[Federal Register: April 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 21378-21381]
[DOCID:fr21ap08-111]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

 [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0053]

Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories; Proposed Satellite
Notification and Acceptance Program

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
requests comment on a new segment being proposed under its Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Program. This segment is called
the Satellite Notification and Acceptance Program, and participation by
NRTLs in the program is voluntary. The description for this program
specifies the criteria and conditions under which any NRTL may control
and audit certain facilities in order to perform particular functions
at those facilities.

DATES: You must submit information or comments by the following dates:
     Hard copy: postmarked or sent by May 21, 2008.
     Electronic transmission or facsimile: sent by May 21,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments electronically at http://
www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow
the instructions online for making electronic submissions.
    Fax: If your submissions, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service:
You must submit three copies of your comments to the OSHA Docket
Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0053, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-
2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries
(hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are accepted during
the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours,
8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2007-0053). Submissions,
including any personal information you provide, are placed in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http:/
/www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: To read or download submissions or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the http:/
/www.regulations.gov index, however, some information (e.g.,
copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download
through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material,
are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    Extension of Comment Period: Submit requests for extensions
concerning this notice to the Office of Technical Programs and
Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210. Or, fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210,
or phone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Our Web page includes information about the
NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov and select ``N'' in the site
index).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is
proposing a new operational segment under its Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Program; it will be called the Satellite
Notification and Acceptance Program (SNAP). This new segment would
allow NRTLs to use facilities referred to as ``SNAP sites,'' which they
control and audit, in order to perform particular functions necessary
in the NRTL's testing and certification operations. These functions

are called ``certification functions'' in this notice. NRTLs would need
to meet certain criteria and conditions to be approved by OSHA for
SNAP.
    SNAP would become the NRTL Program's ninth ``supplemental
program''; the supplemental programs are one of the three elements of
the NRTL scope of recognition. In general, these supplemental programs
permit a qualified NRTL to use the services or activities of other
parties or facilities for purposes of testing and certifying products.
The initial eight programs were formally established by OSHA for the
NRTL Program through publication of their description in the Federal
Register (see 60 FR 12980, March 9, 1995). That notice set forth the
criteria and conditions that an NRTL must meet to use a particular
program. More information about supplemental programs is given later in
this notice and is also available under Chapter 2 of the NRTL Program
Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines (referred to as NRTL Program
Directive or NRTL Directive, for short), which may be found at http://
www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html. Use of any of these
supplemental programs by any NRTL is voluntary.
    In this notice, we provide background about the NRTL Program, for
those unfamiliar with the program, and then follow with the description
of SNAP. The detailed program description of SNAP is available for
viewing or downloading at the above Web page link.
    This notice is published to provide the public with an opportunity
to comment on OSHA's pending action. This action does not change any of
the requirements for NRTLs, found under 29 CFR 1910.7, or any of the
OSHA requirements for approval of particular products by NRTLs. SNAP is
an internal policy, which would be made part of the NRTL Directive and
thus become an NRTL Program policy. The Agency is requesting public
comment on this action in the interest of providing a formal
opportunity for input by NRTLs and the public. OSHA obtained informal
comments from NRTLs on a draft version of SNAP prior to publication of
this notice.

Background on NRTLs

    Many of OSHA's standards require that certain types of workplace
equipment be approved (i.e., tested and certified) by an NRTL. For
example, 29 CFR 1910.303(a) (read together with the definitions of
``approved'' and ``acceptable'' in 29 CFR 1910.399) generally requires
such approval for electrical equipment or products. OSHA's requirement
for approval helps to ensure that products are safe for use in the
workplace.
    NRTLs are qualified organizations that are recognized under the
Agency's NRTL Program as meeting the requirements in 29 CFR 1910.7 to
perform independent (i.e., third-party) product safety testing and
certification. To be recognized by OSHA as an NRTL, an organization
must: (1) Have the appropriate capability to test and evaluate products
for workplace safety purposes; (2) be completely independent of the
manufacturers, vendors, and major users of the products for which OSHA
requires certification; (3) have internal programs that ensure proper
control of the testing and certification process; and (4) establish
effective reporting and complaint handling procedures (29 CFR
1910.7(b)).
    OSHA's NRTL recognition process involves a thorough analysis of an
organization's policies and procedures to ensure that it meets all of
the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA also performs a comprehensive
on-site review of the applicant's testing and certification facilities.
After initial recognition, the Program staff also conduct annual on-
site audits to ensure that the NRTLs adequately perform their testing
and certification activities and maintain the quality of those
operations.
    The recognition process is described in Appendix A to 29 CFR
1910.7, which is further explained in Chapters 2 through 6 of the NRTL
Program Directive (CPL 01-00-003--CPL 1-0.3). All of these documents
are available through the Program's Web site (see http://www.osha.gov/
dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).
    Each NRTL is approved for a scope of recognition which identifies:
(1) The types of products the NRTL may approve, (2) the NRTL's
``recognized sites'' which are the NRTL's wholly-owned sites that can
perform the full range of product testing and certification activities
necessary in approving those products, and (3) ``supplemental
programs'' through which the NRTL can use other resources in performing
activities necessary for product testing and certification. To date,
the ``supplemental programs'' mainly have allowed the NRTL's recognized
sites to accept (i.e., use) other-party product testing, specifically
testing performed by non-NRTL independent testing labs and by product
manufacturers.
    As indicated above, to be recognized, the NRTL must be capable of
performing two key operations in approving products: testing and
certification or, more broadly, operating a product safety-testing
program and a product-certification program. The latter program, for
purposes of OSHA requirements, consists of listing/labeling and follow-
up inspection programs. While both operations are necessary for
approval, the NRTL's certification program is fundamentally important
to the control of the approval process. Not only does this program
involve the issuance of the initial certification, but through it the
NRTL also gains assurance that all manufactured units of the product
have the same safety features as the unit initially tested and
certified.
    Although OSHA does not require NRTLs to perform all testing
themselves, our policy has restricted them to perform certain
``certification functions'' only at their recognized sites. The
rationale for such a limitation was that OSHA initially evaluated the
NRTL's resources and capabilities to perform these functions at those
specific sites and then monitored the NRTL's performance of these
critical functions during its audits of those sites. However,
responding to industry needs to perform these functions at other
locations, OSHA would adopt a new NRTL Program policy allowing NRTLs to
use special unrecognized sites to perform certification functions and,
if qualified, product testing too. We would allow this use by
implementing a new supplemental program, called the Satellite
Notification and Acceptance Program (SNAP). Before describing the new
program, and the functions allowed under it, we further explain what we
mean by ``supplemental programs.''
    As noted above, these supplemental programs allow the NRTLs to use
other qualified parties to perform a particular activity, and to date
most of these programs have allowed NRTLs to accept (i.e., use) other-
party product testing. To be approved to use a program, NRTLs must
apply to OSHA which determines if they meet the applicable criteria or
conditions for the program. Approval to use any program is unrelated to
OSHA's determination of whether an NRTL meets the requirements for
recognition under 29 CFR 1910.7. The supplemental programs merely serve
as a means for OSHA to ensure that NRTLs engage in certain activities
only if they have met certain criteria or conditions. Use of
supplemental programs by any NRTL is voluntary.

