commence construction or          and revised         the final rule
 reconstruction after July 31,     provisions.         (or upon startup,
 2023.                                                 whichever is
                                                       later).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicit comment on these proposed compliance periods, and we
specifically request submission of information from sources in this
source category regarding specific actions that would need to be
undertaken to comply with the proposed amended provisions and the time
needed to make the adjustments for compliance with any of the revised
provisions. We also solicit comment on whether and how efforts to meet
the proposed compliance periods would impact decarbonization efforts or
other efforts to address hazardous air pollutants. We note that
information provided could result in changes to the proposed compliance
dates, if appropriate.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts

A. What are the affected sources?

    The affected sources are facilities in the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category. This includes any
facility engaged in producing steel from iron ore. Integrated iron and
steel manufacturing includes the following processes: sinter
production, iron production, iron preparation (hot metal
desulfurization), and steel production. The iron production process
includes the production of iron in BFs by the reduction of iron-bearing
materials with a hot gas. The steel production process includes BOPF.
Based on the data we have, there are eight operating integrated iron
and steel manufacturing facilities subject to this NESHAP, and one idle
facility.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    We project emissions reductions of about 79 tpy of HAP metals and
about 560 tpy of PM2.5 from UFIP sources in the Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities source category due to the new
and revised standards for UFIP sources.

C. What are the cost impacts?

    The estimated capital costs are $5.4M and annualized costs are
$2.8M per year for the source category for the new UFIP control
requirements. Also, compliance testing for all the new standards is
estimated to cost about $1.7M once every 5 years for the source
category (which equates to about an average of roughly $320,000 per
year). The estimated cost breakdown for the fenceline monitoring
requirement is $25,000 capital cost and $41,100 annual operating costs
per monitor, $100,000 capital costs and $164,000 annual operating costs
per facility, and $800,000 capital costs and $1.3M annual operating
costs for the source category (assumes 8 operating facilities).
Additional monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
associated with the proposed rule are expected to cost $7,500 per
facility per year ($60,000 for the source category per year, assuming
eight facilities). The total estimated capital costs are $6.2 million
and total estimated annualized costs are $4.9 million for all the
proposed requirements for the source category. However, annual costs
could decrease after facilities complete 2 years of fenceline
monitoring because we are proposing a sunset provision whereby if
facilities remain below the action level for 2 full years, they can
terminate the fenceline monitoring as long as they continue to comply
with all other rule requirements. There may be some energy savings from
reducing leaks of BF gas from bells, which is one of the work practices
described in this preamble, however those potential savings have not
been quantified.

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The EPA conducted an economic impact analysis for the proposed rule
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), which is available in the
docket for this action. If the compliance costs, which are key inputs
to an economic impact analysis, are small relative to the receipts of
the affected industries, then the impact analysis may consist of a
calculation of annual (or annualized) costs as a percent of sales for
affected parent companies. This type of analysis is often applied when
a partial equilibrium or more complex economic impact analysis approach
is deemed unnecessary given the expected size of the impacts. The
annualized cost per sales for a company represents the maximum price
increase in the affected product or service needed for the company to
completely recover the annualized costs imposed by the regulation. We
conducted a cost-to-sales analysis to estimate the economic impacts of
this proposal, given that the EAV of the compliance costs over the
period 2025-2034 are $4.6 million using a 7 percent or a 3 percent
discount rate in 2022 dollars, which is small relative to the revenues
of the steel industry.
    There are two parent companies directly affected by the proposal:
Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and U.S. Steel. Each reported greater than $20
billion in revenue in 2021. The EPA estimated the annualized compliance
cost each firm is expected to incur and determined the estimated cost-
to-sales ratio for each firm is less than 0.02 percent. Therefore, the
projected economic impacts of the expected compliance costs of the
proposal are likely to be small. The EPA also conducted a small
business screening to determine the possible impacts of the proposed
rule on small

businesses. Based on the Small Business Administration size standards
and Cleveland-Cliffs, Inc. and U.S. Steel employment information, this
source category has no small businesses.

