speeding citation, such as proposed in this collection, could produce
larger effects because they are designed to address the specific issues
found with speeding drivers. Furthermore, NHTSA's Countermeasures that
Work chapter on Speeding and Speed Management recommends more
comprehensive strategies for drivers already cited for speeding or
repeat offenders and mentions several programs that included
interventions specifically designed to teach drivers about attitudes,
skills, and knowledge related to speeding and personality traits
associated with the behavior. These programs showed promise in reducing
speeding among drivers who had received citations (p. 3-10). Therefore,
education specifically for drivers who speed as well as more broad
education to promote public awareness of the dangers of speeding are
part of comprehensive programming referenced throughout NHTSA's
Countermeasures that Work and Speed Management Program Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Phillips, R.O., Ulleberg, P., & Vaa, T. (2011). Meta-
analysis of the effect of road safety campaigns on accidents.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43, 1204-1218.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed speeding education program has two main elements that
make it scientifically strong and likely to contribute to our ability
to develop an effective program. The first element is that it will
target individuals with a speeding citation instead of being broadly
presented to all drivers. This step ensures that the audience who
stands to benefit most from the education will receive it and that the
content aligns with promising programs discussed in Countermeasures
that Work. The second element is that naturalistic and objective data
will be collected to determine if the program had an effect. Instead of
relying on self-report, which IIHS rightly indicates can be biased, the
proposed data collection will use instrumentation in the vehicle to
evaluate speeding while the participants drive as they normally would
both before and after the educational course. This step will ensure
that conclusions drawn about the effect of the program will be based on
objective driving data and not on reports of how people believe they
drove or will drive in the future. By undertaking this collection,
NHTSA will take steps towards an evidence-based education program that
can be included in comprehensive speed management plans and contribute
to reducing speeding-related injuries and fatalities.
    Title: Effects of Education on Speeding Behavior.
    OMB Clearance Number: New.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Form No.: NHTSA Form 1492, NHTSA Form 1493, NHTSA Form 1494, NHTSA
Form 1495, NHTSA Form 1496, and NHTSA Form 1497.
    Type of Information Collection Request: Approval of a new
information collection.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from date of
approval.
    Abstract: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation is seeking approval to
collect information from licensed drivers who have at least one
speeding citation or conviction in the previous three years for a one-
time voluntary study of the effects of an education course being
developed that covers vehicle speeds, laws, and the risks of speeding
on speeding behavior. NHTSA proposes to approach up to 250 drivers
appearing at the Wake County, NC district court because of speeding
infractions to ascertain their interest in participating in the study
after their case has been adjudicated. Of those 250, we expect to
collect information from 150 potential participants determine their
eligibility for the study with the goal of recruiting 100 voluntary
participants. The 100 participants will complete an informed consent
form, three driver speeding questionnaires (before the course, right
after the course, and one month after the course) to explore the
effects of the course on their attitudes and beliefs regarding speeding
as well as their tendency to speed, a course evaluation, and sensation-
seeking questionnaire to measure psychological factors related to risky
behaviors. In addition, NHTSA will collect naturalistic driving data,
which involves unobtrusive observation of driving in a natural, on-road
setting using a vehicle instrumented with position, speed, and other
sensors. This collection is solely reporting, and there are no record-
keeping costs to the respondents. NHTSA will use the information to
produce a technical report that presents the results of the study. The
technical report will provide aggregate (summary) statistics and tables
as well as the results of statistical analysis of the information, but
it will not include any personal information. The technical report will
be shared with State highway offices, local governments, and those who
develop driver education and traffic safety communications that aim to
reduce speed-related crashes. The total estimated burden for recruiting
250 participants (42 hours), for screening 150 participants (23 hours)
and for 100 participants to complete the study (600 hours) is 665 total
hours.
    Respondents: Participation in this study will be voluntary, and 100
participants will be recruited from drivers that attend the Wake
County, NC district court because of speeding infractions after their
case has been adjudicated. An estimated 250 people will be approached
and have the study described to them, and 150 people will be screened
to recruit the 100 who will complete the study. Participants will be
licensed drivers over 18 years old who have had a speeding citation in
the past 3 years.
    Estimated Time per Participant: The estimated time for recruiting
250 possible participants is 10 minutes per person. The estimated time
for screening the 150 possible participants is nine minutes per person
to complete the screener questionnaire and provide contact information.
The estimated time for the 100 study participants is six hours per
person to complete the informed consent, take the three-hour and 30-
minute course, complete all questionnaires, and wait for equipment to
be installed and uninstalled from their vehicles.
    Total Estimated Burden Hours: The total estimated annual burden is
665 hours for the project activities. Participation in this study is
voluntary, and there are no costs to respondents beyond the time spent
completing the questionnaires and visits to the study facility.
    Frequency of Collection: This study is one-time data collection,
and there will be no recurrence.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: NHTSA was established to reduce deaths, injuries, and
economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes on the Nation's
highways. As part of this statutory mandate, NHTSA is authorized to
conduct research for the development of traffic safety programs. In
2018, there were 9,378 fatalities in speeding-related crashes--26% of
all traffic deaths. Public information and education are important
elements of any effective speed management program. Recent NHTSA
research has indicated that many drivers feel they lack sufficient
knowledge about speeding and would like more information on stopping
distances, laws, and risks involved. This project is designed to
examine the effectiveness of education covering speed, laws, and risks
of speeding in changing driver attitudes and behaviors regarding
speeding. This information will be useful to State highway offices,
local governments, and those who develop driver education and training
that aim to reduce speed-related crashes.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a)

whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
Department's performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c)
ways for the department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of
the information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be
minimized without reducing the quality of the collected information.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Jon Krohmer,
Associate Administrator, Acting, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2019-26823 Filed 12-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41620]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18522]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-974-000.
    Applicants: Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Garden Banks LINK filing to be
effective 10/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/18/17.
    Accession Number: 20170818-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-975-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Amendments to Neg Rate Agmts
(FPL 41618-29, 41619-15) to be effective 8/17/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/21/17.
    Accession Number: 20170821-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-976-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Miss Canyon LINK integration
filing to be effective 10/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 8/21/17..
    Accession Number: 20170821-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/17.

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

    Dated: August 22, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18522 Filed 8-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


1Assume an hourly wage of $ 18.94 plus 110% overhead costs which equals $ 39.77. This amount was multiplied by the hours per year in column C.

2) Assume 20 percent of initial performance tests must be repeated due to failure.

Table 2. Annual Burden of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements as a Result of the Standards ( A) ( B) ( C= AxB) ( D) 1 Hours/ Affected units/ Hours/ Cost/

Unit Year Year year 1. APPLICATIONS ............................... not applicable..............................

2. SURVEYS AND STUDIES ............................... not applicable..............................

3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS A. Read Instructions 1 10 10 397.70 B. Required Activities Initial performance tests 60 10 600 23862.00 Repeat performance tests 2 60 2 120 4772.40 C. Create Information See 3B.

D. Gather Existing Info . See 3E.

E. Write Report Notify of construction or reconstruction 2 10 20 795.40 Notify of anticip.

start/ up 2 10 20 795.40 Notify of actual start/ up 2 10 20 795.40 Notify of initial performance test 2 10 20 795.40 Report of performance test See 3B.

4. RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS A. Read Instructions See 3A.

B. Plan Activities See 4C.

C. Implement Activities See 3B. 3The three new facilities will need to establish how they want the records kept in the log book. 4The recordkeeping requirements are for all existing units plus the added units each year ( 30 facilities x 9 presses = 270 plus the 10 new presses = 280. Monthly requirements multiplies by 12 for 3360.

D. Develop Record System 3 3 3 9 357.93 E. Time to Enter Information 4 Records of startups,

shutdowns, malfunctions, etc .1 280 28 1113.56 Records of VOC of materials and emissions calculation, monthly .9 3360 3024 120,264.48 F. Train Personnel .......................... not applicable.............................

G. Audits .......................... not applicable.............................

TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN ( REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS): 3871 153,949.67


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71369-71371]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28286]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Chapter I

46 CFR Chapter I

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0866]

Updates to Voluntary Consensus Standards Incorporated by
Reference

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: Many of the Coast Guard's regulations incorporate industry
standards. The Coast Guard is reviewing these regulations to determine
whether they contain outdated standards and, if so, whether and how
these regulations should be updated to incorporate more current
standards. We request comments from the public on which current
industry standards should be incorporated, which currently incorporated
standards are outdated, and how the Coast Guard should ensure
incorporated standards are kept current.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received on or before
February 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0866 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section

below for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this request
for comments, call or email Mr. Roger Butturini, Office of Standards
Evaluation and Development, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2012-0866), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov), or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone
number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we
have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0866) and click ``Search.'' Then
click ``Submit a Comment.'' If you submit your comments by mail or hand
delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11
inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0866) and click ``Search.'' Click the
``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. You may also visit
the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.
    A list of material the Coast Guard has incorporated by reference
may be viewed online using the Standards Incorporated by Reference
(SIBR) Database maintained by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST). To view the list online, go to http://standards.gov/sibr/query/index.cfm. At the top of that page, click the tab marked
``Regulatory.'' Then, in the line marked ``Incorporated By,'' use the
drop-down menu to select ``Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast
Guard'' and click ``Search.''

