[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69020-69023]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22082]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1040; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01512-T;
Amendment 39-22558; AD 2023-19-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 &
702), CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet
Series 705), CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25
(Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
manufacturing quality escape concerning the installation of the Halon
metering device on certain cargo fire extinguisher containers. This AD
requires the inspection of cargo fire extinguisher container serial
numbers and the replacement of the affected containers. This AD would
also limit the installation of affected parts. The FAA is issuing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 9, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 9,
2023.

ADDRESSES: AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov
under Docket No. FAA-2023-1040; or in person at Docket Operations
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this final rule,
contact MHI RJ Aviation Group, Customer Response Center, 3655 Ave. des
Grandes-Tourelles, Suite 110, Boisbriand, Qu[eacute]bec J7H 0E2 Canada;
North America toll-free telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or direct-dial telephone
450-990-7272; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>website
mhirj.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1040.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabriel Kim, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:
516-228-7300; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC
Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702), CL-600-2C11
(Regional Jet Series 550), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), CL-
600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet
Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
May 12, 2023 (88 FR 30685). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2022-66,
dated December 8, 2022, issued by Transport Canada, which is the
aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The
MCAI states that during assembly of the Halon metering device, the
discharge head was not fully seated on cargo fire extinguisher
containers having certain serial numbers. The threads in the discharge
neck were not re-tapped after the discharge disc was welded resulting
in an undersized thread, which prevented the Halon metering device from
being fully seated. This will result in an increased Halon mass flow
rate through the metering device during discharge, which could reduce
the duration of the Halon flow.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require the inspection of cargo
fire extinguisher container serial numbers and the replacement of the
affected containers, and to limit the installation of affected parts.
The FAA is issuing this AD to address an increased Halon mass flow rate
through the metering device during discharge, which could reduce the
duration of the Halon flow. The unsafe condition, if not addressed,
when combined with a cargo fire, could lead to a reduction in the fire
extinguishing and suppression capabilities of the fire protection
system.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1040.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received a comment from the Air Line Pilots Association,
International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.
    The FAA received an additional comment from MHI RJ Aviation ULC.
The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's
response.

Request for Latest Service Bulletin Revision

    MHI RJ Aviation ULC stated paragraphs (g), (h), and (k)(2)(i) of
the proposed AD refer to MHIRJ Service Bulletin 670BA-26-014, dated
July 28, 2022. The commenter explained that the current revision is at
Revision A, dated December 23, 2022, and has been accepted by Transport
Canada Continuing Airworthiness. The commenter requested that a credit
statement for the initial issue be added to the proposed AD.
    The commenter added that paragraph (h) of the proposed AD is
referring to Collins Service Bulletin Fire Extinguisher-26-A, dated
April 4, 2022. The commenter explained that the current revision is at
Revision 1, dated June 16, 2022. The commenter noted that since the
latest revision of the Collins service bulletin is also referenced in
MHIRJ Service Bulletin 670BA-26-014, Revision A, dated December 23,
2022, Collins Service Bulletin Fire Extinguisher-26-A, Revision 1,
dated June 16, 2022, should be referenced in paragraph (h) of the
proposed AD.
    The FAA partially agrees with the request. The FAA agrees that
MHIRJ Service Bulletin 670BA-26-014, Revision A, dated December 23,
2022, as the above-mentioned commentor noted, is the current revision
and should be referenced in this AD. The FAA has revised paragraphs
(g), (h), and (k)(2)(i) of this AD to add the latest service
information revision as an acceptable method of compliance.
Accordingly, the FAA disagrees that a credit paragraph is necessary.

Conclusion

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the
comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting
this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial
changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted
as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic
burden on any operator.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed MHIRJ Service Bulletin 670BA-26-014, dated July
28, 2022, and Revision A, dated December 23, 2022. This service
information specifies procedures for an inspection for the serial
numbers of the high rate of discharge (HRD) and low rate of discharge
(LRD) cargo fire extinguisher containers and the replacement of
affected cargo fire extinguisher containers. These documents are
distinct because MHIRJ Service Bulletin 670BA-26-014, Revision A, dated
December 23, 2022, added an alternative method to find the serial
numbers.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 597 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Labor cost                  Parts cost         Cost per product          Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 1 work-hour x $85 per hour =                 $0   Up to $85................  Up to $50,745.
 $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255....              $0             $255
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of
this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact
on affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

2023-19-08 MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Bombardier, Inc.): Amendment 39-22558; Docket No. FAA-2023-1040;
Project Identifier MCAI-2022-01512-T.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective November 9, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier Inc.) airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this AD.
    (1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702)
airplanes.
    (2) Model CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes.
    (3) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes.
    (4) Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes.
    (5) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 26, Fire
Protection.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a manufacturing quality escape
concerning the installation of the Halon metering device on certain
cargo fire extinguisher containers. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address an increased Halon mass flow rate through the metering
device during discharge, which could reduce the duration of the
Halon flow. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, when combined
with a cargo fire, could lead to a reduction in the fire
extinguishing and suppression capabilities of the fire protection
system.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection and Replacement

    Within 1,000 flight hours or 6 months, whichever occurs first
from the effective date of this AD, inspect the serial numbers of
the high rate of discharge (HRD) and low rate of discharge (LRD)
cargo fire extinguisher containers in accordance with Section 2.B.
of the Accomplishment Instructions of MHIRJ Service Bulletin 670BA-
26-014, dated July 28, 2022, or Revision A, dated December 23, 2022.
A review of airplane maintenance or equipment records is acceptable
in lieu of this inspection if the serial number of the HRD and LRD
cargo fire extinguisher containers can be conclusively determined
from that review.
    (1) If neither of the HRD or the LRD container serial numbers is
listed in Section 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of MHIRJ
Service Bulletin 670BA-26-014, dated July 28, 2022, or Revision A,
dated December 23, 2022, no further work is required by this
paragraph.
    (2) If the serial numbers of both the HRD and LRD containers are
listed in Section 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of MHIRJ
Service Bulletin 670BA-26-014, dated July 28, 2022, or Revision A,
dated December 23, 2022: Within 4,500 flight hours from the
effective date of this AD, replace the HRD and LRD cargo fire
extinguisher containers in accordance with Section 2.B. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of the MHIRJ Service Bulletin 670BA-26-
014, dated July 28, 2022, or Revision A, dated December 23, 2022.
    (3) If the serial number of either the HRD or the LRD container,
but not both, is listed in Section 2.B. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of MHIRJ Service Bulletin 670BA-26-014, July 28, 2022,
or Revision A, dated December 23, 2022: Within 8,800 flight hours
from the effective date of this AD, replace the affected HRD or LRD
cargo fire extinguisher container in accordance with Section 2.B. of
the Accomplishment Instructions of MHIRJ Service Bulletin 670BA-26-
014, dated July 28, 2022, or Revision A, dated December 23, 2022.

