[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61431-61432]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21997]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket Nos. NHTSA-2019-0095; NHTSA-2019-0134; Notice 2]

Specialty Tires of America, Inc., Grant of Petitions for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petitions.

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

SUMMARY: Specialty Tires of America, Inc. (STA) has determined that
certain STA light truck tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor
Vehicles with a GVWR of More than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and
Motorcycles, or FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light
Vehicles. STA filed noncompliance reports dated August 27, 2019,
November 15, 2019, and November 18, 2019. STA also petitioned NHTSA on
September 16, 2019, and December 13, 2019, and later amended the former
on March 3, 2020, for a decision that the subject noncompliances are
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety. This document
announces the grant of STA's petitions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayton Lindley, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: STA has determined that certain STA light truck tires
do not fully comply with paragraph S6.5(f) of FMVSS No. 119, New
Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of More than 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) and Motorcycles (49 CFR 571.119) or
paragraphs S5.5(e) and (f) of FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires
for Light Vehicles (49 CFR 571.139). STA filed noncompliance reports
dated August 27, 2019, November 15, 2019, and November 18, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. STA also petitioned NHTSA on September 16, 2019, and
December 13, 2019, and later amended the former on March 3, 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 STA's petitions was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on October 6, 2020, in the Federal Register (85
FR 63161). NHTSA received one comment from the general public. While
the Agency takes great interest in the public's concerns and
appreciates the commenter's feedback, the comment does not address the
purpose of this particular petitions. To view the petitions and all
supporting documents, log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket numbers ``NHTSA-2019-0095 and
NHTSA-2019-0134.''
    II. Tires Involved: Approximately 5,489 of the following STA light
truck tires, manufactured between January 1, 2009, and October 27,
2019, and certified to FMVSS No. 119, are potentially involved:

 8-17.5 LT STA Super Traxion
 8-17.5 STA Super Transport
 8-14.5LT G/14 STA Super Transport
 8-14.5LT F 12 STA Super Transport
 7.50-18 STA Super Traxion
 7.50-17 STA Super Transport
 10.00-20 STA Super Transport

    Approximately 2,887 of the following STA light truck tires,
manufactured between February 2, 2014, and September 1, 2019, and
certified to FMVSS No. 139, are potentially involved:

 37x12.50R20LT Interco SSR
 37x12.50R17LT Interco SSR
 35x12.50-16LT Interco Thornbird
 33x13.50R17LT Interco Irok

    III. Noncompliance: STA explains that in both cases, the
noncompliance is that the sidewalls of the subject tires incorrectly
state the ply material and number of plies and, therefore, do not meet
the applicable requirement specified in either paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS
No. 119 or paragraphs S5.5(e) and (f) of FMVSS No. 139. Specifically,
the subject tires were incorrectly marked in the following ways:

 8-17.5LT STA Super Traxion
    Sidewall marked as Tread: 6 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 4 Ply Nylon
    Correct marking should be Tread: 4 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 4 Ply Nylon
 8-17.5 STA Super Transport
    Sidewall marked as Tread: 6 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 4 Ply Nylon
    Correct marking should be Tread: 4 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 4 Ply Nylon
 8-14.5LT G/14STA Super Transport
    Sidewall marked as Tread: 6 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 6 Ply Nylon
    Correct marking should be Tread: 8 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 6 Ply Nylon
 8-14.5LT F 12 STA Super Transport
    Sidewall marked as Tread: 6 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 6 Ply Nylon
    Correct marking should be Tread: 8 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 6 Ply Nylon
 7.50-18 STA Super Traxion
    Sidewall marked as Tread: 4 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 4 Ply Nylon
    Correct marking should be Tread: 6 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 4 Ply Nylon
 7.50-17 STA Super Transport
    Sidewall marked as Tread: 4 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 4 Ply Nylon
    Correct marking should be Tread: 6 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 6 Ply Nylon
 10.00-20 STA Super Transport
    Sidewall marked as Tread: 10 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 10 Ply Nylon
    Correct marking should be Tread: 8 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 6 Ply Nylon
 37x12.50R20LT Interco SSR
    Sidewall marked as Tread: 3 Poly + 2 Steel + 1 Nylon, Sidewall: 3
Poly
    Correct marking should be Tread: 2 Poly + 2 Steel + 2 Nylon,
Sidewall: 2 Poly
 37x12.50R17LT Interco SSR
    Sidewall marked as Tread: 3 Poly + 2