E. What are the benefits?

    The proposed UFIP emissions work practices to reduce HAP emissions
(with concurrent control of PM2.5) could improve air quality
and the health of persons living in surrounding communities. The
proposed opacity limits and UFIP work practices are expected to reduce
about 79 tpy of HAP metal emissions, including emissions of manganese,
lead, arsenic, and chromium. Due to methodology and data limitations,
we did not attempt to monetize the health benefits of reductions in HAP
in this analysis. Instead, we are providing a qualitative discussion of
the health effects associated with HAP emitted from sources subject to
control under the proposed action in section 4.2 of the RIA, available
in the docket for this action. The EPA remains committed to improving
methods for estimating HAP benefits by continuing to explore additional
aspects of HAP-related risk from the integrated iron and steel
manufacturing sector, including the distribution of that risk.
    The proposed opacity limits and UFIP work practices are also
estimated to reduce PM2.5 emissions by about 560 tpy for the
source category. The EPA estimated monetized benefits related to
avoided premature mortality and morbidity associated with reduced
exposure to PM2.5 for 2025-2034. The present-value (PV) of
the short-term benefits for the proposed rule range from $2.3 billion
at a 3 percent discount rate to $1.7 billion at a 7 percent discount
rate with an equivalent annualized value (EAV) of $260 million and $220
million, respectively. The EAV represents a flow of constant annual
values that would yield a sum equivalent to the PV. The PV of the long-
term benefits for the proposed rule range from $2.4 billion at a 3
percent discount rate to $1.7 billion at a 7 percent discount rate with
an EAV of $280 million and $230 million, respectively. All estimates
are reported in 2022 dollars. For the full set of underlying
calculations see the Integrated Iron and Steel Benefits workbook,
available in the docket for this action.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    Executive Order 12898 directs EPA to identify the populations of
concern who are most likely to experience unequal burdens from
environmental harms, which are specifically minority populations
(people of color), low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples (59
FR 7629, February 16, 1994). Additionally, Executive Order 14096 built
upon and supplemented that order (88 FR 25251) (Apr. 26, 2023). For
this action, pursuant to the Executive Orders, the EPA conducted an
assessment of the impacts that would result from the proposed rule
amendments, if promulgated, on communities with environmental justice
concerns living near Integrated Iron and Steel facilities.
    Consistent with the EPA's commitment to integrating environmental
justice (EJ) in the Agency's actions, the Agency has carefully
considered the impacts of this action on communities with EJ concerns.
The EPA defines EJ as ``the fair treatment and meaningful involvement
of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income,
with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies.'' \6\ The EPA further
defines fair treatment to mean that ``no group of people should bear a
disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including
those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of
industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and
policies.'' In recognizing that communities with EJ concerns often bear
an unequal burden of environmental harms and risks, the EPA continues
to consider ways of protecting them from adverse public health and
environmental effects of air pollution. For purposes of analyzing
regulatory impacts, the EPA relies upon its June 2016 Technical
Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis,\7\
which provides recommendations that encourage analysts to conduct the
highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing that data limitations,
time, resource constraints, and analytical challenges will vary by
media and circumstance. The Technical Guidance states that a regulatory
action may involve potential EJ concerns if it could: (1) Create new
disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or Indigenous peoples; (2) exacerbate existing
disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-income
populations, and/or Indigenous peoples; or (3) present opportunities to
address existing disproportionate impacts on minority populations, low-
income populations, and/or Indigenous peoples through this action under
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice.
    \7\ See https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice-regulatory-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To examine the potential for any EJ issues that might be associated
with Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities sources, we
performed a proximity demographic analysis, which is an assessment of
individual demographic groups of the populations living within 5 km and
50 km of the facilities. The EPA then compared the data from this
analysis to the national average for each of the demographic groups.
This approach is consistent with EPA's longstanding approach for
evaluating the potential for impacts on communities with EJ concerns.
    The results of the proximity demographic analysis (see Table 6)
indicate that, for populations within 5 km of the nine integrated iron
and steel facilities, the percent of the population that is African
American is more than twice the national average (27 percent versus 12
percent). In addition, the percentage of the population that is living
below the poverty level (29 percent) and living below 2 times the
poverty level (52 percent) is well above the national average (13
percent and 29 percent, respectively). Other demographics for the
populations living within 5 km are below or near the respective
national averages.
    Within 50 km of the nine sources within the Integrated Iron and
Steel Manufacturing Facilities category, the percent of the population
that is African American is above the national average (20 percent
versus 12 percent). Within 50 km the income demographics are similar to
the national averages. Other demographics for the populations living
within 50 km are below or near the respective national averages.
    The methodology and the results of the demographic analysis are
presented in the document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities, which is
available in the docket for this action.
    As discussed in other subsections of the impacts of this action, in
this action the EPA is proposing requirements for facilities to improve
UFIP emission control resulting in reductions of both metal HAP and
PM2.5. We estimate that all facilities will achieve
reductions of HAP emissions as a result of this proposed rule,
including the facilities at which the percentage of the population
living in close proximity who are African American and below poverty
level is greater than the national average. The proposed changes will

have beneficial effects on air quality and public health for
populations exposed to emissions from integrated iron and steel
facilities.

    Table 6--Proximity Demographic Assessment Results for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Population
                                                                                within 50 km     Population
                        Demographic group                           Nationwide         of 9       within 5 km of
                                                                                facilities     9 facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Population................................................     329,824,950      18,966,693         478,761
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                           Race and Ethnicity by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
White...........................................................              60              63              52
African American................................................              12              20              27
Native American.................................................             0.6             0.1             0.2
Hispanic or Latino (includes white and nonwhite)................              19              10              16
Other and Multiracial...........................................               9               7               5
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                Income by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Below Poverty Level.............................................              13              13              29
Above Poverty Level.............................................              87              87              71
Below 2x Poverty Level..........................................              29              28              52
Above 2x Poverty Level..........................................              71              72              48
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                               Education by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Over 25 and without a High School Diploma.......................              12               9              18
Over 25 and with a High School Diploma..........................              88              91              82
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        Linguistically Isolated by Percent
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Linguistically Isolated.........................................               5               3               6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
 The nationwide population count and all demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2016-2020
  American Community Survey five-year block group averages and include Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages
  based on different averages may differ. The total population counts are based on the 2020 Decennial Census
  block populations.
 To avoid double counting, the ``Hispanic or Latino'' category is treated as a distinct demographic
  category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White,
  African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as
  Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may
  have also identified as in the Census.