Background on Relevant NRTL Program Policy and New Program Segment

    When OSHA first implemented these supplemental programs, it allowed
long-

standing practices of the product testing and certification industry
but defined the necessary minimum elements for their use. By doing
this, OSHA improved the effectiveness and uniform application of these
practices by all NRTLs and assured that they would, in testing and
certifying products, properly utilize the resources provided by other
parties. Use of a supplemental program often reduces the time and cost
necessary for product approval, but the NRTL must still exercise
adequate control to ensure that other parties are performing their
testing or other activities appropriately.
    OSHA has for many years allowed NRTLs to use testing performed by
other NRTLs or by non-recognized facilities (i.e., satellites) of the
NRTL, again a practice that was common in the industry. The new
supplemental program being proposed today basically expands the role
that satellites perform in the NRTL's approval process.
    In adopting this new program, OSHA would allow NRTLs to engage in
activities that address challenges they face in testing and certifying
products but, similar to other programs, defining minimum criteria and
conditions for these activities. The proposed program would permit a
qualified NRTL to perform certification activities at many more
locations than OSHA currently allows. These additional locations could
also qualify testing locations and accept test and evaluation data,
activities that OSHA had to date restricted to recognized sites. This
program also could potentially expedite any NRTL's approval activities.
Allowing the program is a measured approach since we do so with the
clear objectives of maintaining the effectiveness of our NRTL
monitoring and assuring that the safety of NRTL approved products is
not compromised.
    Like all supplemental programs, the SNAP is yet another segment
within the NRTL Program. Similar to these programs, the NRTL must apply
to OSHA and meet very specific criteria before receiving approval to
use SNAP. The SNAP Program Description describes these criteria, which
specify a series of controls and safeguards for both the NRTL and OSHA.
As another similarity, to use any particular site as a satellite under
SNAP (which we call a SNAP site), the NRTL must qualify it to ensure
that the site can perform one or more of the allowable functions
covered under SNAP. However, these SNAP sites would not be recognized
sites under the OSHA NRTL Program, and thus would not be considered in
any determination regarding recognition of the NRTL.
    In contrast to those other programs, OSHA would audit the SNAP
sites and the NRTL site that centrally manages its SNAP operations; the
Agency does not audit facilities which the NRTL qualifies under one of
the existing programs, and would not audit those qualified by SNAP
sites, either. In addition, OSHA could drop any NRTL or satellite from
SNAP if warranted due to noncompliance with any conditions. Any NRTL
not approved to use SNAP must perform the functions below only at its
recognized site(s).
    NRTLs can always apply to OSHA to ``convert'' any of their
satellites or SNAP sites to a recognized site. We would process this
application as a regular scope expansion, and thus grant it if the site
met the necessary requirements.
    The functions that could be performed at a qualified SNAP site,
each briefly explained, are:
    1. Qualify sites under Programs 2 through 7, or parties under
Program 9, which are all described in a March 9, 1995, FR notice (60 FR
12980).
    Programs 2 through 7 involve the NRTL's acceptance or use of
testing data or product evaluations from other parties, specifically
independent labs and product manufacturers. Under these programs, NRTLs
must ``qualify'' each location (or site) generating the data or
evaluation. In qualifying it, NRTLs ensure that a site meets the NRTL's
internal criteria for the capability to perform the work to be accepted
or used. Program 9 involves the NRTL using other parties to perform
services, such as calibration of equipment or follow-up inspections.
NRTLs qualify each supplier to ensure that it meets the NRTL's internal
criteria for providing the specific service. To date, only recognized
sites have performed such activities, but SNAP sites could too.
    2. Accept data under Programs 2 through 8 which are described in
the March 9, 1995, FR notice (60 FR 12980).
    In accepting testing data or product evaluations under Programs 2
through 8 (see above), the NRTL must have the appropriate technical
personnel for review of the adequacy and accuracy of the data. The NRTL
must have clear procedures on how to conduct the review. Only
recognized sites and SNAP sites having these elements could perform the
acceptance.
    3. Maintain or provide the only access to primary product test and
evaluation files or records for any of the Programs.
    The NRTL must have and make available to OSHA the primary product
test and evaluation files or records for its activities. Such documents
are essential to proper performance and review by the NRTL of its
activities and are fundamental to OSHA's audit of NRTLs. Current
technology allows many of these records to be converted to electronic
medium and made available remotely. In addition, some records can be
stored by others or at locations remote from the site where they were
originally generated. In short, a recognized or SNAP site must either
maintain or provide access to these records or files.
    4. Perform the final technical review or make the final decision on
certification of a product.
    Performing the final technical review or making the final decision
on certification of a product is the culmination of the technical
process for product certification. This review or decision must be made
by well-qualified technical staff and represents the assurance that the
product meets the applicable provisions of the relevant test standard.
Such review is necessary before the final decision can be made. Only
recognized sites and SNAP sites having this capability could perform
this function.
    5. Finally, under SNAP, OSHA would allow SNAP sites that are wholly
owned by the NRTL to authorize the use of the NRTL's mark.
    OSHA has long considered the authorization by the NRTL to use its
mark as equivalent to the final decision on certification and thus
believes it is appropriate to limit this activity to SNAP sites that
are wholly owned by the NRTL. The NRTL should adequately control this
function since it should only occur simultaneously or concurrently with
the final decision on certification.