Steel + 1 Nylon, Sidewall: 3 Poly
    Correct marking should be Tread: 2 Poly + 2 Steel + 2 Nylon,
Sidewall: 2 Poly
 35x12.50-16LT Interco Thornbird
    Sidewall marked as Tread: 4 Ply Nylon, Sidewall: 4 Ply Nylon
    Correct marking should be Tread: 4 Poly + 2 Nylon, Sidewall: 4 Ply
Poly
 33x13.50R17LT Interco Irok
    Sidewall marked as Tread: 3 Poly + 2 Steel + 1 Nylon, Sidewall: 3
Poly
    Correct marking should be Tread: 2 Poly + 2 Steel + 1 Nylon,
Sidewall: 2 Poly

    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S6.5(f) of FMVSS No. 119 and
paragraphs S5.5(e) and (f) of FMVSS No. 139 include the requirements
relevant to these petitions. Paragraph S6.5(f) of FMVSS No. 119
requires that each tire shall be marked on each sidewall with the
actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material in
the sidewall and, if different, in the tread area. Paragraphs 5.5(e)
and (f) of FMVSS No. 139 require that each tire must be marked on one
sidewall with the generic name of each cord material used in the plies
(both sidewall and tread area) of the tire, the actual number of plies
in the sidewall, and the actual number of plies in the tread area, if
different.
    V. Summary of STA's Petitions: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, ``V. Summary of STA's Petitions,'' are the
views and arguments provided by STA. They do not reflect the views of
the Agency.
    STA described the subject noncompliances and stated that the
noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle
safety. In support of its petitions, STA offers the following
reasoning:
    1. The subject tires were manufactured as designed and meet or
exceed all other marking and performance requirements of FMVSS No. 119
or 139, as applicable.
    2. The noncompliance is not a safety concern, having no effect on
operation of the tire and no impact on the retreading, repairing, or
recycling industries.
    3. All the tires in inventory and the mold information are being
corrected and all future production and sales by STA of these tires
will have the correct information on both sidewalls.
    4. STA stated that they are not aware of any warranty claims,
adjustments, field reports, customer complaints, legal claims, or any
incidents, accidents, or injuries related to the subject condition.
    5. STA says that NHTSA has granted a number of similar petitions
relating to incorrectly identifying the actual number of plies in the
tread area. STA went on to cite the following petitions in which the
Agency has previously granted:
    a. Continental Tire the Americas, LLC, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential noncompliance, 83 FR 36668 (July 30, 2018).
    b. Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 83 FR 13002 (March 26, 2018).
    c. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Grant of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 47049 (August 2,
2013).
    d. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 74 FR 10804 (March 12, 2009).
    e. Nitto Tire U.S.A., Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 17764 (March 30, 2016).
    f. Hankook Tire America Corp., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 79 FR 30688 (May 28, 2014).
    STA concluded by again contending that the subject noncompliances
are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petitions to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliances, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, be granted.
    STA's complete petitions and all supporting documents are available
by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (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.
    VI. NHTSA's Analysis: The Agency agrees with STA that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The Agency
believes that one measure of inconsequentiality to motor vehicle safety
is that there is no effect of the noncompliance on the operational
safety of vehicles on which these tires are mounted. Another measure of
inconsequentiality which is relevant to these petitions is the safety
of people working in the tire retread, repair and recycling industries.
    Although tire construction affects the strength and durability of
tires, neither the Agency nor the tire industry provides information
establishing a relationship between tire strength and durability to the
number of plies and types of ply cord material in the tread sidewall.
Therefore, tire dealers and customers should consider the tire
construction information along with other information such as the load
capacity, maximum inflation pressure, tread wear, temperature, and
traction ratings, to assess performance capabilities of various tires.
In the Agency's judgement, the incorrect labeling of the tire
construction information will have an inconsequential effect on motor
vehicle safety because most consumers do not base tire purchases or
vehicle operation parameters on the number of plies in a tire.
    The Agency also believes the noncompliance will have no measurable
effect on the safety of the tire retread, repair, and recycling
industries. The use of steel in the sidewall and tread is the primary
safety concern of these industries. In this case, because the sidewall
markings indicate correctly that the steel plies exist, and their
number, the industry will be reasonably notified of this potential
safety concern.
    VII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that STA has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 139
and FMVSS No. 119 noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, STA's petitions are hereby granted,
and STA is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of,
and a remedy for, the 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.)