    In addition to the analyses described above, the EPA completed a
risk-based demographics analysis for the residual risk and technology
review (RTR) proposed rule (84 FR 42704, August 16, 2019) and the 2020
RTR final rule (85 FR 42074, July 13, 2020). A description of the
demographic analyses and the results are provided in those two Federal
Register documents.

VI. Request for Comments

    We solicit comments on all aspects of this proposed action. In
addition to general comments on this proposed action, we are also
interested in receiving comments regarding the estimated emissions from
UFIP sources, the estimated emissions reductions from the proposed
measures, the proposed opacity limits and work practices, individually
or together, to reduce emissions from the nonpoint sources, and the
estimated costs to comply with the proposed requirements. EPA requests
comment on the assumptions regarding the costs of capital, work
practices, and emissions. EPA requests comment on the assumption that
no additional facilities will close, open, or go idle over the time
horizon set in our analysis. EPA acknowledges that other ongoing
rulemaking efforts (including those affecting lime manufacturing, coke
ovens, taconite iron ore processing, and electric arc furnace sources)
may impact facilities in this source category and solicits comments on
the cumulative regulatory burden of rules affecting these facilities.
We solicit comments of how this proposed action interacts with
potential timelines and changes to facilities installing carbon capture
and/or using hydrogen or how the regulation might affect steel
decarbonization efforts. We solicit comments on potential impacts, if
any, on: U.S. manufacturing and supply chains; National Security;
projects that use steel and iron for renewable and clean energy
projects; aerospace manufacturing; telecommunications; critical
infrastructure for national defense, and global competitiveness. We
also solicit comment on the creation or retention of jobs and the
quality of those jobs. We solicit comment on projects that use iron and
steel that are funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA) (most commonly known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill) and
the CHIPS and Science Act.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and 13563 Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to OMB for review mainly because of the estimated benefits of the
estimated PM2.5 reductions described above. Any changes made
in response to recommendations received as part of

Executive Order 12866 review have been documented in the docket.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposal have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information collection
request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2003.10. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this
rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    Respondents/affected entities: Integrated iron and steel
manufacturing facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart FFFFF).
    Estimated number of respondents: 8 facilities.
    Frequency of response: One time.
    Total estimated burden: The annual recordkeeping and reporting
burden for facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the
NESHAP is estimated to be 30,400 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: The annual recordkeeping and reporting cost
for all facilities to comply with all of the requirements in the NESHAP
is estimated to be $3,950,000 per year, of which $3,140,000 per year is
for this proposal, and $803,000 is for other costs related to continued
compliance with the NESHAP including $108,000 for paperwork associated
with operation and maintenance requirements.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified
at the beginning of this rule. You may also send your ICR-related
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs via
email to [email protected], Attention: Desk Officer for the
EPA. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR
between 30 and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no
later than August 30, 2023. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action would not impose any requirements on small entities. No small
entities are subject to the requirements of this rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. No Tribal governments
own facilities subject to the NESHAP. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of
the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the
environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a ``significant energy action'' because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Facilities NESHAP through the Enhanced National Standards Systems
Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI). We also conducted voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
organizations and accessed and searched their databases. We conducted
searches for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 17, 23,
25A, 26A, 29, and 30B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, 320 of 40 CFR part
63 appendix, and SW-846 Method 9071B. During the EPA's VCS search, if
the title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical
sampling and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's
referenced method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed
it as a potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential
standards to determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This
review requires significant method validation data that meet the
requirements of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or
scientific, engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the
EPA referenced methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of
impracticality when additional information is available for particular
VCS.
    No applicable VCS was identified for EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3,
3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, 9, 17, 23, 25A, 26A, 29, 30B and SW-846 Method 9071B
not already incorporated by reference in this subpart. The search
identified one VCS that was potentially applicable for this rule in
lieu of EPA Method 29. After reviewing the available standard, the EPA
determined that the VCS identified for measuring emissions of
pollutants subject to emissions standards in the rule would not be
practical due to lack of equivalency. The EPA is incorporating by
reference the VCS ASTM D6348-12(2020), ``Determination of Gaseous
Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR)
Spectroscopy''. The VCS ASTM D6348-12(2020) may be obtained from
https://www.astm.org or from the ASTM Headquarters at 100 Barr Harbor
Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428-2959. In
the September 22, 2008, NTTA summary, ASTM D6348-03(2010) was
determined equivalent to EPA Method 320 with caveats. ASTM D6348-12e1
is a revised

version of ASTM D6348-03(2010) and includes a new section on accepting
the results from direct measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder,
but still lacks the caveats we placed on the D6348-03(2010) version.
The voluntary consensus standard ASTM D6348-12e1 has been reaffirmed
and is now ASTM D6348-12(2020) and is an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 320 at this time with caveats requiring inclusion of selected
annexes to the standard as mandatory. When using ASTM D6348-12(2020),
the following conditions must be met:
    (1) The test plan preparation and implementation in the Annexes to
ASTM D 6348-12(2020), Sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
    (2) In ASTM D6348-12(2020) Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique),
the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte (Equation
A5.5). In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, %R
must be 70% >= R <= 130%. If the %R value does not meet this criterion
for a target compound, the test data is not acceptable for that
compound and the test must be repeated for that analyte (i.e., the
sampling and/or analytical procedure should be adjusted before a
retest). The %R value for each compound must be reported in the test
report, and all field measurements must be corrected with the
calculated %R value for that compound by using the following equation:

Reported Results = ((Measured Concentration in Stack))/(%R) x 100

    The EPA is also incorporating by reference Quality Assurance
Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume IV:
Meteorological Measurements, Version 2.0 (Final), March 2008 (EPA-454/
B-08-002). The Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement
Systems, Volume IV: Meteorological Measurements, Version 2.0 may be
found at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P100FOMB.TXT.
    Additional information for the VCS search and determination can be
found in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated
Iron and Steel Manufacturing, which is available in the docket for this
action. The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed
rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to identify
potentially applicable VCS, and to explain why the EPA should use such
standards in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on communities with EJ concerns. For this action the EPA
conducted an assessment of the impacts that would result from the
proposed rule amendments, if promulgated, on various demographic groups
living near Integrated Iron and Steel facilities (as described in
section V.C of this preamble).
    The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental
effects on communities with EJ concerns. For populations living within
5 km of the nine integrated iron and steel facilities, the percent of
the population that is African American is more than twice the national
average (27 percent versus 12 percent). Specifically, the percent of
the population that is African American is more than 1.5 times the
national average within 5 km of six of the nine facilities. The
percentage of the population that is living below the poverty level (29
percent) and living below 2 times the poverty level (52 percent) is
well above the national average (13 percent and 29 percent,
respectively). Specifically, the percent of the population that is
living below the poverty level is more than 1.5 times the national
average within 5 km of seven of the nine facilities. Other demographics
for the populations living within 5 km are below or near the respective
national averages.
    The EPA believes that this action is likely to reduce existing
disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with EJ concerns.
This action requires facilities to improve UFIP emission control
resulting in reductions of about 110 tpy of metal HAP and about 820 tpy
PM2.5. We estimate that all facilities will achieve
reductions of HAP emissions as a result of this proposed rule,
including the facilities at which the percentage of the population
living in close proximity who are African American and below poverty
level is greater than the national average.
    The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained
in sections IV and V of this preamble. The demographic analysis is
available in a document titled Analysis of Demographic Factors for
Populations Living Near Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities, which is
available in the docket for this action.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-15085 Filed 7-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 24349-24350]
[DOCID:fr02my08-153]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0091]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. This
document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA
intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
      Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey AVE, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey AVE, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Walker, Ph.D., Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative, Office of Regulatory Analysis and
Evaluation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey AVE, SE., Room W53-463, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Walker's phone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and his e-mail address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submissions of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:

2008 National Survey on Reported and Unreported Motor Vehicle Crashes

    Type of Request--New information collection requirement.
    OMB Clearance Number--None.
    Form Number--This collection of information uses no standard forms.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval--August 30, 2009.
    Summary of the Collection of Information--NHTSA proposes to conduct
a National Survey on Reported and Unreported Motor Vehicle Crashes by
telephone among a sample of 2,000 adults (age 16 and older) who were
involved in a motor vehicle crash in the past twelve months.
Participation by respondents would be voluntary. NHTSA's information
needs require a telephone survey on a national probability sample of
drivers in the United States that will allow national estimates of the
annualized incidence and severity of unreported crashes in the United
States to be made. The questionnaire focuses on the extent of any
injuries and property damage which were a result of the crash the
respondent was involved in. Standard demographics are asked at the end
of the interview.
    In conducting the proposed survey, the interviewers would use
computer-assisted telephone interviewing to reduce interview length and
minimize recording errors. A Spanish-language translation and bilingual
interviewers would be used to minimize language barriers to
participation. The proposed survey would be anonymous and confidential.
    Description of the Need for the information and Proposed Use of the
Information--The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
was established to reduce the mounting number of deaths, injuries and
economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes on the Nation's
highways. As part of this statutory mandate, NHTSA is authorized to
conduct research as a foundation for the development of motor vehicle
standards and traffic safety programs. In 1981, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published the results of a
telephone survey: NATIONAL ACCIDENT SAMPLING SYSTEM, NONREPORTED
ACCIDENT