(h) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, it is prohibited to install
an HRD or LRD cargo fire extinguisher container with a serial number
listed in Section 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of MHIRJ
Service Bulletin 670BA-26-014, dated July 28, 2022, or Revision A,
dated December 23, 2022, unless the cargo fire extinguisher
container is ink-stamped with a circled ``G'' adjacent to the
nameplate, signifying the incorporation of Collins Service Bulletin
Fire Extinguisher-26-A, dated April 4, 2022, or Revision 1, dated
June 16, 2022.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
International Validation Branch, mail it to ATTN: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, at the address identified in
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD or email to: [email protected].
If mailing information, also submit information by email. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada or MHI RJ Aviation ULC's
Transport Canada Design

Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval
must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2022-66, dated December 8,
2022, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found
in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1040.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Gabriel Kim,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) MHIRJ Service Bulletin 670BA-26-014, dated July 28, 2022.
    (ii) MHIRJ Service Bulletin 670BA-26-014, Revision A, dated
December 23, 2022.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact MHI
RJ Aviation Group, Customer Response Center, 3655 Ave. des Grandes-
Tourelles, Suite 110, Boisbriand, Qu[eacute]bec J7H 0E2 Canada;
North America toll-free telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or direct-dial
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
website mhirj.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 22, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-22082 Filed 10-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


CLEAN AIR INTERSTATE RULE DOCKETING FORM NAME OF GROUP: X Cel Energy MEETING _____ X____ SPEECH _________ PHONE CALL __________

DATE: September 15, 2004 LOCATION OF MEETING/ SPEECH/ PHONE CALL: EPA, Washington DC PURPOSE OF MEETING/ SPEECH/ PHONE CALL: To discuss X Cel Energy's concerns regarding the Clean Air Interstate Rule ( CAIR). Discussion topics included CAIR coverage and modeling issues.

ATTENDEES:

From EPA: Michael O. Leavitt, Bill Wehrum, Bob Meyers Non EPA: Wayne Brunetti and John O'Donnell from X Cel Energy


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36042-36044]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15415]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0443; FRL-9321-2]

EPA Responses to State and Tribal 2008 Lead Designation
Recommendations: Notice of Availability and Public Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability and public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the EPA has posted its responses
to State and tribal designation recommendations for the 2008 Lead (Pb)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on its Internet Web
site. The EPA invites public comments on its responses during the
comment period specified in the DATES section. The EPA sent responses
directly to the states and tribes on or about June 15, 2011, and
intends to make final designation determinations for the 2008 Pb NAAQS
by October 14, 2011.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2011. Please
refer to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for additional information on the
comment period.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2009-
0443, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0443.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0443.
     Mail: Air Docket, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-
0443, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0443. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be confidential business information or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be confidential business information or otherwise protected
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA is unable to read your comment and cannot
contact you for clarification due to technical difficulties, the EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's
public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on
submitting comments, go to Section II of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the Internet and will be

publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions concerning this
action, please contact Rhonda Wright, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Planning Division, C539-04,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA Region 1, please
contact Robert McConnell, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA Region 2,
please contact Mazeeda Khan, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA Region 3,
please contact Melissa Linden, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA Region
4, please contact Lynorae Benjamin, U.S. EPA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA
Region 5, please contact Andy Chang, U.S. EPA, telephone (312) 886-
0258, e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA
Region 6, please contact Guy Donaldson, U.S. EPA, telephone (214) 665-
7242, e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the EPA
Region 7, please contact Stephanie Doolan, U.S. EPA, telephone (913)
551-7719, e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding
the EPA Region 8, please contact Kevin Leone, U.S. EPA, telephone (303)
312-6227, e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the
EPA Region 9, please contact Ginger Vagenas, U.S. EPA, telephone (415)
972-3964, e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For questions regarding the
EPA Region 10, please contact Steve Body, U.S. EPA, telephone (206)
553-0782, e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Purpose

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit public comments from
interested parties other than states and tribes on the EPA's recent
responses to the State and tribal designation recommendations for the
2008 Pb NAAQS. These responses can be found on the EPA's Internet Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/leaddesignations and also in the public
docket for Pb designations at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0443. Clean
Air Act (CAA) section 107(d) provides a process for designations that
involves recommendations by states and tribes to the EPA and responses
from the EPA to those parties, prior to the EPA promulgating final
designations and boundaries. The EPA is not required under CAA section
107(d) to seek public comment during the designation process, but is
electing to do so for the 2008 Pb NAAQS in order to gather additional
information for the EPA to consider before making final designations.
The EPA invites public comment on its responses to states and tribes
during the 30-day comment period provided in this notice. Due to the
statutory timeframe for promulgating designations set out in CAA
section 107(d), the EPA will not be able to consider any comments
submitted after July 21, 2011. This notice and opportunity for public
comment does not affect any rights or obligations of any state, tribe
or the EPA which might otherwise exist pursuant to CAA section 107(d).
    Please refer to the ADDRESSES section in this document for specific
instructions on submitting comments and locating relevant public
documents.
    As required under CAA section 107(d), the EPA has identified five
areas as not meeting the 2008 Pb NAAQS and will be designating these
areas as nonattainment. The EPA is proposing that all other areas be
designated as unclassifiable/attainment. In establishing nonattainment
area boundaries, the EPA is required to include any nearby area that is
contributing to the area that does not meet that standard. We are
particularly interested in receiving comments, supported by relevant
information, if you believe that a specific geographic area that the
EPA is proposing to identify as a nonattainment area should not be
categorized by the CAA section 107(d) criteria as nonattainment, or if
you believe that a specific area not proposed by the EPA to be
identified as a nonattainment area should in fact be categorized as
nonattainment using the CAA section 107(d) criteria. Please be as
specific as possible in supporting your views.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Instructions for Submitting Public Comments

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

1. Submitting Confidential Business Information.
    Do not submit this information to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be confidential business information. For
confidential business information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to
the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as confidential
business information and then identify electronically within the disk
or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as confidential
business information. In addition to one complete version of the
comment that includes information claimed as confidential business
information, a copy of the comment that does not contain the
information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto
Morales, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Mail
Code C404-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-
0880, e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. OAR-
2009-0443.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.