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-21997 Filed 10-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: July 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 41162-41164]
[DOCID:fr17jy08-145]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Approvals and
Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In June 2008,
there were seven applications approved. Additionally, 32 approved
amendments to previously approved applications are listed.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC
approvals and disapprovals under the provisions of the Aviation Safety
and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158). This notice is
published pursuant to paragraph (d) of Sec.  158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

    Public Agency: City of Des Moines, Iowa.
    Application Number: 08-11-C-00-DSM.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $2,525,646.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2017.
    Estimated Charge Experiation Date: January 1, 2018.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: Part 135 air
taxi/commercial operators.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Des Moines International Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Concourses A and C enhancements.
    East cargo pavement reconstruction.
    Taxiway P reconstruction.
    Snow blower head rebuild/replacement.
    Decision Date: June 5, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan Monroe, Central Region Airports
Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Worland, Wyoming.
    Application Number: 08-02-C-00-WRL.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $193,038.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2008.
    Estimated Charge Experiation Date: July 1, 2022.
    Class of Air Carriers Not Required To Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Road and trail relocation, construct spray operations area, extend
and widen taxilane.
    Reconstruct taxiway A south, grade safety area runway 16/34,
Hanover Canal siphon.
    Reconstruct taxiway A south, grade extended safety area runway 16/
34, extend and widen taxilane.
    Reconstruct runway 16/34 south.
    Appraisal and hangar purchase costs (schedules I, II, III, and IV).
    Relocate obstructions--Highland Hanover Canal and Country Road,
phase 2.
    Decision Date: June 5, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Schaffer, Denver Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: City of Modesto, California.
    Application Number: 08-07-C-00-MOD.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $395,134.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2008.
    Estimated Charge Experiation Date: December 1, 2015.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Rehabilitate taxilanes.
    Install/upgrade airfield guidance signs.
    Improve airport drainage.
    Expand/construct parking lot.
    Rehabilitate apron.
    Conduct Part 150 noise compatibility study.
    Miscellaneous planning study.
    Procure aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle.
    PFC administrative costs.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection:
    General aviation apron rehabilitation.
    Enhance runway safety area.
    Decision Date: June 6, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Biaoco, San Francisco Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 626.
    Public Agency: County of Okaloosa, Valparaiso, Florida.
    Application Number: 08-04-C-00-VPS.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $1,485,650.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: July 1, 2020.
    Estimated Charge Experiation Date: April 1, 2021.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Terminal expansion program.
    Acquire interactive training system.
    PFC program and administrative costs.
    Decision Date: June 6, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Moore, Orlando Airports District
Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 120.
    Public Agency: Meridian Airport Authority, Meridian, Mississippi.
    Application Number: 08-10-C-00-MEI.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC. PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $502,500.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: June 1, 2012.
    Estimated Charge Experiation Date: August 1, 2017.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Rehabilitate general aviation apron.
    Relocate taxiway A.
    Acquire security vehicle.
    Construct hangar access roads.
    Rehabilitate security fencing.
    Decision Date: June 6, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keafur Grimes, Jackson Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: County of Marquette, Marquette, Michigan.