Acceptance of Applications and Final Notice for SNAP

    OSHA would begin accepting applications from NRTLs for using SNAP
beginning 60 days from the date of publication of the Federal Register
notice announcing the Agency's formal implementation of SNAP. Following
publication, we will invite Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories
and applicants for recognition to apply for approval to use the SNAP.
The program description, and a letter sent to NRTLs concurrently with
publication of this notice, is available through http://www.osha-
slc.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html, the main Web site for the NRTL
Program.
    OSHA welcomes public comments on its proposal to adopt SNAP,
including any suggested changes to SNAP or any alternative that is
equivalent to it. Your comments should consist of pertinent written
documents and exhibits. Should

you need more time to comment, you must request it in writing,
including reasons for the request. OSHA must receive your written
request for extension at the address provided above no later than the
last date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 30 days,
unless the requester justifies a longer period. You may obtain or
review documents related to this notice, as received, by contacting
OSHA's Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section above). Docket No. OSHA-
2007-0053 contains all materials in the record concerning OSHA's NRTL
SNAP Program.
    OSHA will review all timely comments and determine whether any of
them merit modification of the elements of SNAP or delay in its
implementation.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of April, 2008.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E8-8430 Filed 4-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: April 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18492-18493]
[DOCID:fr12ap10-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13569-000]

Southern Nevada Water Authority; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing, Ready for Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Motions To
Intervene and Protests, Comments, Final Terms and Conditions,
Recommendations, and Prescriptions

April 5, 2010.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Filing: Original Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 13569-000.
    c. Dated Filed: March 24, 2010.
    d. Submitted By: Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA)
    e. Name of Project: Arrow Canyon Conduit Energy Recovery
Hydroturbine.
    f. Project description: proposed project would capture power by
bypassing a pressure-reducing valve in the SNWA's existing Coyote
Spring 24-inch- diameter water pipeline. The project would consist of a
turbine generator, installed within a small building, inlet and outlet
pipelines, and an access road. By routing water through the
hydroturbine, the applicant would generate about 3.5 million kilowatt-
hours (kWh) per year of renewable energy. To convey the power, Overton
Power District No. 5 would extend an existing 12.47-kilovolt (kV)
distribution line about 1,400 feet to the site.
    g. Location: The proposed project would be located next to the
existing Coyote Spring Well and Moapa Transmission System project in
northeast Clark County, Nevada. The project would be located about 12
miles northwest of Glendale Nevada and occupy 0.68 acre of federal
land.
    h. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 4.61 of the Commission's regulations.
    i. Potential Applicant Contact: Scott P. Krantz, 100 City Parkway,
room 1211, Las Vegas, NV 89106;<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. FERC Contact: Jim Fargo at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    k. A copy of the license application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document (P-13569). For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
at 1-866-208-3676, of for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available
for inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h. Register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    l. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready
for environmental analysis.
    m. The license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
    n. Cooperating agencies: Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should file such within 45 days from issuance of
this notice.
    Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that
agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the

environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ] 61,076
(2001). All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See
18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the ``e-
Filing'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text only comments
click on ``Quick Comment''. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at (866) 208-
3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    o. We notice that we intend to waive scoping and shorten the filing
and comment date on final terms and conditions, recommendations, and
prescriptions. Based on a review of the application, resource agency
consultation letters, and comments filed to date, Commission staff
intends to prepare a single environmental assessment (EA). Commission
staff determined that the issues that need to be addressed in its EA
have been adequately identified during the pre-filing period for the
application, which included a public meeting and site visit, and no new
issues are likely to be identified through additional scoping.
    p. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
and final terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions: 45
days from the issuance of this notice. All reply comments must be filed
with the Commission within 60 days from the date of this notice.
    q. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule
will be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations, preliminary terms &      May 24, 2010.
 conditions, and fishway prescriptions
 due.
Commission issues EA....................  July 30, 2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8213 Filed 4-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42424-42427]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13939]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2023-0063]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Approval of Information
Collection

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), DOT.