SURVEY. Because NASS (then called the National Accident Sampling System
and now called the National Automotive Sampling System) samples only
police-reported crashes, non-reported crashes are missed. Many of these
are minor `vehicle-damage-only' crashes that do not involve deaths or
injuries. However, even these crashes add to the total cost of traffic
crashes, not only in expensive vehicle repairs but also in damage to
public and private roadside structures. In addition, even injury
crashes may go unreported if police or emergency personnel are not
aware of them. Occupants may self-medicate or go to their personal
physician if the injuries are not life threatening. The costs of these
treatments and accompanying absenteeism need to be added to the total
cost of traffic crashes.
    Any crash may go unreported if drivers are not aware of the
reporting requirement or if they fear various consequences. Such
consequences include increased insurance rates, prosecution for illegal
acts during the crash (driving while intoxicated, driving without a
license, et cetera) or for long-standing illegalities (outstanding
warrants, illegal alien status). Individuals may avoid reporting
crashes for other reasons, including not wanting to be bothered by the
paperwork.
    During the past 25 years, cars have become safer (at the expense to
the vehicle) suggesting that the percentage of damage-only, unreported
crashes has also increased. Also, the recent 100-Car Naturalistic
Driving Study suggests that the ratio may be much higher. They found 15
reported crashes and 67 unreported crashes, a ratio of more than four
to one. The ratio in the original telephone study was one to one.
    NHTSA is seeking to improve the accuracy of its estimates of the
total costs of motor vehicle crashes in the US. Accurate total crash
cost data is necessary for NHTSA to determine the extent to which
proposed regulations are cost effective. Congress also needs better
data on the costs of crashes when it considers legislative remedies.
The general public will also benefit from having better understanding
of the full cost of crashes, as such information can be helpful when
deciding whether to support initiatives such as Graduated Licensing or
rules for improving crashworthiness.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)--
Under this proposed effort, the Contractor would conduct telephone
interviews averaging approximately 15 minutes in length with 2,000
randomly selected members of the general public age 16 and older in
telephone households who had been involved in a crash in the past
twelve months. The respondent sample would be selected from all 50
States and the District of Columbia. Interviews would be conducted with
persons at residential phone numbers selected through random digit
dialing. Businesses are ineligible for the sample and would not be
interviewed. No more than one respondent would be selected per
household. Each member of the sample would complete one interview.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting From the Collection of Information--NHTSA estimates that 10%
of the general population has been involved in a motor vehicle crash in
the past year. In order to achieve a sample size of 2,000, a total of
20,000 individuals must be contacted and screened. The 18,000
individuals who are contacted, but have not been involved in a motor
vehicle crash in the past twelve months, would require an average of 3
minutes to complete the screener questionnaire for a total of 900
hours. Each respondent in the final survey sample of 2,000 crash
victims would require an average of 15 minutes to complete the
telephone interview or a total of 500 hours. Thus, the number of
estimated reporting burden hours a year on the general public would be
1,400 for the proposed survey (900 for the screener questionnaire, and
500 for the full survey administration). The respondents would not
incur any reporting cost from the information collection. The
respondents also would not incur any recordkeeping burden or
recordkeeping cost from the information collection.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

James Simons,
Director, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation.BILLING CODE
4910-59-P
 [FR Doc. E8-9648 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27263-27265]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11003]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69512; File No. SR-BOX-2013-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Provide for the Manner in Which
Mini Options Will Trade as a Complex Order Pursuant to BOX Rule 7240

May 3, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 2, 2013, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 7240 (Complex Orders). The
text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office
of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on
the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.

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 self-regulatory organization
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 self-regulatory organization
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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide for the
manner in which Mini Options will trade as a Complex Order pursuant to
BOX Rule

7240. The Exchange previously filed to list and trade Mini Options.\3\
Whereas standard options contracts represent a deliverable of 100
shares of an underlying security, Mini Options contracts represent a
deliverable of 10 shares. Except for the difference in the number of
deliverable shares, Mini Options have the same terms and contract
characteristics as regular-sized equity and ETF options, including
exercise style. Accordingly, the Exchange noted in its Mini Options
filing that Exchange rules that apply to the trading of standard
options contracts would apply to Mini Option contracts as well.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68771 (January 30,
2013), 78 FR 8208 (February 5, 2013) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of SR-BOX-2013-07). The Exchange began trading Mini
Options on March 18, 2013.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the launch of its new Complex Order Book,\5\ the Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 7240 (Complex Orders) to provide that while
Participants may execute complex orders involving Mini Options, if any
leg of a complex order is a Mini Option contract, all options legs of
such orders must also be Mini Option contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69419 (April 19,
2013), 78 FR 24449 (April 25, 2013) (Approving SR-BOX-2013-01). The
Exchange expects to launch its new Complex Order Book on May 3,
2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\6\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in
particular, in that it is 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that investors and other market
participants would benefit from the current rule proposal because it
provides that market participants may take advantage of legitimate
investment strategies and execute complex orders involving Mini
Options. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
will avoid investor confusion by providing how Mini Options will trade
as compared to standard options with respect to Complex Orders.
    The Exchange's proposal to permit Mini Options to trade as Complex
Orders provided the strategy does not combine Mini Options and standard
options serves to maintain the permissible ratios that are applicable
to Complex Orders by separating the trading of standard Complex Orders
and Mini Options Complex Orders.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. All Participants may transact
Complex Orders on BOX. The rule change does not permit unfair
discrimination and does not impose a burden on Participants with
respect to trading Mini Options.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of the filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act \10\
normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of
the filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) of the Act,\11\
the Commission may designate a shorter time if such action is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange has requested the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. In January 2013, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to
amend its rules to list and trade certain mini-options contracts on the
Exchange, and represented in that filing that the Exchange's rules that
apply to the trading of standard options contracts would apply to mini-
options contracts.\12\ The Exchange has represented that it intends to
launch its new complex order book, on which mini-options contracts may
trade as components of complex orders, on May 3, 2013. The Exchange
believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would minimize confusion among market participants about how complex
orders involving mini-options contracts will trade.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68771 (January 30,
2013), 78 FR 8208 (February 5, 2013) (SR-BOX-2013-07).
    \13\ See SR-BOX-2013-23, Item 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Such waiver would allow the Exchange to implement the proposed rule
change prior to the launch of its new complex order book on May 3,
2013, thereby mitigating potential investor confusion as to how complex
orders involving mini-options contracts will trade. For this reason,
the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates
the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