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Background and Purpose

    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
would otherwise be 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. The Coast Guard has actively
participated in the development of industry standards for safety of
marine equipment at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ASTM
International, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and
42 other international and domestic standards development
organizations.
    When appropriate, the Coast Guard incorporates industry standards,
and particularly voluntary consensus standards, into its regulations.
This process, known as incorporation by reference, gives the content of
incorporated standards the same force as regulations published in the
Code of Federal Regulations. A list of standards the Coast Guard has
incorporated by reference is available as described in the ``Viewing
comments and documents'' section of this request for comments.
    Incorporation by reference occurs as part of a rulemaking and is
governed by specific rules, which are available at 1 CFR part 51. Under
these rules the Coast Guard may only incorporate a specific edition of
a standard, and that standard must be reasonably available to the class
of persons affected by it. Because standards organizations revise and
replace standards over time, the specific edition incorporated by the
Coast Guard eventually may become outdated, unavailable to the class of
persons affected by it, or both. This can lead to conflicts between
domestic and international requirements, or between regulatory
requirements and modern best practices. Therefore, the Coast Guard
reviews its incorporations by reference and updates them if necessary.
    In the past the Coast Guard has included these updates in its
individual, topic-driven rulemaking efforts. The Coast Guard is
interested, however, in conducting one or more rulemakings devoted
specifically to updating references to standards that are incorporated
in its regulations.

Request for Comments

    Through this request for comments, the Coast Guard solicits public
comments on whether Coast Guard regulations incorporate standards that
should be updated, which current standards should replace those already
incorporated, and how the Coast Guard should ensure incorporated
standards are kept current. Your experiences with incorporated
standards will help us decide which references to update in our
regulations, and which revisions should receive priority. In your
response to this request for comments, we encourage you to include the
following information if possible:
    (1) If you are aware of an incorporated standard that is outdated,
please provide its full title and publication number, the reasons you
believe it is outdated, the standard you suggest should replace it, and
the reasons that standard is the best choice. Please be as specific as
possible when describing the differences between the incorporated
standard and the suggested replacement,

and the reasons those changes are desirable.
    (2) If you are aware of an incorporated standard that has been
reaffirmed or superseded without change, please provide its title, the
publication number, and the title of the edition you believe has
replaced it.
    (3) If you are aware of instances in which members of the public
follow a newer or different standard than the one incorporated in
regulation, please indicate which standard and how widespread its use.
You may submit anonymous comments, but detailed information on industry
practice will help us develop cost estimates when deciding whether to
incorporate the newer standard.
    (4) If you are aware of conflicts between incorporated standards,
or of errors that lead to confusion about incorporated standards,
please describe the conflict or confusion.
    This request for comments is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 33 CFR subpart 1.05.

    Dated: November 7, 2012.
F.J. Sturm,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2012-28286 Filed 11-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 218 (Monday, November 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68116-68118]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0546; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASW-10]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Rogers,
Springdale, and Bentonville, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class D airspace and Class E
surface airspace for the following Arkansas airports: Rogers Executive
Airport-Carter Field (new name), Springdale Municipal Airport, and
Bentonville Municipal Airport/Louise M Thaden Field (new name), as well
as updating the airport's names and geographic coordinates. Controlled
airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 29, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify Docket
No. FAA-2022-0546; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASW-10 at the beginning of
your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G Airspace Designations and Reporting Points
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would amend airspace in Rogers, Springdale, and Bentonville, AR,
to support IFR operations in the area.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2022-0546 and Airspace Docket No. 22-ASW-10) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2022-0546; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASW-10.'' The postcard
will be dated/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal in this document may be changed in light of the comments
received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in
the public docket before and after the comment closing date. A report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking

documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for federal holidays at the
office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 350,1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective
September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class D
airspace for Rogers Executive Airport-Carter Field (formerly Rogers
Municipal/Carter Field) and Springdale Municipal Airport by updating
each airport's geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's
database. Also, Class E surface airspace would be amended for the above
airports and Bentonville Municipal Airport/Louise M Thaden Field
(formerly Bentonville Municipal/Louise M. Thadden Field). This action
would also update the airport's names and the dividing line of the
Class D airspace between Rogers Executive Airport-Carter Field with the
Class E surface airspace of Bentonville Municipal Airport/Louise M
Thaden Field. In addition, this action would replace the outdated terms
Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement and Notice to
Airmen with the term Notice to Air Missions in the airspace
descriptions.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs
5000 and 6002, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations
listed in this document will subsequently be published in FAA Order JO
7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW AR D Rogers, AR [Amended]

Rogers Executive Airport-Carter Field, AR
    (Lat. 36[deg]22'21'' N, long. 94[deg]06'25'' W)
Razorback VOR
    (Lat. 36[deg]14'47'' N, long. 94[deg]07'17'' W)

    That airspace extends upward from the surface up to but not
including 3,900 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Rogers Executive
Airport-Carter Field and within 2.2 miles each side of the 005 [deg]
radial of the Razorback VOR extending from the 4-miles radius to 6.0
miles south of the airport excluding that airspace west of a line
(Lat. 36[deg]24'09'' N, long. 94[deg]10'51'' W and lat.
36[deg]18'53'' N, long. 94[deg]08'55'' W), and excluding the Class C
airspace associated with the Northwest Arkansas Regional airport.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The
effective date and time will, after that, be continuously published
in the Chart Supplement.

ASW AR D Springdale, AR [Amended]

Springdale Municipal Airport, AR
    (Lat. 36[deg]10'35'' N, long. 94[deg]07'09'' W)
Razorback VOR
    (Lat. 36[deg]14'47'' N, long. 94[deg]07'17'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,900 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius of Springdale Municipal
Airport and within 1.3 miles each side of the 358[deg] and 178[deg]
radials of the Razorback VORTAC extending from the 4.1-mile radius
to 4.6 miles north of the airport. This Class D airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective date and time will, after
that, be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW AR E2 Rogers, AR [Amended]

Rogers Executive Airport-Carter Field, AR
    (Lat. 36[deg]22'21'' N, long. 94[deg]06'25'' W)
Razorback VOR
    (Lat. 36[deg]14'47'' N, long. 94[deg]07'17'' W)

    That airspace extends upwards from the surface within a 4-mile
radius of Rogers Executive Airport-Carter Field and within 2.2 miles
on each side of the 005[deg] radial of the Razorback VOR, extending
from the 4-miles radius to 6.0 miles south of the airport, excluding
that airspace west of a line (Lat. 36[deg]24'09'' N, long.
94[deg]10'51'' W, and lat. 36[deg]18'53'' N, long. 94[deg]08'55''
W). This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions.
The effective date and time will, after that, be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

ASW AR E2 Springdale, AR [Amended]

Springdale Municipal Airport, AR
    (Lat. 36[deg]10'35'' N, long. 94[deg]07'09'' W)
Razorback VORTAC
    (Lat. 36[deg]14'47'' N, long. 94[deg]07'17'' W)

    That airspace extends upwards from the surface within a 4.1-mile
radius of

Springdale Municipal Airport and 1.3 miles on each side of the
358[deg] and 178[deg] radials of the Razorback VORTAC extending from
the 4.1-mile radius to 4.6 miles north of the airport. This Class E
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective
date and time will, after that, be continuously published in the
Chart Supplement.

ASW AR E2 Bentonville, AR [Amended]

Bentonville Municipal/Louise M. Thaden Field, AR
    (Lat. 36[deg]20'43'' N, long. 94[deg]13'10'' W)
Razorback VOR
    (Lat. 36[deg]14'47'' N, long. 94[deg]07'17'' W)

    That airspace extends upwards from the surface within a 3.9-mile
radius of Bentonville Municipal Airport and within 2.2 miles on each
side of the 322[deg] radial of the Razorback VOR, extending from the
3.9-mile radius to 6 miles southeast of the airport, excluding that
airspace east of a line (Lat. 36[deg]24'09'' N, long. 94[deg]10'51''
W, and lat. 36[deg]18'53'' N, long. 94[deg]08'55'' W). This Class E
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 7, 2022.
Lisa Burrows,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team North, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2022-24599 Filed 11-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P