ACTION: 60-Day notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments
on our intention to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approval for an information collection in accordance with the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The collection is
necessary for administration of the Multimodal Project Discretionary
Grants (MPDG). This includes three funding opportunities: the
``National Infrastructure Project Assistance grants program (Mega),''
the ``Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight and Highways Projects
grants program (INFRA)'', and the ``Rural Surface Transportation Grant
program (Rural)''. The MPDG provides Federal financial assistance for
surface transportation infrastructure projects--including highway and
bridge, intercity passenger rail, railway-highway grade and separation,
wildlife crossing, public transportation, marine highway, and freight
and multimodal projects, or groups of such projects, of national or
regional significance, as well as to projects to improve and expand the
surface transportation infrastructure in rural areas.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 29, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit them by only one of the following means:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, West Building Ground Floor
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W-12-140
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: To ensure proper docketing of your comment, please
include the agency name and docket number [DOT-OST-2023-0063] at the
beginning of your comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding this
notice, please contact the Office of the Secretary via email at
[email protected], or call Paul Baumer at<PHONE_NUMBER>. A TDD is
available for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing at 202-366-
3993.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: New Collection. OMB number will be issued
after the collection is approved.
    Title: Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant (MPDG).
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: New Information Collection Request (ICR).
    Background: The Office of the Secretary (``OST'') within the
Department of Transportation (DOT) provides financial assistance for
surface transportation infrastructure projects--including to highway
and bridge, intercity passenger rail, railway-highway grade and
separation, wildlife crossing, public transportation, marine highway,
and freight and multimodal projects, or groups of such projects, of
national or regional significance, as well as to projects to improve
and expand the surface transportation infrastructure in rural areas.
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58, November 15,
2021) (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, or BIL) provided funds to the
Department across three programs to invest in projects of national or
regional significance--the National Infrastructure Project Assistance
grants program, found under 49 U.S.C. 6701 (``Mega''), the Nationally
Significant Multimodal Freight and Highways Projects grants program,
found at 23 U.S.C. 117 (Infrastructure for Rebuilding America or
``INFRA''), and the Rural Surface Transportation Grant program, found
at 23 U.S.C. 173 (``Rural''). To help streamline the process for
applicants, the Department has combined the applications for the Mega,
INFRA, and Rural programs into the MPDG common application.

    The Nationally Significant Multimodal Freight and Highways Projects
grants program (``INFRA'') (23 U.S.C. 117) was established in the
Fixing American's Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (``FAST ACT''),
Public Law 114-94 sec. 1105, and continued in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, Public Law 117-58 (2021). OST is referring to
these grants as ``FASTLANE'' or ``INFRA'' Discretionary Grants,
depending on the year of award.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law established two new programs
along with the reauthorization of INFRA. The Mega Program, known
statutorily as the National Infrastructure Project Assistance program
(49 U.S.C. 6701), will support large, complex projects that are
difficult to fund by other means and likely to generate national or
regional economic, mobility, or safety benefits. The Rural Surface
Transportation Grant Program (23 U.S.C. 173) will support projects to
improve and expand the surface transportation infrastructure in rural
areas to increase connectivity, improve the safety and reliability of
the movement of people and freight, and generate regional economic
growth and improve quality of life.
    The DOT combined these three programs into single Notice of Funding
Opportunity (NOFO) to provide a more efficient application process for
project sponsors. While they remain separate programs for the purposes
of award, the programs share many common characteristics. Because of
these shared characteristics, it is possible for many projects to be
eligible and considered for multiple programs using a single
application.
    This notice seeks comments on the proposed information collection,
which will collect information necessary to support the ongoing
oversight and administration of previous awards, the evaluation and
selection of new applications, the funding agreement negotiation stage
for new awards, and the evaluation of the programs.
    The reporting requirements for the program is as follows:
    To be considered to receive a MPDG grant, a project sponsor must
submit an application to DOT containing a project narrative, as
detailed in the NOFO. The project narrative should include the
information necessary for the Department to determine that the project
satisfies eligibility requirements as warranted by law.
    After the award announcement the Department will send out a
voluntary survey to all applicants and webinar participants to help
evaluate the application process.
    Following the announcement of a funding award, the recipient and
DOT will negotiate and sign a funding agreement. In the agreement, the
recipient must describe the project that DOT agreed to fund, which is
the project that was described in the MPDG application or a reduced-
scope version of that project. The agreement also includes project
schedule milestones, a budget, and project-related climate change and
equity planning and policies.
    During the project monitoring stage, grantees will submit reports
on the financial condition of the project and the project's progress.
Grantees will submit progress and monitoring reports to the Government
on a quarterly basis until completion of the project. The progress
reports will include an SF-425, Federal Financial Report, and other
information determined by the administering DOT Operating
Administration. This information will be used to monitor grantees' use
of Federal funds, ensuring accountability and financial transparency in
the MPDG programs.
    For the purposes of estimating the information collection burden
below for new applicants and awardees, the Department is assuming that
for each year 2023-2025, the Department will review approximately 500
applications in Year 1, negotiate 45 funding agreements in Year 2, and
begin quarterly project monitoring for 45 projects in Year 3. For a new
applicant in 2023, their burden will be 100 hours in 2023, 6 hours in
2024, and 20 hours in 2025. See Table 1 below:

                                                                         Table 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Year 1 (2023)                   Year 2 (2024)                   Year 3 (2025)
               Respondent                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------      Total
                                               Hours         Frequency         Hours         Frequency         Hours         Frequency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2023 Applicant (500)....................             100               1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          50,000
2023 Survey (700).......................             0.5               1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             350
2023 Awardee (45).......................  ..............  ..............               6               1  ..............  ..............             270
2023 Recipient (45).....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............               5               4             900
2024 Applicant (500)....................  ..............  ..............             100               1  ..............  ..............          50,000
2024 Survey (700).......................             0.5               1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             350
2024 Awardee (45).......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............               6               1             270
2024 Recipient (45).....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
2025 Applicant (500)....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             100               1          50,000
2025 Survey (700).......................             0.5               1  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             350
2025 Awardee (45).......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
2025 Recipient (45).....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Notice is separately estimating the information collection
burden for projects awarded from 2016-2022. Approximately 60 of these
projects are in the project monitoring phase in Year 1, while 47
projects are still negotiating funding agreements. In Year 2,
approximately 30 of these projects will begin project monitoring, while
approximately 20 projects will cease reporting once their projects are
completed. In Year 3, 10 projects will begin project monitoring while
20 projects will cease reporting. The individual burden for a project
awarded from 2016-2021 will depend on when they were selected, when
they completed negotiation of their funding agreement, and when their
project reaches completion. See Table 2 below:

