[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33588-33589]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12468]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6628; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-013-AD;
Amendment 39-18514; AD 2016-10-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an airworthiness directive (AD) that
published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to Viking Air
Limited Model DHC-3 airplanes that are modified with the Baron Short
Take Off and Landing (STOL) kit (Supplemental Type Certificate SA94-114
or SA 00287NY). The Code of Federal Regulations reference for records
maintenance cited in last sentence in paragraph (f) is incorrect. This
document corrects that error. In all other respects, the original
document remains the same; however we are publishing the entire rule in
the Federal Register.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6628; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue,
Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone:

(516) 287-7329; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Airworthiness Directive 2016-10-03,
Amendment 39-18514 (81 FR 29125, May 11, 2016), requires removing
whichever previous revision of the Otter Baron short take-off and
landing (STOL) kit installation flight manual supplement (FMS) that is
currently being used and incorporate Stolairus Aviation Inc. Flight
Manual Supplement #4 for de Havilland DHC-3 Otter with the Baron STOL
Kit Installation, Revision 3, dated May 22, 2015, for Viking Air
Limited Model DHC-3 airplanes that are modified with the Baron Short
Take Off and Landing (STOL) kit (Supplemental Type Certificate SA94-114
or SA 00287NY).
    As published, the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) reference for
records maintenance cited in the last sentence in paragraph (f) is
incorrect. The published reference is 14 CFR 91.173 or 135.439, and it
is should be 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
    Although no other part of the preamble or regulatory information
has been corrected, we are publishing the entire rule in the Federal
Register.
    The effective date of this AD remains May 31, 2016.

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 AD:

2016-10-03 Viking Air Limited: Amendment 39-18514; Docket No. FAA-
2016-6628; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-013-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective May 31,
2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Viking Air Limited Model DHC-3 airplanes, all
serial numbers, that are:
    (1) Modified with the Baron Short Take Off and Landing (STOL)
kit (Supplemental Type Certificate SA94-114 or SA 00287NY); and
    (2) certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 8: Leveling and
Weighing.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as an accident
report that indicated that the center of gravity was too far aft and
contributed to a stall during takeoff. We are issuing this AD to
correct the center of gravity and prevent such a stall during
takeoff and loss of control during other phases of flight.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, within 30 days after May 31, 2016 (the
effective date of this AD), remove whichever previous revision of
the Otter Baron short take-off and landing (STOL) kit installation
flight manual supplement (FMS) that is currently being used and
incorporate Stolairus Aviation Inc. Flight Manual Supplement #4 for
de Havilland DHC-3 Otter with the Baron STOL Kit Installation,
Revision 3, dated May 22, 2015. This action may be performed by the
owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate
and must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance
with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1)-(4) and 14 CFR
91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR
91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, New York
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, New York 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (516) 794-
5531; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Transport Canada AD CF-2016-05, dated January 25,
2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-6628.

 (i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Stolairus Aviation Inc., Flight Manual Supplement #4, de
Havilland DHC-3 Otter, Baron STOL Kit Installation, DOT STC # SA 94-
114/FAA STC # SA 00287 NY, Revision 3, dated May 22, 2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Stolairus Aviation Inc. service information identified
in this AD, contact Stolairus Aviation Inc. (formerly known as AOG
Air Support, Inc.), 6095 Airport Way, Kelowna, British Columbia V1V
1S1; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (25) 491-7522; Internet: http://www.stolairus.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6628.
    (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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 20, 2016.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-12468 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46169-46170]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18657]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0897; Special Conditions No. 25-523-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus Model A350-900 Airplane; Transient
Engine-Failure Loads

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for Airbus Model A350-900
airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature
associated with the new generation of high-bypass engines and the
potential loads resulting from extreme engine-failure conditions.
    The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special
conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective Date: September 8, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Martin, FAA, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 25, 2008, Airbus applied for a type certificate for their
new Model A350-900 airplane. Later, Airbus requested, and the FAA
approved, an extension to the application for FAA type certification to
November 15, 2009. The Model A350-900 airplane has a conventional
layout with twin wing-mounted Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines. It
features a twin-aisle, 9-abreast, economy-class layout, and
accommodates side-by-side placement of LD-3 containers in the cargo
compartment. The basic Model A350-900 airplane configuration
accommodates 315 passengers in a standard two-class arrangement. The
design cruise speed is Mach 0.85 with a maximum take-off weight of
602,000 lbs.
    The existing regulations are inadequate because the new, large-
bypass fan engines of the Model A350-900 airplanes can cause more
damage in a failure event than could the previous engines. To maintain
the level of safety envisioned by Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) 25.61(b), more comprehensive criteria are needed for the new
generation of high-bypass engines. The more severe events resulting
from extreme engine-failure conditions would be treated as dynamic-load
conditions. The special conditions would distinguish between the more
common engine-failure events and those rare events resulting from
structural failures. The more common events would continue to be
treated as static torque-limit load conditions. The severe events would
be considered ultimate loads, and include all transient loads
associated with the event. An additional safety factor would be applied
to the more critical airframe supporting structure.

Type Certification Basis

    Under 14 CFR 21.17, Airbus must show that the Model A350-900
airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended
by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model A350-900 airplane airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model A350-900 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent
and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19,
under Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis
under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model A350-900 airplane will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design features: engines with large-bypass fans capable of
producing much higher failure loads than previous engines. The Model
A350-900 airplane will therefore require additional dynamic-load
analyses to assess the most severe engine-failure events. The loads
resulting from these conditions would be considered as ultimate loads,
with an additional safety factor applied to the airframe supporting
structure.