III. Background

    On October 15, 2008, the EPA substantially strengthened the primary
NAAQS for Pb to provide increased protection against adverse health
effects associated with exposure to Pb in at-risk groups, especially
children. The revised primary NAAQS was lowered from the 1.5 micrograms
per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)

level set in 1978, to a level of 0.15 [mu]g/m\3\. To provide increased
protection against Pb-related welfare effects, the EPA revised the
secondary NAAQS to be identical in all respects to the revised primary
NAAQS. The EPA also established new criteria for siting ambient Pb
monitors and new data collection requirements. The EPA determined that
the pre-existing ambient Pb monitoring network was inadequate for
determining whether many areas are meeting the revised Pb NAAQS.
Monitors meeting the new network siting requirements were to begin
operation January 1, 2010.
    The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS is contained in CAA section 107(d) (42 U.S.C. 7407).
    The CAA requires the EPA to complete the initial designation
process within 2 years of promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. If the
Administrator has insufficient information to make these designations,
the EPA has the authority to extend the designation process by up to 1
year. In light of the new monitoring network, the EPA is completing the
Pb designations in two rounds. In the first round, published on
November 16, 2010, the EPA designated as ``nonattainment'' 16 areas as
violating the 2008 Pb NAAQS based on data from the pre-2010 monitoring
network. For all other areas, the EPA extended the deadline for
designations by up to 1 year so that data from the newly deployed
monitors can be considered in making appropriate designation decisions.
States previously submitted air quality recommendations including
appropriate boundaries within 1 year of promulgation of the NAAQS
(tribes are not required to submit recommendations, but the EPA
encourages their participation in the designations process), as
required by the CAA. They were given an opportunity to update their
recommendation letters for those remaining areas for our consideration
in the second round of designations by December 15, 2010. By no later
than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, the EPA is required
to notify states or tribes of any intended modification to an area
designation or boundary recommendation that the EPA deems necessary. On
or about June 15, 2011, the EPA notified states and tribes of its
intended area designations for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. States and tribes now
have an opportunity to demonstrate why they believe a modification
proposed by the EPA may be inappropriate. In these responses, the EPA
has encouraged states and tribes to provide comments and additional
information for consideration by the EPA in finalizing designations.
The EPA intends to make final designation determinations for the 2008
Pb NAAQS by October 14, 2011.

IV. Internet Web Site for Rulemaking Information

    The EPA has also established a Web site for this rulemaking at
http://www.epa.gov/leaddesignations. The Web site includes the EPA's
State and tribal designation recommendations, information supporting
the EPA's preliminary designation decisions, as well as the rulemaking
actions and other related information that the public may find useful.

    Dated: June 15, 2011.
Mary Eileen Henigin,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2011-15415 Filed 6-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 23

[Docket       Docket OST-97-2550;  Notice       ]

RIN  2105-AD521

Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Airport
Concessions

AGENCY:  Office of the Secretary, DOT

ACTION:  Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM)

SUMMARY:   This SNPRM seeks further comment on the issue of business
size standards for the Department of Transportation’s airport
concession disadvantaged business enterprise (ACDBE) program.  It also
requests comment on issues such as additional measures to combat fraud
and abuse in the program and to provide additional flexibility for
airports in implementing the program.

COMMENT CLOSING DATE:   Comments should be submitted to the docket by
[insert date 90 days from date of publication].  Late-filed comments
will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES:   Comments should be sent to Docket Clerk, Attn: Docket No.
OST-97-2550, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Room
PL401, Washington DC, 20590.  For the convenience of persons wishing to
review the docket, it is requested that comments be sent in triplicate.
Persons wishing their comments to be acknowledged should enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard with their comments.  The docket clerk
will date stamp the postcard and return it to the sender.  Comments may
be reviewed at the above address from 9:00 a.m. through 5:30 p.m. Monday
through Friday.  Commenters may also submit their comments
electronically.  Instructions for electronic submission may be found at
the following web address:   HYPERLINK http://dms.dot.gov/search/.
http://dms.dot.gov/submit/.  The public may also review docketed
comments electronically.  The following web address provides
instructions and access to the DOT electronic docket:   HYPERLINK
http://dms.dot.gov/search/.  http://dms.dot.gov/search/. .

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Robert C. Ashby, Deputy Assistant
General Counsel for Regulation and Enforcement, Department of
Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 10424, Washington, DC  20590,
phone numbers<PHONE_NUMBER> (voice),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax), (202)
755-7687 (TTY<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

	In today’s Federal Register, the Department of Transportation
published a final rule revising 49 CFR Part 23, the regulation governing
the airport concessions disadvantaged business enterprise (ACDBE)
program.    This SNPRM seeks comment on the issue of business size
standards to be used in Part 23 and also asks for comment on three two
other issues matters concerning implementation of the program on which
we have not previously sought comment.

Business Size Standards

	Size standards in this ACDBE regulation are important for a number of
reasons.  They implement the statutory requirement that participants be
small businesses.  They provide a means to ensure that participation in
DBE programs is not necessarily foreverof indefinite duration:  if a
firm grows to exceed size standards, it “graduates” fromceases to be
eligible for the program.  They are calibrated to help meet the
objectives of the program, including permitting ACDBE firms to compete
in the airport concessions market.

In Part 26, businesses seeking DBE certification must, by statute, meet
SBA size standards and an additional statutory $17.42million dollar cap
on average annual gross receipts.  These requirements do not apply to
Part 23, since the ACDBE statute gives the Secretary discretion to set
size standards for concessions.  For most airport concessions, the size
standard under current Part 23 is $30 million average annual gross
receipts.