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-BOX-2013-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-23. 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 Web site (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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal offices of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-BOX-2013-23, and should be submitted on or before May
30, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11003 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 112 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33332-33333]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0040; Notice 1]

BMW of North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: BMW of North America, LLC, (BMW) a subsidiary of BMW AG in
Munich, Germany, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2013 BMW 5
Series sedan passenger vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph
S8.1.11 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108,
Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. BMW has filed an
appropriate report dated March 26, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is July 13, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the

close of business on the closing date indicated below will be filed and
will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received
after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the
extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the
decision will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. BMW's Petition

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), BMW submitted a petition for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of BMW's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Vehicles Involved

    Affected are approximately 13,899 MY 2013 BMW 5 Series sedan
passenger cars manufactured between January 30, 2013 and June 28, 2013.

III. Noncompliance

    BMW explains that the noncompliance is that some of the rear reflex
reflectors on the affected vehicles do not fully conform to the minimum
photometry performance required by paragraph S8.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108.

IV. Rule Text

    Paragraph S8.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108 requires in pertinent part:

    S8.1.11 Photometry. Each reflex reflector must be designed to
conform to the photometry requirements of Table XVI-a when tested
according to the procedure of S14.2.3 for the reflex reflector color
as specified by this section.

V. Summary of BMW's Analyses

    BMW used Ricco's Law to determine a minimum required reflection
coefficient in its analysis. BMW chose Ricco's Law because they believe
it best corresponds to the human physiological condition in which a
light source of a given size and intensity is minimally capable (i.e.
illumination threshold) of producing visual perception.
    As such, BMW created a graph whereby the y-axis represented the
reflection coefficient in units consistent with FMVSS No. 108. While
the x-axis represented the distance between two vehicles in order to
simulate the condition of an approaching vehicle and a parked or
stopped vehicle.
    BMW provided the graph to illustrate that even with parameters
representing a ``worst-case scenario,'' sufficient visibility of the
rear reflex reflectors of the affected vehicles exists.
    BMW stated that it has not received any contacts from vehicle
owners or other road users regarding issues related to the subject
noncompliance and is also not aware of any accidents or injuries that
have occurred as a result of this issue.
    BMW has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that subsequent vehicle production will conform to
paragraph 8.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108.
    In summation, BMW believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt BMW from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that BMW no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after BMW
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-14254 Filed 6-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


D 46 Appendix D 7. Supplementary Data for Bennett et al. ( 1995)

Tank Dose (

g Cu/ L) Conductivity (

mho/ cm) pH Oxygen ( mg/ L) Temp ( oC) Alkalinity ( as mg CaCO3/ L) Hardness ( as mg CaCO3/ L) 0 hours 7/ 9/ 92 a 897 325 8.62 7.5 21 100 96 b 897 300 8.6 7.6 21 100 96 c 897 320 8.6 7.6 21 80 96 d 607 320 8.62 7.7 21 80 96 e 607 370 8.62 7.6 21 80 96 f 607 328 8.64 7.6 21 80 96 g 93 310 8.64 7.6 21 80 96 h 93 370 8.69 7.5 21 80 96 I 93 310 8.6 7.6 21 80 96 j 505 310 8.62 7.7 21 100 96 k 505 310 8.65 7.7 21 80 96 l 505 320 8.69 7.7 21 80 96 m 319 320 8.69 7.7 21 80 96 n 319 330 8.68 7.7 21 80 96 o 319 320 8.67 7.7 21 80 96 p 0 310 8.62 7.5 21 80 96 q 0 320 8.63 7.6 21 80 96 r 0 320 8.6 7.7 21 80 96 24 hours 7/ 10/ 92 a 897 300 7.78 8.5 21.5 60 104 b 897 305 7.64 8.4 22 80 100 c 897 305 7.68 8.5 22 90 100 d 607 300 7.7 8.4 21.5 90 100 e 607 305 7.65 8.4 21.5 80 100 f 607 305 7.75 8.4 21.5 80 100 g 93 300 7.77 9.1 22 80 100 h 93 295 7.76 9.2 21.5 80 108 I 93 295 7.76 9 21.5 85 100 j 505 300 7.73 8.8 22 90 84 k 505 300 7.71 8.8 21.5 80 100 l 505 300 7.73 8.7 21.5 80 100 m 319 300 7.74 9.1 21.5 80 100 n 319 300 7.52 8.5 22 80 100 o 319 310 7.79 8.7 22.5 80 100 p 0 305 7.79 9.1 22 80 100 q 0 305 7.7 9.1 22 80 104 r 0 300 7.71 9.1 22 80 104 48 hours 7/ 11/ 92 a 897 * * * * * * b 897 * * * * * * c 897 320 8.1 7.2 21.5 100 96 d 607 315 7.91 6.9 21.5 100 96 e 607 310 7.84 6.8 21.5 100 100 f 607 315 8 7 21.5 100 104 g 93 300 8.19 7.7 21.5 100 100 Tank Dose (

g Cu/ L) Conductivity (

mho/ cm) pH Oxygen ( mg/ L) Temp ( oC) Alkalinity ( as mg CaCO3/ L) Hardness ( as mg CaCO3/ L)