                                                                         Table 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Year 1                           Year 2                           Year 3
                Respondent                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Total
                                              Number      Hrs        Freq      Number      Hrs        Freq      Number      Hrs        Freq
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016-2022 Awardee.........................         47          4          1         10          4          1          0          4          1        200
2016-2022 Recipient.......................         70          5          4         77          5          4         64          5          4      3,800
2016-2022 Project Closed..................          0          0          0         20          0          0         43          0          0  .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department's estimated burden for this information collection
is the following:
    For New Applications:
    Expected Number of Respondents: Approximately 500 per year.
    Frequency: Once.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 100 hours for each new
Application;
    For Funding Agreements:
    Expected Number of Respondents: Approximately 45 in Year 1, 2 and
3.
    Frequency: Once.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 6 hours for each new Funding
Agreement.
    For Project Monitoring:
    Expected Number of Respondents: Approximately 47 in Year 1, 93 in
Year 2, 130 in Year 3.
    Frequency: Quarterly.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 5 hours for each request for
Quarterly Progress and Monitoring Report;
    For Program Evaluation (Survey):
    Expected Number of Respondents: Approximately 700 per year.
    Frequency: Once.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 0.5 hours for each
application;
    Estimated Total 3-year Burden on Respondents: 80,750 hours. (New
Applicants [75,000 hrs], Survey [1,050 hrs] New Awardees/Recipients
[700 hrs] + Prior Awardees/Recipients [4000 hrs]).
    The following is detailed information and instructions regarding
the specific reporting requirements for each report identified above:

Application Stage

    To be considered to receive a MPDG grant, a project sponsor must
submit an application to DOT containing a project narrative, as
detailed in the NOFO. The project narrative should include the
information necessary for the Department to determine that the project
satisfies eligibility requirements.
    Applications must be submitted through www.Grants.gov. Instructions
for submitting applications can be found at https://www.transportation.gov/grants/mpdg-how-apply. The application must
include the Standard Form 424 (Application for Federal Assistance),
Standard Form 424C (Budget Information for Construction Programs),
cover page, and the Project Narrative.
    The application should include a table of contents, maps, and
graphics, as appropriate, to make the information easier to review. The
Department recommends that the application be prepared with standard
formatting preferences (i.e., a single-spaced document, using a
standard 12-point font such as Times New Roman, with 1-inch margins).
The project narrative may not exceed 25 pages in length, excluding
cover pages and table of contents. The only substantive portions that
may exceed the 25-page limit are documents supporting assertions or
conclusions made in the 25-page project narrative. If possible, website
links to supporting documentation should be provided rather than copies
of these supporting materials. If supporting documents are submitted,
applicants should clearly identify within the project narrative the
relevant portion of the project narrative that each supporting document
supports. At the applicant's discretion, relevant materials provided
previously to a modal administration in support of a different USDOT
financial assistance program may be referenced and described as
unchanged.
    OST estimates that it takes approximately 100 person-hours to
compile an application package for a MPDG application. Since OST
expects to receive 500 applications per funding round, the total hours
required are estimated to be 50,00 hours (100 hours x 500 applications
= 50,000 hours) on a one-time basis, per funding round.

Program Evaluation Stage (Survey)

    To understand the MPDG grant process from the applicant's point of
view, OST plans to send out a survey after all award decisions have
been made. This survey will go to all applicants, both successful and
unsuccessful, as well as webinar participants that did not apply and
will take approximately .5 hours to complete.

Funding Agreement Stage

    DOT enters a funding agreement with each recipient. In the
agreement, the recipient describes the project that DOT agreed to fund,
which is typically the project that was described in the MPDG
application or a reduced-scope version of that project. The agreement
also includes a project schedule, budget, and project related climate
change and equity planning and policies.
    OST estimates that it takes approximately 6 person-hours to respond
to provide the information necessary for funding agreements. Based on
previous rounds of MPDG awards, OST estimates that there will likely be
45 agreements negotiated per additional funding round. The total hours
required are estimated to be 270 (6 hours x 45 agreements = 270 hours)
on a one-time basis, per funding round.

Project Monitoring Stage

    OST requires each recipient to submit quarterly reports during the
project to ensure the proper and timely expenditure of Federal funds
under the grant.
    The requirements comply with 2 CFR part 200 and are restated in the
funding agreement. During the project monitoring stage, the grantee
will complete Quarterly Progress Reports to allow DOT to monitor the
project budget and schedule.
    OST estimates that it takes approximately 5 person-hours to develop
and submit a quarterly progress report. OST expects approximately 45
projects to be awarded per funding round, while grants awarded in prior
years will reach completion during the year and would no longer need to
submit these reports. OST expects recipients and awardees from 2016-
2021 will require 3800 hours to submit project monitoring reports while
new recipients and awardees will require 900 hours from 2023-2025.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 26, 2023.
John Augustine,
Director of the Office of Infrastructure Finance and Innovation, Office
of the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-13939 Filed 6-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 161 (Monday, August 22, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51242-51243]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17913]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0811; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-60]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment to United States Area Navigation Route (RNAV) T-227;
Fairbanks, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends RNAV route T-227 in the vicinity of
Fairbanks, AK, in support of a large and comprehensive T-route
modernization project for the state of Alaska.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, November 3, 2022. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2021-0811 in the Federal Register (86 FR 56234; October 8, 2021),
amending RNAV route T-227 in the vicinity of Fairbanks, AK, in support
of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the
state of Alaska. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting comments on the proposal. One comment,
supporting the proposed action, was received. The commenter fully
supported the FAA's Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)
efforts to modernize air traffic routes in Alaska using satellite based
navigation.
    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The RNAV route listed in this document will be published subsequently
in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