	In the 2000 SNPRM proposing revisions to Part 23, the Department
suggested adjusting the size standards for inflation (e.g., from $30
million to approximately $33 million) and to create new size standards
for management contractors ($5 million) and car dealers (500 employees).
 Many airport comments supported a size standard higher than $33
million, especially for advertising, but did not suggest an alternative.
 One ACDBE suggested using a higher figure, or an employee number (as in
car dealers).  One airport suggested trying to match size standards more
precisely to the types of businesses involved, while another thought it
was confusing not to apply the Part 26 $17.42 million dollar cap to
concessions.  A consultant asked for more detail, especially with
respect to the affiliation rule.

For parking management, one airport suggested $12 million rather than $5
million, while another said there was confusion between how these two
figures were meant to be applied.  Three airports and a car rental trade
association supported the 500-employee standard for car dealers, while
another large airport said it was too high.

In December 2002, the Department responded to a petition from an airport
advertising firm to alter the size standards further (67 FR 76327;
December 2, 2002).   The petitioner argued that because some types of
concessionaires pay higher concession or lease fees to airports than
others, size standards should be adjusted to equalize the situation of
these different businesses.  The NPRM proposed two options for
equalizing the size standards to take differing concession fees into
accounts, one of which would have increased the size standard
significantly for most categories of businesses and the other of which
would have meant smaller increases for some types of businesses and
modest decreases for others.

The Department seeks additional comment on certain size standard issues.
  One of these is the “equity” issue raised in the December 2002
NPRM.   The Department received 50 comments on this NPRM.  Most were
from airport operators.  A sizeable majority of the airport comments
supported the proposal, particularly the option that would have raised
the size standards significantly.  Four ACDBE firms and associations
also commented in favor of the proposal.  Supporters generally believed
that the proposed change would create a “level playing field” among
types of ACDBEs.  Some airports, including most of the large airports
that responded, opposed the proposal or thought further study would be
necessary.  A state DOT and an individual commenter also took this
position.  These commenters’ reservations about the proposal centered
on concerns that the proposal would make some size standards
unreasonably high, lead to other inequities among types of businesses,
or were based on inadequate or incomplete data.

After reviewing the comments and thinking further about the proposal, we
have concluded that we should not adopt either of the specific options
we proposed.  One could raise the basic size standard too high, and the
other could result in excluding some presently certified firms by
lowering some current size standards.  Both are based on data that
pertains to several categories of firms at large airports, but we have
no data about other categories of firms or practices at smaller
airports.  We are also concerned that facially very different size
standards for different categories of business could lead to perceptions
of unfairness and difficult administrative or legal decisions about the
category in which a particular firm belongs.

However, the evident differences in concession or lease fees among types
of businesses do raise a fairness issue.   One way of addressing this
issue would be to keep the existing size standards but to subtract from
a firm’s gross receipts the concession or lease fees it pays to the
airport for the privilege of doing business.    For example, suppose a
concessionaire has annual gross receipts of $30 million.  It pays 20
percent of its gross receipts ($6 million) to the airport in concession
fees.  Consequently, for purposes of calculating whether the firm meets
the size standard, the firm’s receipts for that year would be valued
at $24 million.   The Department seeks comment on this approach.

We also seek further comment on adjusting the dollar size standard –
which has remained in place since 1992 -- for inflation.  In the 2000
SNPRM, as noted above, we proposed an inflationary adjustment to $33
million for most ACDBEs, a proposal to which commenters did not object.
 However, we now seek comment on a different calculation, using a method
similar to the one we use for inflationary adjustments to Part 26 size
standards.  Using this method, we calculate that the adjusted standards
would be $40.57  million (in place of the former $30 million standard
for most businesses) and $54.1 million (in place of the former $40
million standard) for car rental companies.

In arriving at these numbers, the DOT used a Department of Commerce
price index to make a current inflation adjustment.  The Department of
Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis prepares constant dollar
estimates of state and local government purchases of goods and services
by deflating current dollar estimates by suitable price indicies.  These
indicies include purchases of durable and non-durable goods, and other
services.  Using these price deflators enables the Department to adjust
dollar figures for past years’ inflation. Given the nature of DOT's
ACDBE Program, adjusting the gross receipts cap in the same manner in
which inflation adjustments are made to the costs of state and local
government purchases of goods and services is simple, accurate and fair.

The inflation rate on purchases by state and local governments for the
current year is calculated by dividing the price deflator for the fourth
quarter of 2003 (109.546) by 1992’s third quarter price deflator
(80.997).  The third quarter of 1992 is used because that is when the
Department established the current size limitations.  The result of the
calculation is 1.35247, which represents an inflation rate of 35.25%
from the third quarter of 1992 through the fourth quarter of 2003.
Multiplying the $30,000,000 figure by 1.35247 equals $40,574,100, which
will be rounded off to the nearest $10,000, or $40,570,000.  Multiplying
the $40,000,000 figure by 1.35247 equals $54,098,800, which will be
rounded off to the nearest $10,000, or $54,100,000.

We also seek comment on the alternative of making the size standard of
Part 23 equivalent to that of Part 26, for the reasons of enhancing the
narrow tailoring of Part 23 and to avoid potential confusion from having
two different size standards for different parts of the Department’s
overall DBE program.  This alternative would rely on SBA size standards,
and might or might not include the gross receipts cap that Congress
imposed in the highway/transit program DBE provision (currently
calculated as $17.42 million, and subject to periodic inflationary
adjustments).

On March 19, 2004, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued a
notice of proposed rulemaking to restructure its small business size
standards (69 FR 13130).  The basic thrust of the SBA proposal is to
replace most size standards based on gross receipts with standards based
on the number of employees.   For example, the size standard for hotels
would be 100 employees.  A 50-employee standard would apply to
restaurants, advertising agencies, beauty/barber shops, taxi companies,
new car dealers, and most specialty retail stores.

One additional idea on which the The Department believes is that of that
this proposalcreating an employee number-based size standard, in place
of the current dollar-based standards.    may have considerable merit as
applied to the airport concession industrySuch an approach and could
make ACDBE size standards simpler and fairer.   For example, using an
employee number-based standard would apparently moot the issue raised in
the 2002 NPRM concerning concession fees paid to airports.  Likewise,
using an employee number-based standard would eliminate questions about
the relationship between the income of businesses located on airports
and similar businesses located elsewhere.  While DOT is not required to
use SBA standards, harmonizing ACDBE standards with those used in other
small business programs would avoid confusion and inconsistency.