    Application Number: 08-09-C-00VSAW.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in This Decision: $852,250.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: August 1, 2008.
    Estimated Charge Experiation Date: August 1, 2011.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's: None.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Runway and taxiway concrete joint repair and slab replacement.
    Runway 1, approach rehabilitation, very high frequency
omnidirectional range and glideslope access roads.
    Aircraft rescue and firefighting/snow removal equipment building
alarm system construction and installation.
    Snow removal equipment (snow blower).
    Airfield lighting--phase 2 (construction).
    Pavement maintenance and repairs--runway, taxiways, and aprons.
    Airfield lighting (navigation aids utility power study).
    Terminal renovation and expansion--phase 1 (design only).
    Fencing, security, vehicle access, wildlife control and
Transportation Security Administration compliance.
    Interactive employee training system.
    Terminal building renovation and expansion.
    Snow removal anti-icing and deicing equipment.
    PFC package application and administration.
    Decision Date: June 18, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Thys, Detroit Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Agency: County of Broome, Binghamton, New York.
    Application Number: 08-11-C-00-BGM.
    Application Type: Impose and use a PFC.
    PFC Level: $4.50.
    Total PFC Revenue Approved in this Decision: $149,796.
    Earliest Charge Effective Date: November 1, 2010.
    Estimated Charge Experiation Date: March 1, 2011.
    Class of Air Carriers not Required to Collect PFC's:
    Non-scheduled/on-demand air carriers filing FAA Form 1900-31.
    Determination: Approved. Based on information submitted in the
public agency's application, the FAA has determined that the proposed
class accounts for less than 1 percent of the total annual enplanements
at Greater Binghamton Airport.
    Brief Description of Projects Approved for Collection and Use:
    Replace runway 16/34 precision approach path indicators.
    Storm water management plan.
    Snow removal equipment replacement.
    Brief Description of Project Aprpoved for Use:
    Taxiway rehabilitation! extension construction.
    Decision Date: June 18, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Levine, New York Airports
District Office,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

