5864 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2013 / Notices 

aircraft at Part 139 airports was nine 

times higher than the reported strike 

rate for GA aircraft at NPIAS GA 

airports. ‘‘GA aircraft’’ is defined in the 

study as non-commercial private, 

business, or government aircraft—see 

‘‘Trends in Wildlife Strike Reporting,’’ 

section 4.3.3. However, the damaging 

strike rate for GA aircraft at Part 139 

airports was three times higher than it 

was for GA aircraft at NPIAS GA 

airports. It is notable that of the 49 

reported civil aircraft destroyed or 

damaged beyond repair because of 

wildlife strikes in the U.S. from 1990– 

2008, 33 (67 percent) occurred on or 

near GA airports. 

According to the study, the number of 

Part 139 airports reporting at least one 

wildlife strike increased from 234 (42 

percent of the 552 airports) in 1990 to 

333 (60 percent) in 2008. The overall 

reported strike rates at individual Part 

139 airports were 15 to 47 times higher 

compared to NPIAS non-certificated 

airports in each year (1990–2009). The 

average strike rate of all Part 139 

airports compared to NPIAS noncertificated airports was 23 times higher 

during this same time. Although this 

may be explained by a different mix of 

aircraft using these two different 

categories of airports, the magnitude of 

the difference indicates that actual 

reporting rates for NPIAS GA airports 

are much lower than for Part 139 

airports. This is supported in the study 

by an examination of reporting rates for 

damaging strikes where the magnitude 

of difference is much less. Whereas Part 

139 airports had a 23-fold higher 

average reporting rate for all strikes 

compared to NPIAS GA airports, the 

reporting rate for damaging strikes was 

only 5-fold higher. Thus, even though 

fewer total damaging strikes are 

reported compared to Part 139 airports, 

there is more of a tendency at NPIAS 

GA airports to report damaging strikes 

compared to non-damaging strikes. As 

stated above, increased monitoring of 

wildlife conditions and reporting of 

even non-damaging strikes are 

important to prevent dangerous 

conditions and damaging strikes before 

they occur. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 10, 

2013. 

Elliott Black, 

Acting Director, Office of Airport Planning 

and Programming. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00778 Filed 1–24–13; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use 

Assurance: Outagamie County 

Regional Airport (ATW), Appleton, WI 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with 

respect to land. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) is considering a 

proposal from Outagamie County 

Regional Airport (Sponsor), Appleton, 

WI, to release a 77.5-acre parcel of land 

from the federal obligation dedicating it 

to aeronautical use and to authorize this 

parcel to be used for revenue-producing, 

nonaeronautical purposes. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 27, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Mr. Daniel J. Millenacker, 

Program Manager, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Airports District Office, 

6020 28th Avenue South, Room 102, 

Minneapolis, MN 55450–2706. 

Telephone Number (612) 253–4635; 

FAX Number (612) 253–4611; email 

address Daniel.J.Millenacker 

@FAA.GOV. Documents reflecting this 

FAA action may be reviewed at the 

following locations: Federal Aviation 

Administration, Minneapolis Airports 

District Office, 6020 28th Avenue South, 

Room 102, Minneapolis, MN 55450– 

2706; or Office of Airport Director, 

Outagamie County Regional Airport, 

W6390 Challenger Drive, Suite 201, 

Appleton, WI 54914. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Daniel J. Millenacker, Program Manager, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 

Airports District Office, 6020 28th 

Avenue South, Room 102, Minneapolis, 

MN 55450–2706. Telephone Number 

(612) 253–4635; FAX Number (612) 

253–4611; email address 

Daniel.J.Millenacker@FAA.GOV. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The parcel 

of land is located along the southern 

boundary of Outagamie County Regional 

Airport. The parcel will be used for 

construction and operation of a Public 

Safety Training Center (PSTC) by the 

Fox Valley Technical College (FVTC). 

The PSTC is an educational campus 

intended to provide degree/diploma/ 

certificate programs to students enrolled 

in public safety disciplines including 

fire protection, law enforcement, and 

emergency medical services. 

No airport landside or airside 

facilities are presently located on this 

parcel nor is airport development 

contemplated in the future. 

Development of the parcel for airside or 

landside operations is largely restricted 

due to significant grade differences 

which exist on the land surface. Current 

use of the surface of the parcel is for 

agricultural purposes. The parcel 

presently serves the primary purpose of 

protecting airport aeronautical 

(imaginary) surfaces. The parcel will 

continue to serve in this same capacity 

with a proposed change to 

nonaeronautical, revenue-producing use 

from its present aeronautical use 

designation. 

The parcel is depicted on the Airport 

Layout Plan (ALP) dated January 13, 

1993, and the Exhibit ‘‘A’’ property 

map. This parcel, as shown on the ALP, 

is not needed for aeronautical use. 

There are no impacts to the airport by 

allowing it to waive the requirement to 

maintain the parcel as aeronautical use. 

Of the 77.5 acres, approximately 74.5 

acres were originally purchased with 

sponsor funds. The remaining acres 

were acquired under a larger land 

acquisition grant, Airport Improvement 

Program (AIP) Grant No. 3–55–0002– 

30–06. 

A fair market value (FMV) appraisal 

for the parcel was completed in 2011 in 

accordance with FAA Order 5100.37A. 

The appraisal concluded that the FMV 

for acquisition of the parcel was 

$1,369,000. A standard capitalization 

rate was applied to the FMV to establish 

a base annual rent to be paid by FVTC 

for use of the parcel. A lease agreement 

established by the airport sponsor 

defines leasehold terms and conditions. 