Of course, parties interested in the ACDBE program have not yet had the
opportunity to comment to the Department on how, if at all, to adapt
this SBA concept to the ACDBE rule.   That is a primary reason why we
are issuing this SNPRM.    In addition to considering comments on this
SNPRM, it will be important for the Department to take into account the
content of the final rule that SBA will issue based on its March 2004
NPRM.

There is a relatively limited number of types of businesses that perform
as ACDBEs, offering the possibility of creating a set of employee number
standards specific to these types of businesses relatively readily.  In
any case, the task would have a narrower scope than the Small Business
Administration’s recent efforts to establish employee number standards
for the full range of small businesses.  We seek comment on whether
pursuing such an approach is desirable and, if so, what reasonable
employee number standards might be for ACDBEs.  Is it likely that
employee numbers of concession businesses differ from those in other
contexts?   In considering the prospective application of employee
number-based size standards to the ACDBE program, we seek comment on
whether there is any reason to believe that employee numbers of airport
concessionaires differ from those in other business sectors.  IsFor
example, is it likely that a restaurant or specialty retail store on an
airport concourse will have a different number of employees from the
same type of restaurant or store in a shopping mall?    Will the
employee numbers proposed in the SBA NPRM, if applied to the ACDBE
program, unreasonably limit the growth of ACDBEs or cause existing
ACDBEs to become ineligible?

If an employee number-based standard were adopted inproposed for Part
23, would it make more sense to apply the standard on an
airport-by-airport basis or to the total employee numbers of a company
that served multiple airports?  For example, suppose a chain of
bookshops retail stores seeking ACDBE certification has locations at six
airports, and each location employees 10 people.  If the size standard
for the business were 50 employees, For ACDBE certification purpose,
should the certifying office airports look at this business as one
company with 60 employees, exceeding the size standard, or six stores
with 10 workers per store, each of which individually meets the
standard?

If the Department does not adopt an employee number-based standard, it
is likely that the Department will retain a gross receipts-based
standard.  In that event, we will need to address certain issues that
have already been raised previous notices.   One of these is the
“equity” issue raised in the December 2002 NPRM.   The Department
received 50 comments on this NPRM.  Most were from airport operators.  A
sizeable majority of the airport comments supported the proposal,
particularly the option that would have raised the size standards
significantly.  Four ACDBE firms and associations also commented in
favor of the proposal.  Supporters generally believed that the proposed
change would create a “level playing field” among types of ACDBEs.
Some airports, including most of the large airports that responded,
opposed the proposal or thought further study would be necessary.  A
state DOT and an individual commenter also took this position.  These
commenters’ reservations about the proposal centered on concerns that
the proposal would make some size standards unreasonably high, lead to
other inequities among types of businesses, or were based on inadequate
or incomplete data.

After reviewing the comments and thinking further about the proposal, we
have concluded that we should not adopt either of the specific options
we proposed.  One could raises the basic size standard too high, and the
other could result in excluding some presently certified firms by
lowering some current size standards.  Both are based on data that
pertains to several categories of firms at large airports, but we have
no data about other categories of firms or practices at smaller
airports.  We are also concerned that facially very different size
standards for different categories of business could lead to perceptions
of unfairness and difficult administrative or legal decisions about the
category in which a particular firm belongs.

However, we are persuaded that the evident differences in concession or
lease fees among types of businesses do present a fairness issue that we
should address.   The most straightforward way of addressing would be to
keep the existing size standards but to subtract from a firm’s gross
receipts the concession or lease fees it pays to the airport for the
privilege of doing business.    For example, suppose a concessionaire
has annual gross receipts of $30 million.  It pays 20 percent of its
gross receipts ($6 million) to the airport in concession fees.
Consequently, for purposes of calculating whether the firm meets the
size standard, the firm’s receipts for that year would be valued at
$24 million.

The Department seeks comment on this approach.

We also seek comment on adjusting the dollar size standard – which has
remained in place since 1992 -- for inflation.  Commenters to the
Department’s NPRMs have not objected to such an adjustment.   If we do
adjust the size standard, we believe that reasonable adjusted standards
would be $40.57  million (in place of the former $30 million standard
for most businesses) and $54.1 million (in place of the former $40
million standard for car rental companies).

In arriving at these numbers, the DOT used a Department of Commerce
price index to make a current inflation adjustment.  The Department of
Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis prepares constant dollar
estimates of state and local government purchases of goods and services
by deflating current dollar estimates by suitable price indicies.  These
indicies include purchases of durable and non-durable goods, and other
services.  Using these price deflators enables the Department to adjust
dollar figures for past years’ inflation. Given the nature of DOT's
DBE Program, adjusting the gross receipts cap in the same manner in
which inflation adjustments are made to the costs of state and local
government purchases of goods and services is simple, accurate and fair.

The inflation rate on purchases by state and local governments for the
current year is calculated by dividing the price deflator for the fourth
quarter of 2003 (109.546) by 1992’s third quarter price deflator
(80.997).  The third quarter of 1992 is used because that is when the
Department established the current size limitations.  The result of the
calculation is 1.35247, which represents an inflation rate of 35.25%
from the third quarter of 1992 through the fourth quarter of 2003.
Multiplying the $30,000,000 figure by 1.35247 equals $40,574,100, which
will be rounded off to the nearest $10,000, or $40,570,000.  Multiplying
the $40,000,000 figure by 1.35247 equals $54,098,800, which will be
rounded off to the nearest $10,000, or $54,100,000.

Additional Provisions to Combat Fraud and Abuse

	As noted in the preamble to the final Part 23 rule issued today, the
Department’s Office of Inspector General has focused considerable
effort and attention on the need to prevent fraud and abuse in the ACDBE
program.  Parts 23 and 26 already contain a number of provisions
designed to prevent fraud and abuse.  For example, the ownership and
control certification standards (§§26.69 – 26.71) include detailed
instructions to UCPs and recipients on how to address eligibility
issues.  Are there additional specific provisions the Department should
add to address particular issues affecting the ownership and control of
types of businesses or business arrangements common in the ACDBE
program?

	Likewise, the certification process contains various safeguards against
fraud and abuse.  Applicants must attest, under penalty of perjury, to
the accuracy and truthfulness of information on their applications
(§26.83(c)(7)(ii)).