D 47 h 93 300 8.13 7.7 21 100 100 I 93 300 8.16 7.6 21 100 104 j 505 310 8.1 7.5 21 80 100 k 505 310 8.12 7.4 21 100 100 l 505 310 8.13 7.4 21 80 100 m 319 310 8.12 7.4 21 100 100 n 319 310 7.8 6.4# 21.5 100 100 o 319 310 8.18 7.3 22 100 96 p 0 300 8.16 8 21.5 80 100 q 0 300 8.1 7.9 21.5 80 104 r 0 300 8.21 8 21.5 100 100 72 hours 7/ 12/ 92 a 897 * * * * * * b 897 * * * * * * c 897 * * * * * * d 607 310 8.02 8.9 21.5 100 100 e 607 315 8.04 8.8 21.5 100 100 f 607 315 8.02 8.7 21.5 80 100 g 93 310 7.92 9.1 21.5 100 104 h 93 305 7.91 9.1 21 100 100 I 93 310 7.91 9 21 80 106 j 505 315 7.97 8.9 21.5 100 104 k 505 310 7.96 8.9 21 100 100 l 505 310 7.96 9 21 80 104 m 319 310 7.91 9 21 100 100 n 319 310 7.97 9 21 80 100 o 319 320 7.99 8.8 22 100 104 p 0 300 7.86 9.3 21.5 100 104 q 0 300 7.81 9.1 21.5 80 100 r 0 305 7.93 9.3 21.5 80 100 96 hours 7/ 13/ 92 a 897 * * * * * * b 897 * * * * * * c 897 * * * * * * d 607 320 8.03 7.3 21.5 100 104 e 607 320 8.07 7.3 21.5 100 100 f 607 325 8.02 7.2 21.5 100 104 g 93 325 7.95 7.1 21.5 120 104 h 93 315 8.03 7.5 21 100 100 I 93 310 8.02 7.4 21 100 100 j 505 320 8.06 7.4 21.5 80 100 k 505 320 8.05 7.4 21 120 100 l 505 320 8.03 7.3 21 100 104 m 319 315 8.05 7.5 21 100 104 n 319 320 8.06 7.4 21 100 100 o 319 330 8.08 7.3 22 100 104 Tank Dose (

g Cu/ L) Conductivity (

mho/ cm) pH Oxygen ( mg/ L) Temp ( oC) Alkalinity ( as mg CaCO3/ L) Hardness ( as mg CaCO3/ L)

D 48 p 0 330 7.78 8.1 21.5 80 96 q 0 325 7.75 7.9 21.5 80 104 r 0 330 7.86 8.1 21.5 80 100 * All fish dead, no water quality measured. # Air stone had fallen out of tank.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 222 (Monday, November 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 66384]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25325]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the ARAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, December 9, 2021, from
1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
    Requests to attend the meeting must be received by Monday, November
29, 2021.
    Requests for accommodations to a disability must be received by
Monday, November 29, 2021.
    Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the
meeting must be received no later than Monday, November 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held virtually. Members of the public
who wish to observe the meeting must RSVP by emailing [email protected]. General committee information including copies of the
meeting minutes will be available on the FAA Committee website at
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lakisha Pearson, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].
Any committee-related request should be sent to the person listed in
this section.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The ARAC was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), in accordance with Title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C.
App. 2) to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA concerning
rulemaking activities, such as aircraft operations, airman and air
agency certification, airworthiness standards and certification,
airports, maintenance, noise, and training.

II. Agenda

    At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:

 Status Report from the FAA
 Status Updates:
    [cir] Active Working Groups
    [cir] Transport Airplane and Engine (TAE) Subcommittee
 Recommendation Reports
 Any Other Business

    Detailed agenda information will be posted on the FAA Committee
website address listed in the ADDRESSES section at least one week in
advance of the meeting.

III. Public Participation

    This virtual meeting will be open to the public on a first-come,
first-served basis. Members of the public who wish to attend are asked
to register via email by submitting the following information: Full
legal name, country of citizenship, and name of your industry
association, or applicable affiliation, to the email listed in the
ADDRESSES section. When registration is confirmed, registrants will be
provided the virtual meeting information/teleconference call-in number
and passcode. Callers are responsible for paying associated long-
distance charges.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing
equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need
alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as sign
language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    The FAA is not accepting oral presentations at this meeting due to
time constraints. Any member of the public may present a written
statement to the committee at any time. The public may present written
statements to ARAC by providing a copy to the Designated Federal
Officer via the email listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

Timothy R. Adams,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2021-25325 Filed 11-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28094-28095]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10900]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0261]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB

    Control Number: 1625-0063
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0063,
Marine Occupational Health and Safety Standards for Benzene--46 CFR 197
Subpart C. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from
the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is
inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before July 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2016-0261] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE. SE., STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an
extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2016-0261], and
must be received by July 8, 2016

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Marine Occupational Health and Safety Standards for
Benzene--46 Code of Federal Regulations 197 Subpart C.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0063.
    Summary: To protect marine workers from exposure to toxic Benzene
vapor, the Coast Guard implemented Title 46 CFR Subpart C.
    Need: This information collection is vital to verifying compliance.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 38,165 hours a
year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: April 29, 2016.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-10900 Filed 5-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7707-7708]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03556]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2804-035]