Differences From the NPRM

    In the NPRM, the MORDI, AK; GENFU, AK; BINAL, AK; and GLOWS, AK,
route points were each incorrectly referenced and listed as waypoints
(WPs). Each of the listed route points are actually Fixes. This action
corrects that error by listing each of them as a Fix. These corrections
are editorial only and do not change the alignment of T-227.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F lists Class
A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending RNAV route T-227 in
the vicinity of Fairbanks, AK, in support of a large and comprehensive
T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska. The route
amendment is described below.
    T-227: T-227 currently extends between the Shemya, AK (SYA), VHF
Omnidirectional Range/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the
Deadhorse, AK (SCC), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME)
navigational aids. This action replaces the Port Heiden, AK (PDN), Non-
Directional Beacon (NDB) route point with the WIXER, AK, WP; adds three
WP route points (CULTI, AK; FEDGI, AK; and WEZZL, AK) between the WIXER
WP and the AMOTT, AK, Fix; and removes the BATTY, AK, Fix from the
route description. Additionally, this action adds the GLOWS, AK, Fix
and PERZO, AK, WP between the Big Lake, AK, VORTAC and the Fairbanks,
AK, VORTAC.
    The full route description of the amended T-227 route is in the
amendment to part 71 set forth below.
    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 regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when

promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this airspace action of amending RNAV
route T-227 in the vicinity of Fairbanks, AK qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points), and paragraph 5-
6.5i, which categorically excludes from further environmental review
the establishment of new or revised air traffic control procedures
conducted at 3,000 feet or more above ground level (AGL); procedures
conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not cause traffic to be
routinely routed over noise sensitive areas; modifications to currently
approved procedures conducted below 3,000 feet AGL that do not
significantly increase noise over noise sensitive areas; and increases
in minimum altitudes and landing minima. As such, this action is not
expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. Accordingly, the FAA has determined that no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

 T-227 Shemya, AK (SYA) to Deadhorse, AK (SCC) [Amended]

Shemya, AK (SYA)                               VORTAC                        (Lat. 52[deg]43'05.78'' N, long. 174[deg]03'43.50'' E)
JANNT, AK                                      WP                            (Lat. 52[deg]04'17.88'' N, long. 178[deg]15'37.23'' W)
BAERE, AK                                      WP                            (Lat. 52[deg]12'11.96'' N, long. 176[deg]08'08.53'' W)
ALEUT, AK                                      WP                            (Lat. 54[deg]14'16.58'' N, long. 166[deg]32'51.82'' W)
MORDI, AK                                      FIX                           (Lat. 54[deg]52'49.87'' N, long. 165[deg]03'15.24'' W)
GENFU, AK                                      FIX                           (Lat. 55[deg]23'18.64'' N, long. 163[deg]06'20.78'' W)
BINAL, AK                                      FIX                           (Lat. 55[deg]45'59.99'' N, long. 161[deg]59'56.43'' W)
WIXER, AK                                      WP                            (Lat. 56[deg]54'29.00'' N, long. 158[deg]36'10.00'' W)
CULTI, AK                                      WP                            (Lat. 58[deg]15'11.91'' N, long. 156[deg]31'19.57'' W)
FEDGI, AK                                      WP                            (Lat. 59[deg]30'10.87'' N, long. 154[deg]14'14.80'' W)
WEZZL, AK                                      WP                            (Lat. 59[deg]53'13.86'' N, long. 152[deg]24'12.63'' W)
AMOTT, AK                                      FIX                           (Lat. 60[deg]52'26.59'' N, long. 151[deg]22'23.60'' W)
Big Lake, AK (BGQ)                             VORTAC                        (Lat. 61[deg]34'09.96'' N, long. 149[deg]58'01.77'' W)
GLOWS, AK                                      FIX                           (Lat. 64[deg]26'15.88'' N, long. 148[deg]15'17.88'' W)
PERZO, AK                                      WP                            (Lat. 64[deg]40'22.99'' N, long. 148[deg]07'20.15'' W)
Fairbanks, AK (FAI)                            VORTAC                        (Lat. 64[deg]48'00.25'' N, long. 148[deg]00'43.11'' W)
Deadhorse, AK (SCC)                            VOR/DME                       (Lat. 70[deg]11'57.11'' N, long. 148[deg]24'58.17'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 15, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-17913 Filed 8-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 181)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53748-53750]
[DOCID:fr17se08-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket No. FEMA-8041]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective
dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the
floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation proving the
community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior
to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension
will not occur and a notice will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or to obtain
additional information, contact David Stearrett, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer
meet the statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations,
44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. However, some of these
communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally
enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published
but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be
suspended and will continue their eligibility for the sale of
insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of the communities will
be published in the Federal Register.
    Previously, FEMA identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs)
in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may
legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in
identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and
identified for more than a year, on the FEMA initial flood insurance
map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended).
This prohibition