Certified DBEs must inform the recipient within 30 days of material
changes in their circumstances that may affect their continued
eligibility (§26.83(i)).   Certified DBEs must also provide the
recipient an annual “affidavit of no change” affirming that there
have not been changes in their circumstances that would call into
question their continued eligibility (§26.83(j).   This affidavit
specifically covers matters of business size and PNW.  All these
provisions apply to ACDBEs under Part 23 as well as other DBEs under
Part 26.

The Department seeks comment on whether there is other information that
ACDBEs should report to airports that would enable airports and the
Department to better monitor the eligibility of ACDBEs as well as the
ongoing performance of ACDBEs in the concession business.   For example,
are there additional reports that airports should receive concerning the
actual performance by ACDBEs of the work for which credit toward ACDBE
goals is being claimed?  Should there be additional reporting
responsibilities for “prime” concessionaires as well as ACDBEs
themselves?  Should ACDBEs be required to report on the specific
commercially useful functions they are performing on a given contract?
Should they report, on an annual basis, their number of employees,
revenue dollars, and PNW to the airport, UCP, or the FAA?

Additional Flexibility

	The exemption and program waiver processes of §26.15 also apply to
Part 23 and the ACDBE program.  These provisions are designed to permit
airports and other recipients to depart from the specific requirements
of DBE regulations when circumstances warrant.  The Department seeks
comment on whether there should be any additional provisions, either
applying generally to Part 23 or applying to specific portions of Part
23, to give greater flexibility to airports and other participants in
meeting ACDBE requirements.   For example, are there categories of
airports that should be excepted from one or more requirements of the
rule?  Should the $200,000 concessions revenue threshold for submitting
overall goals be raised?  If airports consistently meet overall goals
over a given period of years, should they be excused from future goal
setting submissions, at least as long as DBE participation continued at
the level of their recent goals?  We

We will consider suggestions of for such provisions.

	With respect to flexibility in goal setting, the Department wishes to
raise for further comment the idea of establishing car rental goals on a
national basis for car rental companies that have a nationwide presence.
 Under this concept, modeled on the handling of goals for transit
vehicle manufacturers under Part 26, a national-scope car rental company
would establish a national goal for ACDBE participation in its airport
business, using the goal setting provisions of Part 23 and obtaining FAA
approval for the nationwide goal.  Then the car rental company would
submit to each airport a certification that it had such an FAA-approved
nationwide goal.  This approach would reduce administrative burdens both
on airports – who would not have to calculate car rental goals at all
for national-scope car rental companies – and on the car rental
companies themselves.  It would also recognize that the car rental
market is, in large measure, a national market.  Local airports would
not be able to set locally-derived goals for national-scope car rental
companies under this concept, however.  We also seek comment on whether,
if the Department adopts this concept, there are other types of business
to which it might reasonably apply (e.g., hotels).

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

	This SNPRM is nonsignificant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and
the Department of Transportation’s Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
  The SNPRM continues the discussion of size standards, one issue from
today’s broader, but also nonsignificant, final rule to implement the
ACDBE program.   While the resolution of size standards issue may help
certain individual businesses and harm others, we do not anticipate any
across-the-board significant economic impacts from the clarification and
further development of size standards.  The other issues raised in the
SNPRM are administrative in nature and should not have significant
impacts on any regulated parties.

The rule does not have Federalism impacts sufficient to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

	The Department certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.  The rule
clearly affects small entities:  ACDBEs are, by definition, small
businesses.  However, as mentioned above, the economic effect of the
matters discussed in the SNPRM on these small entities is not likely to
be significant.    In other respects, compared to the existing rule, the
matters discussed in the SNPRM should not have noticeable incremental
economic effects on small businesses.

	There are a number of other statutes and Executive Orders that apply to
the rulemaking process that the Department considers in all rulemakings.
 However, none of them are relevant to this SNPRM.  These include the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (which does not apply to
nondiscrimination/civil rights requirements), the National Environmental
Policy Act, E.O. 12630 (concerning property rights), E.O. 12988
(concerning civil justice reform), and E.O. 13045 (protection of
children from environmental risks).

ISSUED THIS       DAY OF            , 20042005, AT WASHINGTON, D.C.

							(signed)

						______________________________

						Norman Y. Mineta

						Secretary of Transportation

 PAGE

 PAGE   11


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42522-42523]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17547]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67433; File No. SR-BX-2012-052]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change With Respect to the Amendment of the By-
Laws of Its Parent Corporation, The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ
OMX'')

July 13, 2012.
    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 July 11, 2012, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items 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

    The Exchange proposes a rule change with respect to the amendment
of the by-laws of its parent corporation, The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.
(``NASDAQ OMX''). The text of the proposed rule change is available at
the Exchange's Web site, at the Exchange's principal office, 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
    NASDAQ OMX is proposing amendments to provisions of its by-laws
pertaining to the composition of the Management Compensation Committee
of the NASDAQ OMX Board of Directors. Specifically, NASDAQ OMX is
amending the compositional requirements of its Management Compensation
Committee in Section 4.13 to replace a requirement that the committee
be composed of a majority of Non-Industry Directors \3\ with a