Goose River Hydro, Inc.; Notice of Application Tendered for
Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New minor license
    b. Project No.: P-2804-035
    c. Date filed: February 2, 2018
    d. Applicant: Goose River Hydro, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Goose River Hydroelectric Project
    f. Location: On the Goose River, near Belfast, Waldo County, Maine.
No federal or tribal lands would be occupied by project works or
located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Nicholas Cabral, Goose River Hydro Inc., 67
Swan Lake Ave., Belfast, ME 04095,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Julia Kolberg, 888 1st St. NE, Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
    j. 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 follow the instructions for filing such
requests

described in item l below. 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).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR of the Commission's
regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that an additional scientific study should be conducted in order to
form an adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the
application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person
must file a request for a study with the Commission not later than 60
days from the date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of
the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: April 3, 2018.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy
to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2804-033.
    m. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The project consists of the following existing facilities:

Swan Lake Dam

    (1) A 14-foot-high, 250-foot-long rock masonry gravity dam
impounding Swan Lake with a surface area of approximately 1,364 acres
at an elevation of 201 feet above sea level; (2) a concrete inlet
structure; (3) three manually operated butterfly gates that regulate
flow through the inlet structure; (4) two culverts the convey flow
under Route 141; and (5) appurtenant facilities.

Mason's Dam

    (1) A 15-foot-high, 86-foot-long rock masonry dam impounding a
reservoir with a storage capacity of approximately 1,621 acre-feet at
an elevation of 188 feet above sea level; (2) a concrete inlet
structure; (3) a manually operated gate regulating flow from the inlet
structure to the penstock; (4) a 350-foot-long steel penstock; (5) a
266-square-foot concrete powerhouse containing two Kaplan turbines and
generating units with a licensed capacity of 75 kW; (6) a 300-foot-
long, 12-kilovolt (kV) transmission line and (7) appurtenant
facilities.

Kelley Dam

    (1) A 15-foot-high, 135-foot-long masonry gravity dam impounding a
reservoir with a storage capacity of approximately 200 acre-feet at an
elevation of approximately 159 feet above sea level; and (2) three
manually operated gates.

Mill Dam

    (1) A 6-foot-tall, 70-foot-wide masonry dam impounding a reservoir
with a storage capacity of approximately 7 acre-feet at an elevation of
approximately 128 feet above sea level; (2) a concrete inlet structure;
(3) a trash sluice with wooden stop logs; (4) a 3-foot-diameter, 110-
foot-long plastic penstock; (5) a powerhouse containing a Francis-type
turbine and generator unit with a licensed capacity of 94 kW; and (6)
an approximately 100-foot-long, 12-kV transmission line.

CMP Dam

    (1) A 21-foot-high, 231-foot-long buttress dam impounding a
reservoir with a storage capacity of approximately 72 acre-feet at an
elevation of approximately 109 feet above sea level; (2) a 5-foot-
diameter, 1,200-foot-long steel penstock; (3) a 300-square-foot
concrete and timber powerhouse with a Kaplan-type turbine and generator
unit with a licensed capacity of 200 kW; and (4) an approximately 500-
foot-long, 12-kV transmission line.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at 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. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate.

Issue Deficiency Letter--March 2018
Issue Notice of Acceptance--July 2018
Issue Scoping Document for comments--August 2018
Comments on Scoping Document--October 2018
Issue notice of ready for environmental analysis--November 2018
Commission issues EA--April 2019
Comments on EA--May 2019

    Dated: February 14, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03556 Filed 2-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 11, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45815-45816]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19478]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0006; Airspace Docket No. 18-AGL-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D Airspace; Appleton, WI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class D airspace at Appleton
International Airport (formerly Outagamie County Airport), Appleton,
WI. This action is required due to the decommissioning of the GAMIE
locator outer marker (LOM) and collocated outer marker (OM) which
provided navigation guidance to the airport. This action enhances the
safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at
the airport. Also, the airport name and geographic coordinates are
adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Additionally, this action replaces the outdated term ``Airport/Facility
Directory'' with the term ``Chart Supplement'' in the legal
description, and removes the city associated with the airport name in
the airspace designation.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 8, 2018. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with

prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it will amend Class
D airspace, at Appleton International Airport, Appleton, WI, to support
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register (83 FR 11445; March 15, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-
0006 to modify Class D airspace at Appleton International Airport,
Appleton, WI. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received.
    Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class D airspace extending upward from the surface to
and including 3,400 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius (decreased from a
4.4-mile radius) of Appleton International Airport (formerly Outagamie
County Airport), Appleton, WI. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary
due to the decommissioning of the GAMIE LOM/OM.
    This action also updates the airport name and geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database.
    Additionally, this action makes an editorial change to the Class D
airspace legal description replacing ``Airport/Facility Directory''
with the term ``Chart Supplement''.
    Finally, an editorial change would be made removing the name of the
city associated with the airport name in the airspace designation to
comply with a recent change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for
Handling Airspace Actions, dated October 12, 2017.

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, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that 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 action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of 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 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL WI D Appleton, WI [Amended]

Appleton International Airport, WI
    (Lat. 44[deg]15'29'' N, long 88[deg]31'09'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,400 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Appleton International
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 31, 2018.
Anthony Schneider,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-19478 Filed 9-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P