                                                               Amendments to PFC Approvals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Original         Amended
                                                                        Amendment         Original         Amended         estimated        estimated
                     Amendment No. city, state                        approved date     approved net     approved net     charge exp.      charge exp.
                                                                                PFC revenue      PFC revenue          date             date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
05-04-C-01-LYH, Lynchburg, VA......................................         05/27/08       $1,810,000       $1,610,000         06/01/15         06/01/15
98-03-C-03-SJT, San Angelo, TX.....................................         06/03/08          830,830          437,726         08/01/04         08/01/04
04-05-C-01-SJT, San Angelo, TX.....................................         06/03/08          335,042          259,336         01/01/06         01/01/06
05-06-C-01-SJT, San Angelo, TX.....................................         06/03/08          200,000          217,044         11/01/06         11/01/06
06-07-C-01-SJT, San Angelo, TX.....................................         06/03/08        1,568,947        1,477,361         09/01/12         09/01/12
99-05-C-01-MOD, Modesto, CA........................................         06/06/08          154,750          107,637         09/01/01         09/01/01
01-06-C-01-MOD, Modesto, CA........................................         06/06/08          124,180           65,871         03/01/05         03/01/05
04-11-C-02-BNA, Nashville, TN......................................         06/06/08       79,614,555       75,873,967         12/01/09         08/01/09
06-12-0-01-BNA, Nashville, TN......................................         06/06/08       21,671,262       21,671,262         02/01/11         02/01/11
97-06-l-03-BDL, Windsor Locks, CT..................................         06/09/08       15,019,913       15,038,863         02/01/99         02/01/99
99-08-U-02-BDL, Windsor Locks, CT..................................         06/09/08               NA               NA         02/01/99         02/01/99
99-09-l-01-BDL, Windsor Locks, CT..................................         06/09/08        4,400,000        4,557,854         07/01/00         07/01/00
01-13-U-01-BDL, Windsor Locks, CT..................................         06/09/08               NA               NA         07/01/00         07/01/00
06-05-C-02-RDM, Redmond, OR........................................         06/12/08        1,229,416        1,148,690         05/01/08         07/01/08
*97-01-C-04-SDF, Louisville, KY....................................         06/16/08       90,600,000       90,600,000         09/01/14         03/01/14
06-04-C-02-SDF, Louisville, KY.....................................         06/16/08        1,267,315        1,267,315         05/01/18         10/01/17
97-01-C-01-AHN, Athens, GA.........................................         06/18/08          187,628          165,615         01/01/02         01/01/02
98-08-C-01-MHT, Manchester, NH.....................................         06/18/08        3,088,148        3,033,074          2/01/16         02/01/16
01-09-C-01-MHT, Manchester, NH.....................................         06/18/08          700,000          678,332         04/01/16         03/01/16
99-04-C-04-ILE, Killeen, TX........................................         06/18/08        3,157,544        3,104,371         12/01/05         12/01/05
01-05-C-02-ILE, Killeen, TX........................................         06/18/08           30,000           26,839         01/01/06         01/01/06
97-05-l-01-PLN, Pellston, MI.......................................         06/19/08           16,250           19,361         09/01/97         09/01/97
99-08-U-02-PLN, Pellston, MI.......................................         06/19/08               NA               NA         09/01/97         09/01/97
98-07-l-03-PLN, Pellston, MI.......................................         06/19/08           97,089           79,747         08/01/02         06/01/02
01-09-C-02-PLN, Pellston, MI.......................................         06/19/08          708,506          708,506         08/01/02         06/01/02
01-09-C-03-PLN, Pellston, MI.......................................         06/19/08          708,506          799,792         07/01/11         07/01/11
95-02-C-03-EWR, New York, NY.......................................         06/20/08      329,343,000      335,401,500         11/01/01         11/01/01
96-03-U-02-EWR, New York, NY.......................................         06/20/08               NA               NA         11/01/01         11/01/01
95-02-C-03-JFK, New York, NY.......................................         06/20/08      307,600,500      314,523,500         11/01/01         11/01/01
96-03-U-02-JFK, New York, NY.......................................         06/20/08               NA               NA         11/01/01         11/01/01
95-02-C-03-LGA, New York, NY.......................................         06/20/08      248,056,500      252,575,000         11/01/01         11/01/01
96-03-U-02-LGA, New York, NY.......................................         06/20/08               NA               NA         11/01/01        11/01/01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The amendment denoted by an asterisk (*) includes a change to the PFC level charged from $3.00 per enplaned passenger to $4.50 per enplaned
  passenger. For Louisville, KY, this change is effective on September 1, 2008.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 3, 2008.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger Facility Charge Branch.
 [FR Doc. E8-15958 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 48279]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15763]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-423, OMB Control No. 3235-0472]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 15c1-6

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 15c1-6 (17 CFR 240.15c1-
6) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information
to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Rule 15c1-6 states that any broker-dealer trying to sell to or buy
from a customer a security in a primary or secondary distribution in
which the broker-dealer is participating or is otherwise financially
interested must give the customer written notification of the broker-
dealer's participation or interest at or before completion of the
transaction. The Commission estimates that approximately 350
respondents will collect information annually under Rule 15c1-6 and
that each respondent will spend approximately 10 hours annually
complying with the collection of information requirement for a total
burden of approximately 3,500 hours per year in the aggregate.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by
September 25, 2023.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: July 20, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-15763 Filed 7-25-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P