requirement that the number of Non-Industry Directors on the committee
equal or exceed the number of Industry Directors. Thus, in the case of
a committee composed of four Directors, the current by-law provides
that only one Director may be an Industry Director, while the amended
by-law would allow up to two Directors to be Industry Directors. The
proposed compositional requirement for the committee with regard to the
balance between Industry Directors and Non-Industry Directors would be
the same as that already provided for in the by-laws with respect to
the Executive Committee and the Nominating and Governance Committee, as
well as the full Board of Directors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An ``Industry Director'' means a Director (excluding any two
officers of NASDAQ OMX, selected at the sole discretion of the
Board, amongst those officers who may be serving as Directors (the
``Staff Directors'')) who (1) is or has served in the prior three
years as an officer, director, or employee of a broker or dealer,
excluding an outside director or a director not engaged in the day-
to-day management of a broker or dealer; (2) is an officer, director
(excluding an outside director), or employee of an entity that owns
more than ten percent of the equity of a broker or dealer, and the
broker or dealer accounts for more than five percent of the gross
revenues received by the consolidated entity; (3) owns more than
five percent of the equity securities of any broker or dealer, whose
investments in brokers or dealers exceed ten percent of his or her
net worth, or whose ownership interest otherwise permits him or her
to be engaged in the day-to-day management of a broker or dealer;
(4) provides professional services to brokers or dealers, and such
services constitute 20 percent or more of the professional revenues
received by the Director or 20 percent or more of the gross revenues
received by the Director's firm or partnership; (5) provides
professional services to a director, officer, or employee of a
broker, dealer, or corporation that owns 50 percent or more of the
voting stock of a broker or dealer, and such services relate to the
director's, officer's, or employee's professional capacity and
constitute 20 percent or more of the professional revenues received
by the Director or 20 percent or more of the gross revenues received
by the Director's firm or partnership; or (6) has a consulting or
employment relationship with or provides professional services to
NASDAQ OMX or any affiliate thereof or to the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'') or has had any such relationship or
provided any such services at any time within the prior three years.
    A ``Non-Industry Director'' means a Director (excluding the
Staff Directors) who is (1) a Public Director; (2) an officer,
director, or employee of an issuer of securities listed on a
national securities exchange operated by any subsidiary of NASDAQ
OMX that is a self-regulatory organization; or (3) any other
individual who would not be an Industry Director.
    A ``Public Director'' means a Director who has no material
business relationship with a broker or dealer, NASDAQ OMX or its
affiliates, or FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ OMX and the Exchange believe that the change will provide
greater flexibility to NASDAQ OMX with regard to populating a committee
that includes Directors with relevant expertise and that is not
excessively large in relation to the size of the full Board of
Directors, while continuing to ensure that Directors associated with
Exchange members and other broker-dealers do not exert disproportionate
influence of the governance of NASDAQ OMX. As required by NASDAQ Stock
Market Rule 5605(d), the committee would continue at all times to be
composed solely of Directors who are independent within the meaning of
that rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with Sections
6(b)(1) and (b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that the proposal
enables BX to be so organized and to have the capacity to be able to
carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply with and enforce
compliance by members and persons associated with members with
provisions of the Act, the rules and regulations thereunder, and BX
rules, and 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX believes that the change will provide greater flexibility to
NASDAQ OMX with regard to populating a committee that includes
Directors with relevant expertise and that is not excessively large in
relation to the size of the full Board of Directors, while continuing
to ensure that Directors associated with Exchange members and other
broker-dealers do not exert disproportionate influence of the
governance of NASDAQ OMX.

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.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change; or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-BX-2012-052 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-BX-2012-052. 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, 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; 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-BX-2012-052 and should be
submitted on or before August 9, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17547 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 130)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38372-38375]
[DOCID:fr07jy08-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0124]
RIN 2127-AK13

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Windshield Zone Intrusion

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes to rescind Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 219, ``Windshield zone intrusion.'' This proposed
action results from NHTSA's periodic review of its regulations to
determine whether a continuing safety need exists for the standard
under review. NHTSA tentatively concludes that the windshield zone
intrusion standard is no longer necessary because other FMVSSs are now
in place to meet the safety need that the standard had addressed.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the
Docket receives them not later than September 5, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket identified in the
heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: DOT Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should use the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket Management Facility at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Please see the Privacy Act heading under Rulemaking
Analyses and Notices.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to: http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
David Sutula, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, Light Duty Vehicle
Division at<PHONE_NUMBER>. His fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the
Chief Counsel at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her Fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at the following
address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Periodic Review of Federal Regulations

    NHTSA has long recognized the importance of regularly reviewing its
existing regulations to determine whether they need to be revised or
revoked. NHTSA undertakes reviews of its regulations under, inter alia,
the Department's 1979 Regulatory Policies and Procedures, under
Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' and under
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. section 501 et
seq.). In addition, NHTSA conducts reviews pursuant to internal
operating procedures. During a periodic review of its regulations,
NHTSA has identified FMVSS No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, as a
regulation that could possibly be removed as unnecessary.

Background of FMVSS No. 219

    The purpose of FMVSS No. 219 is to reduce crash injuries and
fatalities that result from occupants contacting vehicle components
displaced near or through the windshield. The standard applies to
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with
a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds)
or less, except for forward control vehicles, walk-in van-type vehicles
or to open-body-type vehicles with fold-down or removable windshields.
The final rule establishing FMVSS No. 219 was published on June 16,
1975 (40 FR 25462), and took effect on September 1, 1976.
    FMVSS No. 219 specifies limits on the displacement of vehicle parts
from outside the occupant compartment into the windshield area during a
48 kilometer per hour (km/h) (30 mile per hour (mph)) frontal barrier
crash test. The standard establishes a protected zone at the daylight
opening (DLO)

portion of the vehicle windshield. The protected zone is an area
encompassing the width of the windshield and protrudes about 76 mm from
the outer surface of the windshield. In the crash test, a protected
zone template cut or formed from Styrofoam is affixed to the vehicle so
that it delineates the protected zone and remains affixed throughout
the crash test. The standard specifies that in a 48 km/h (30 mph)
frontal rigid barrier crash test, no part of the vehicle outside the
occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components
designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate
the protected zone template to a depth of more than 6 mm (0.25 inches)
and no such part of a vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that
portion of the windshield, within the DLO, below the protected zone.
The standard was developed to decrease the likelihood of injury
resulting from the intrusion of a part of the vehicle, such as the
hood, into the occupant compartment through the windshield opening, or
into the zone slightly forward of the windshield aperture.