against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds the notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)
are impracticable and unnecessary because the communities listed in
this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating the community
will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures
are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined this
rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public
body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the
statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action
takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Effective date
                                                 authorization/
                                   Community    cancellation of   Current effective  map   Date certain federal
       State and location             No.        sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                  insurance in                              available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region IV
North Carolina:
    Davie County,                      370308  December 23,       09/17/2008............  09/17/2008.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      1975, Emerg;
                                                March 21, 1980,
                                                Reg; September
                                                17, 2008, Susp.
    Mocksville, Town of, Davie         370309  August 12, 2002,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg;--, Reg;
                                                September 17,
                                                2008, Susp.
            Region V
Michigan:
    Brighton, City of,                 260783  December 16,       ......do..............   Do.
     Livingston County.                         1986, Emerg;
                                                April 5, 1988,
                                                Reg; September
                                                17, 2008, Susp.
    Fowlerville, Village of,           260439  August 7, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     Livingston County.                         Emerg; February
                                                19, 1987, Reg;
                                                September 17,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Genoa, Township of,                260843  July 12, 2007,     ......do..............   Do.
     Livingston County.                         Emerg;--, Reg;
                                                September 17,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Green Oak, Township of,            260440  March 10, 1982,    ......do..............   Do.
     Livingston County.                         Emerg; October
                                                16, 1984, Reg;
                                                September 17,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Hamburg, Township of,              260118  July 23, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     Livingston County.                         Emerg; February
                                                19, 1986, Reg;
                                                September 17,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Handy, Township of,                260827  February 7, 1990,  ......do..............   Do.
     Livingston County.                         Emerg;--, Reg;
                                                September 17,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Hartland, Township of,             260784  November 25,       ......do..............   Do.
     Livingston County.                         1986, Emerg; May
                                                17, 1989, Reg;
                                                September 17,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Howell, City of, Livingston        260441  December 8, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; August 4,
                                                1987, Reg;
                                                September 17,
                                                2008, Susp.
    Marion, Township of,               260846  February 29,       ......do..............   Do.
     Livingston County.                         2008, Emerg;--,
                                                Reg; September
                                                17, 2008, Susp.
    Putnam, Township of,               260442  December 21,       ......do..............   Do.
     Livingston County.                         1978, Emerg;
                                                February 6,
                                                1984, Reg;
                                                September 17,
                                                2008, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 *do=Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: September 9, 2008.
David I. Maurstad,
Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-21777 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44421-44423]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17178]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92593; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2021-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Fee Schedule

August 6, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on August 2, 2021, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'' or ``EDGX
Equities'') proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/regulation/rule_filings/edgx/) [sic], at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``EDGX Equities'') to modify the fee
associated with Remove Volume Tier 2.
    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues
that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the
Exchange Act, to which market participants may direct their order flow.
Based on publicly available information,\3\ no single registered
equities exchange has more than 17% of the market share. Thus, in such
a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities
exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order
flow. The Exchange in particular operates a ``Maker-Taker'' model
whereby it pays rebates to members that add liquidity and assesses fees
to those that remove liquidity. The Exchange's Fee Schedule sets forth
the standard rebates and rates applied per share for orders that
provide and remove liquidity, respectively. Currently, for orders in
securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard
rebate of $0.00160 per share for orders that add liquidity and assesses
a fee of $0.00285 per share for orders that remove liquidity. For
orders in securities priced below $1.00, the Exchange provides a
standard rebate of $0.00009 per share for orders that add liquidity and
assesses a fee of 0.30% of total dollar value for orders that remove
liquidity. Additionally, in response to the competitive environment,
the Exchange also offers tiered pricing which provides Members
opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or reduced fees where
certain volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides
an incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels,
which provides increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying
increasingly more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Equities Market Volume
Summary, Month-to-Date (July 26, 2021), available at https://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/market_statistics/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently
offers Remove Volume Tiers that provide Members an opportunity to
receive a reduced fee from the standard fee assessed for liquidity
removing orders that yield fee codes BB,\4\ N,\5\ and W.\6\ The Remove
Volume Tiers offer two different tiers that vary in criteria difficulty
and incentive opportunities which Members may qualify for reduced fees
for such orders. For example, the Remove Volume Tier 2 currently
provides a reduced fee of $.00270 for Members who have either (1) an
ADAV \7\ greater than or equal to 0.25% of the TCV \8\ with displayed
orders that yield fee codes B,\9\ V \10\ or Y; \11\ or (2) Retail