The airport sponsor understands that 

rent and all other revenue that it collects 

in connection with the PSTC campus 

will be considered airport revenue and 

used in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

Sections 47107 and 47133; FAA’s Policy 

and Procedures on the Use of Airport 

Revenue; and FAA Order 51960.6B 

titled, ‘‘Airport Compliance Manual.’’ 

The annual income from rent payment 

will generate a long-term, revenueproducing stream that will further the 

Sponsor’s obligation under FAA Grant 

Assurance No. 24 to make the airport as 

financially self-sufficient as possible. 

The sponsor will control FVTC’s use 

of the parcel through the terms and 

conditions of the ground lease. The 

lease will be subordinate to the 

sponsor’s existing grant assurances. This 

will ensure that all activities 

contemplated on the parcel will be 

compatible with FAA requirements and 

airport operations. 

An environmental assessment 

addressing proposed development of the 

parcel was prepared. A Federal Finding 

of No Significant Impact was issued by 

FAA on Dec. 28, 2012. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 18 / Monday, January 28, 2013 / Notices 5865 

In accordance with section 47107(h) 

of title 49, United States Code, this 

notice is required to be published in the 

Federal Register 30 days before 

modifying the land-use assurance that 

requires the property to be used for an 

aeronautical purpose. 

Following is a legal description of the 

subject airport property at the 

Outagamie County Regional Airport in 

Appleton, WI: 

A parcel of land being a part of the 

Southeast Quarter of the Southeast 

Quarter of Section 35, the Northwest 

Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, the 

Southwest Quarter of the Southwest 

Quarter and the Southeast Quarter of the 

Southwest Quarter of Section 36, T21N, 

R16E, Town of Greenville, Outagamie 

County, Wisconsin more fully described 

as follows: 

Commencing at the South Quarter 

Corner of Section 36; Thence S89°57′00′′ 

W coincident with the South line of the 

Southwest Quarter of Section 36 a 

distance of 470.22 feet; Thence 

N00°51′03′′ E a distance of 49.14 feet to 

the South right-of-way line of CTH BB 

also being the point of beginning. 

Thence S89°50′39′′ W coincident with 

said South right-of-way line a distance 

of 1,098.47 feet; Thence S89°53′16′′ W 

coincident with said South right-of-way 

line a distance of 1,348.82 feet; Thence 

N00°08′45′′ W a distance of 206.41 feet; 

Thence N90°00′00′′ E a distance of 30.49 

feet; Thence N33°46′32′′ E a distance of 

80.71 feet; Thence N30°09′12′′ E a 

distance of 99.92 feet; Thence 

N33°41′24′′ W a distance of 10.70 feet; 

Thence S85°14′11′′ W a distance of 

71.45 feet; Thence S78°41′24′′ W a 

distance of 75.64 feet; Thence 

N85°54′52′′ W a distance of 83.28 feet; 

Thence N59°02′10′′ W a distance of 

17.30 feet; Thence N40°48′54′′ E a 

distance of 86.24 feet; Thence 

N27°48′05′′ E a distance of 553.39 feet; 

Thence N24°30′26′′ E a distance of 

443.43 feet; Thence N05° 11′40′′ E a 

distance of 163.84 feet; Thence 

N29°07′17′′ E a distance of 322.87 feet; 

Thence S63°52′35′′ E a distance of 

1,706.63 feet; Thence N89°51′06′′ E a 

distance of 803.81 feet to the West rightof-way line of Two Mile Road; Thence 

S00°51′03′′ W coincident with said West 

right-of-way line a distance of 590.25 

feet to the North line of Lot 1, 

Outagamie County CSM No. 1190; 

Thence S89°57′16′′ W coincident with 

said North line a distance of 420.00 feet 

to the West line of said Lot 1, Outagamie 

County CSM No. 1190; Thence 

S00°51′03′′ W coincident with said West 

line a distance of 420.89 feet to the 

point of beginning. 

Said parcel of land contains 77.5 

Acres (3,376,192 Square Feet) more or 

less. 

Subject to all easements and 

restrictions of record. 

Issued in Minneapolis, MN, on December 

31, 2012. 

Daniel J. Millenacker, 

Acting Manager, Minneapolis Airports 

District Office, FAA, Great Lakes Region. 

[FR Doc. 2013–01670 Filed 1–23–13; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0176] 

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Request for public comment on 

a proposed collection of information. 

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can 

collect certain information from the 

public, it must receive approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Under procedures established 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, before seeking OMB approval, 

Federal agencies must solicit public 

comment on proposed collections of 

information, including extensions and 

reinstatements of previously approved 

collections. 

This document describes the 

collection of information for which 

NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

(identified by the DOT Docket ID 

Number above) by any of the following 

methods: 

Electronic Submissions: 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., 

Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, you should mention the 

docket number of this document. You 

may call the Docket at (202) 366–9324. 

Please identify the proposed collection 

of information for which a comment is 

provided, by referencing its OMB 

clearance number. It is requested, but 

not required, that two copies of the 

comment be provided. 

Note that all comments received will 

be posted without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Anyone 

is able to search the electronic form of 

all comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477–78). 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov or the street 

address listed above. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Complete copies of each request for 

collection of information may be 

obtained at no charge from Ms. Carla 

Rush, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, NHTSA, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., W43–417, 

Washington, DC 20590. (Telephone: 

(202) 366–4583, Fax: (202) 493–2739). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

before a proposed collection of 

information is submitted to OMB for 

approval, Federal agencies must first 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register providing a 60-day comment 

period and otherwise consult with 

members of the public and affected 

agencies concerning each proposed 

collection of information. The OMB has 

promulgated regulations describing 

what must be included in such a 

document. Under OMB’s regulation (at 

5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask 

for public comment on the following: 

(i) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(ii) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(iii) How to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; 

(iv) How to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on those 

who are to respond, including the use 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with