NHTSA's Review of FMVSS No. 219 and Its Proposal to Rescind

    The agency has tentatively concluded that the safety need that
FMVSS No. 219 addresses is being met by certain other FMVSSs. FMVSS No.
219 was necessary in 1975, when NHTSA had no safety standard in which
it specified crash testing to assess any hazards to which occupants
were exposed as a result of such intrusion. Manufacturers responded to
the standard to ameliorate windshield zone intrusions, and as a result
there has not been a compliance issue with FMVSS No. 219 since shortly
after its inception. Subsequently, in May 2000, NHTSA issued and
substantially enhanced FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, to
incorporate an unbelted test of 50th percentile male and 5th percentile
female dummies at 40 km/h (25 mph) and a belted test of those two dummy
sizes at 56 km/h (35 mph). We tentatively conclude that the dummy
performance requirements of FMVSS No. 208 frontal crash tests will
reflect any blunt impact injuries due to zone intrusions at the
windshield. Likewise, we tentatively conclude that the air bag will aid
in preventing any lacerative injuries due to zone intrusions at the
windshield, and so there is no continuing need for a standard to
specifically assess intrusion hazards to occupants from vehicle
components external to the vehicle compartment during a frontal crash.
    Because we believe that FMVSS No. 219 may be testing similar
aspects of safety as FMVSS No. 208, we are concerned that the former
may be redundant of the latter standard and may be imposing unnecessary
costs or burdens in the manufacture of motor vehicles. Moreover, FMVSS
No. 113, Hood Latch System, requires a hood latch system for all hoods,
and a second position on that system to reduce incidents of inadvertent
hood openings and to help limit displacement into the windshield area
of motor vehicle components during a crash. Thus, given both the effect
of FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 113 in limiting windshield zone
intrusion into the passenger area, we tentatively conclude that a
safety need no longer exists to maintain FMVSS No. 219 as a safety
standard. We thus propose rescinding the safety standard. NHTSA
tentatively concludes that if a final rule is issued rescinding the
standard, States would be free to regulate this aspect of performance
formerly occupied by FMVSS No. 219. Comments are requested on these
issues.

Lead Time

    We propose that if the change proposed in this NPRM is made final,
that it take effect 180 days after the publication of the final rule in
the Federal Register. Comment is requested on this proposed lead time.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to be
significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    This rulemaking would rescind FMVSS No. 219 Windshield Zone
Intrusion, in order to alleviate motor vehicle manufacturers from
requirements that may already be addressed by other Federal motor
vehicle safety standards, notably FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, and FMVSS No. 113, Hood Latch Systems.
    Any cost savings resulting from the rescission of FMVSS No. 219
would be so minimal that the savings cannot be calculated. FMVSS No.
219 specifies the same crash test conditions as the 30 mph test
condition in FMVSS No. 208. When NHTSA crash tests a vehicle to the
test conditions of FMVSS No. 208, the agency also assesses the
vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 219. NHTSA believes that vehicle
manufacturers that conduct FMVSS No. 208 crash testing are also
simultaneously testing vehicles to FMVSS No. 219. Because manufacturers
will continue to crash test vehicles to FMVSS No. 208, removing FMVSS
No. 219 would not result in a marked cost savings to manufacturers.
Rescinding FMVSS No. 219 would only result in minimal cost savings for
manufacturers as an assessment of the windshield zone intrusion would
no longer have to be made.

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposed rule pursuant to Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no
additional consultation with States, local governments or their
representatives is mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency
has concluded that the proposed rule does not have federalism
implications because the proposal does 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.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the preemptive effect
of today's proposed rule. As a general matter NHTSA rules can have
preemptive effect in at least two ways. First, the National Traffic and
Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemptive provision:
``When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter,
a State or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue
in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). This proposed rule, if made final, would result in
regulatory relief for motor vehicle manufacturers, and would have no
effect on the States or local governments. NHTSA tentatively concludes
that if the agency rescinds FMVSS No. 219, States would be free to
regulate this aspect of motor vehicle performance.
    Second, in addition to the express preemption noted above, the
Supreme Court has also recognized that State requirements imposed on
motor vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort
law, can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a
NHTSA safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the

Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes their State requirements
unenforceable. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861
(2000). NHTSA has not outlined such potential State requirements in
today's rulemaking, however, in part because this proposed rule, if
made final, would rescind FMVSS No. 219. We have tentatively concluded
that if NHTSA rescinds FMVSS No. 219, States would be free to regulate
this aspect of motor vehicle performance.

C. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we
have considered whether this proposed rule would have any retroactive
effect. We conclude that it would not have such an effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the State requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    The Head of the Agency has considered the effects of this
rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) and certifies that this proposal would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
statement of the factual basis for the certification is that since
NHTSA proposes to remove FMVSS No. 219, any small manufacturers of
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses would
be provided regulatory relief. Accordingly, the agency believes that
this proposal would at most, have a minimal beneficial cost effect for
small business manufacturers of motor vehicles subject to FMVSS No.
219.

E. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    NHTSA has determined that, if made final, this proposed rule would
not impose any ``collection of information'' burdens on the public,
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In
this NPRM, we propose to remove FMVSS No. 219, which has no collection
of information requirements associated with it. This rulemaking action
would not impose any filing or recordkeeping requirements on any
manufacturer or any other party.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). There are no available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards that we can use in this notice of proposed
rulemaking.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). This proposal would not result in costs of $100 million
or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, this proposal is not subject
to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

I. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:

--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this NPRM.

J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

Public Participation

How Do I Prepare and Submit Comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be
more than 15 pages long.\1\ We established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents

to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's
guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/
DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.

How Can I Be Sure That My Comments Were Received?

    If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.

How Do I Submit Confidential Business Information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be confidential business information,
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 49 CFR 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth above.

Will the Agency Consider Late Comments?

    We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date.
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should
consider that information for the final rule.
    If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How Can I Read the Comments Submitted by Other People?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 am and 5 pm Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, it is proposed that the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (49 CFR part 571), be amended as set
forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

Sec.  571.219  [Removed]

    2. Section 571.219 is removed and reserved.

    Issued on: June 30, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E8-15210 Filed 7-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 203 (Friday, October 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64332-64333]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25684]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meeting
related to the transmission planning activities of ISO New England
Inc., New York Independent System Operator, Inc., and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.:

Electric System Planning Working Group

October 24, 2012, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time
November 1, 2012, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time
December 14, 2012, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time

Joint Inter-Regional Planning Task Force/Electric System Planning
Working Group

November 29, 2012, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Local Time
December 18, 2012, 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time

Management Committee

October 31, 2012, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time
November 28, 2012, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time
December 19, 2012, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time
January 30, 2013, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time
February 27, 2013, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time
March 27, 2013, 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Local Time

    The above-referenced Joint Inter-Regional Planning Task Force/
Electric System Planning Working Group and Management Committee
meetings will be held at: NYISO's offices, Rensselaer, NY.
    The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at www.nyiso.com.
    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER08-1281, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-718, New York Independent System Operator, Inc.

    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 12, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25684 Filed 10-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P