Order ADV \12\ (i.e., yielding fee code ZA \13\) greater than or equal
to 0.45% of the TCV. The Exchange now proposes to increase the reduced
fee to $0.00275 provided under the Remove Volume Tier 2. The Exchange
notes that the Remove Volume Tier 2, as modified, continues to be
available to all Members and provides Members an opportunity to receive
a reduced fee, albeit less of a reduced fee than currently offered.
Further, the Remove Volume Tier 2 continues to be designed to encourage
Members to increase their order flow on the Exchange which further
contributes to a deeper, more liquid market and provides even more
execution opportunities for active market participants at improved
prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Fee code `BB' is appended to orders that remove liquidity
from EDGX (Tape B) and is assessed a fee of $0.00285 per share.
    \5\ Fee code `N' is appended to orders that remove liquidity
from EDGX (Tape C) and is assessed a fee of $0.00285 per share.
    \6\ Fee code `W' is appended to orders that remove liquidity
from EDGX (Tape A) and is assessed a fee of $0.00285 per share.
    \7\ ADAV means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of shares added per day. ADAV is calculated on a monthly
basis.
    \8\ TCV means total consolidated volume calculated as the volume
reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
    \9\ Fee code `B' is appended to orders that add liquidity to
EDGX (Tape B) and is provided a rebate of $0.0016 per share.
    \10\ Fee code `V' is appended to orders that add liquidity to
EDGX (Tape A) and is provided a rebate of $0.0016 per share.
    \11\ Fee code `Y' is appended to orders that add liquidity to
EDGX (Tape C) and is provided a rebate of $0.0016 per share.
    \12\ ADV means average daily volume calculated as the number of
shares added to, removed from, or routed by, the Exchange, or any
combination or subset thereof, per day. ADV is calculated on a
monthly basis.
    \13\ Fee code `ZA' is appended to Retail Orders that add
liquidity to EDGX and is provided a rebate of $0.0032 per share.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\14\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\15\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) \16\
requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and, particularly, is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule change to
the Remove Volume Tier 2 reflects a competitive pricing structure
designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow
to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market
quality to the benefit of all Members. In particular, the Exchange
believes the proposed fee change for Remove Volume Tier 2 is reasonable
because the tier will continue to be available to all Members and
provide all Members with an additional opportunity to receive a reduced
fee. The Exchange further believes Remove Volume Tier 2 is a reasonable
means to encourage growth in Members' overall order flow to the
Exchange and to incentivize Members to continue to provide liquidity
adding and liquidity removing on the Exchange by offering them an
opportunity to receive a reduced fee on qualifying orders. The Exchange
believes that the proposed tier will generally benefit all market
participants by incentivizing continuous liquidity and thus, deeper
more liquid markets as well as increased execution opportunities. This
overall increase in activity deepens the Exchange's liquidity pool,
offers additional cost savings, supports the quality of price
discovery, promotes market transparency and improves market quality,
for all investors.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the amended Remove Volume Tier
2 is reasonable as it does not represent a significant departure from
the criteria or corresponding rates currently offered in the Fee
Schedule, and that the proposed reduced fee is commensurate with the
criteria. The Exchange also believes that the proposal represents an
equitable allocation of fees and rebates and is not unfairly
discriminatory because all Members are and will continue to be eligible
for Remove Volume Tiers and have the opportunity to meet the tiers'
criteria and receive the applicable reduced fee if such criteria is
met. The Exchange also notes that amended tier will not adversely
impact any Member's ability to qualify for reduced fees or enhanced
rebate offered under other tiers. Should a Member not meet the proposed
new criteria, the Member will merely not receive that corresponding
reduced fee.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to the Remove Volume Tier
2 would encourage the submission of additional order flow to a public
exchange, thereby promoting market depth, execution incentives and
enhanced execution opportunities, as well as price discovery and
transparency for all Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes
``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders,
large and small.''
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the Remove
Volume Tiers will continue to apply to all Members equally in that all
Members are eligible for these tiers, have a reasonable opportunity to
meet the tiers' criteria and will receive the reduced fee on their
qualifying orders if such criteria is met. Additionally, the Remove
Volume Tiers are designed to attract additional order flow to the
Exchange. Greater overall order flow, trading opportunities, and
pricing transparency benefits all market participants on the Exchange
by enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage Members to send
orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market
ecosystem.
    Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously
discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market.
Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on
and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges, off-
exchange venues, and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the
Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on
publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more
than 17% of the market share.\17\ Therefore, no exchange possesses
significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Indeed,
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
Specifically, in Regulation

NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \18\ The fact that this
market is competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit
stated as follows: ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow
is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .''.\19\ Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe its proposed fee change imposes any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Supra note 4.
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \19\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (DC Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \20\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \21\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2021-036 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2021-036. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2021-036 and should be
submitted on or before September 2, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17178 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 20, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 58053]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22626]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 23

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2021-0113]

Petition for Rulemaking; Airport Concession Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (ACDBE) Program

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of grant of a petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This notification grants the petition for rulemaking submitted
by the Airports Council International-North America (ACI-NA) requesting
that DOT initiate rulemaking to revise and update agency rules
pertaining to Participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise in
Airport Concessions.

DATES: October 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: National External Operations and Policy Programs, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1030,
Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gene E. Roth, Director, National
External Operations and Policy Programs, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1030, Washington, DC
20591, email [email protected], telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Marc
Pentino, Associate Director, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Programs
Division, Departmental Office of Civil Rights, Office of the Secretary,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, email
[email protected], telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On June 30, 2021 ACI-NA submitted a petition for rulemaking
requesting that DOT begin the process necessary to initiate a
rulemaking to revise and update 49 CFR part 23. Specifically, ACI-NA
requested that a number of regulatory issues important to airports be
addressed to modernize the ACDBE program, including the definition of
concession, the requirements for ACDBE program submittals, and the
treatment of long-term exclusive agreements.
    DOT plans to initiate a rulemaking to update DOT's Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) and ACDBE regulations to alleviate burdens
for lower-tiered recipients and aviation sponsors to have a DBE
program, remove the ACDBE program requirement for non-hub primary
airports, modernize the definition of ``regular dealer'' to reflect
changing material handling practices in the field, enhance current
requirements to ease the burden on prime contractors in finding
competitive and qualified DBE subcontractors, adjust the DBE and ACDBE
program personal net worth cap for inflation, formalize guidance
establishing successful COVID-19 flexibilities, allow qualified DBEs to
work on large multiyear projects, and make technical corrections and
other necessary updates. For additional information, see the
Department's Spring 2021 Unified Agenda, available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain. Select Department of
Transportation from the drop-down menu for the current agenda, and then
select RIN 2105-AE98.

Conclusion

    Having received this petition for rulemaking related to 49 CFR part
23, DOT has decided that ACI-NA's petition merits further consideration
through the rulemaking process and hereby grants its petition for
rulemaking using the existing RIN 2105-AE98.
    The granting of the petition from ACI-NA, however, does not
indicate that a final rule will be issued as requested by ACI-NA. The
determination of whether to issue a rule and the content of the rule is
made after the study of the requested action and the various
alternatives in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance
with statutory criteria.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on October 13, 2021.
Irene B. Marion,
Director, Departmental Office of Civil Rights, Department of
Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2021-22626 Filed 10-19-21; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P