Discussion

    The size, configuration, and failure modes of jet engines has
changed considerably from those envisioned by 14 CFR 25.361(b) when the
engine-seizure requirement was first adopted. Engines have become
larger and are now designed with large-bypass fans capable of producing
much higher failure loads. Relative to the engine configurations that
existed when the rule was developed in 1957, the present generation of
engines are sufficiently different and novel to justify special
conditions for Model A350-900 airplanes. Service history has shown that
the engine-failure events that tend to cause the most severe loads are
fan-blade failures, and these events occur much less frequently than
the typical ``limit'' load condition.
    The regulatory authorities and industry developed a standardized
requirement in the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) forum.
The technical aspects of this requirement have been agreed upon and
have been accepted by the ARAC Loads and Dynamics Harmonization Working
Group. These special conditions reflect the ARAC recommendation and are
essentially harmonized with the corresponding European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) Certification Specifications (CS) 25. In addition, the
ARAC recommendation includes corresponding advisory material that is
incorporated in CS-25. This advisory material is considered an
acceptable means of compliance to the special conditions.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions no. 25-13-29-SC for Airbus
Model A350-900 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on
November 12, 2013 (78 FR 67323). No substantive comments were received,
and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions apply to the Airbus
Model A350-900 airplanes. Should Airbus apply later for a change to the
type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel
or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the Model A350-900 airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type-certification basis for Airbus Model A350-900 airplanes.
    In lieu of Sec.  25.361(b), the following special conditions apply:
    1. For turbine-engine installations, the engine mounts, pylons, and
adjacent supporting airframe structure must be designed to withstand 1g
level flight loads acting simultaneously with the maximum limit torque
loads imposed by each of the following:
    a. Sudden engine deceleration due to a malfunction that could
result in a temporary loss of power or thrust, and
    b. the maximum acceleration of the engine.
    2. For auxiliary power-unit installations, the power-unit mounts
and adjacent supporting airframe structure must be designed to
withstand 1g level flight loads acting simultaneously with the maximum
limit torque loads imposed by each of the following:
    a. Sudden auxiliary power-unit deceleration due to malfunction or
structural failure, and
    b. the maximum acceleration of the power unit.
    3. For engine-supporting structure, an ultimate loading condition
must be considered that combines 1g flight loads with the transient
dynamic loads resulting from:
    a. The loss of any fan, compressor, or turbine blade, and
separately
    b. where applicable to a specific engine design, any other engine
structural failure that results in higher loads.
    4. The ultimate loads developed from the conditions specified in
special conditions 3.a. and 3.b. are to be multiplied by a factor of
1.0 when applied to engine mounts and pylons, and multiplied by a
factor of 1.25 when applied to adjacent supporting airframe structure.
    5. The airplane must be capable of continued safe flight
considering the aerodynamic effects on controllability due to any
permanent deformation that results from the conditions specified in
special condition 3.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 15, 2014.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-18657 Filed 8-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 219]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30847]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 405-111]

Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of
Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed an application submitted by Exelon
Generation Company, LLC (licensee) to allow Old Dominion Electric
Cooperative (permittee) the use of the Conowingo Project lands and
waters for the withdrawal and discharge of water. The project is
located on the Susquehanna River near Lancaster, Pennsylvania, in
Hartford and Cecil Counties, Maryland and in York and Lancaster
Counties, Pennsylvania.
    An environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared as part of
staff's review of the proposal. In the application, the licensee
proposes to allow ODEC to withdraw up to 8.7 million gallons per day
(mgd) and to discharge return water not to exceed 0.8 mgd, resulting in
a total maximum consumptive use of 7.9 mgd of water in order to support
a 1,000 megawatt electric power generating plant that would be known as
the Wildcat Point Generation Facility, located in Cecil County,
Maryland. This EA contains Commission staff's analysis of the probable
environmental impacts of the proposed withdraw and discharge of water
and concludes that approval of the proposal would not constitute a
major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment.
    The EA is available for electronic review and reproduction at the
Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number (P-405) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER> or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any comments on the EA should be filed by January 28, 2015 and
should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1-A, Washington, DC 20426.
Please reference the project name and project number (P-405-111) on all
comments. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu
of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site under the ``eFiling'' link. For further information, contact
Carlisa Linton at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 29, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30847 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 23)]
[Notices]
[Page 6556-6558]
[DOCID:fr04fe08-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0043]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

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

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

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

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 4, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to U.S. Department of
Transportation Dockets, 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0043.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Keith Williams, Contracting
Officer's Technical Representative, Highway Safety Specialist,
Enforcement and Justice Services Division, NTI-122, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W44-
231, Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the

validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:

Evaluation Surveys for Demonstration of Speed Management Programs
(including Automated and Traditional Enforcement)

    Type of Request--New information collection requirement.
    OMB Clearance Number--None.
    Form Number--This collection of information uses no standard forms.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval--3 years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information--NHTSA proposes to conduct
telephone surveys to evaluate an intervention designed to reduce
speeding. Sample size will range from 200 to 400 per survey wave
depending on the geographic area unit being surveyed (State, community)
and the evaluation design for the intervention (e.g., number of
analytic groups). Interview length will be approximately10 minutes. The
surveys will collect information on attitudes, awareness knowledge, and
behavior related to the speed management program intervention. Surveys
will be administered in areas where NHTSA is conducting speed
management enforcement demonstration projects and similar control
sites. The surveys will follow a pre-post design where they are
administered prior to the implementation of the intervention and after
its conclusion. Interim survey waves may also be administered if the
duration of the intervention permits.
    In conducting the proposed surveys, the interviewers will use
computer-assisted telephone interviewing to reduce interview length and
minimize recording errors. A Spanish Language translation and bilingual
interviewers will be used to minimize language barriers in
participation. The proposed surveys will be anonymous.

Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA)
mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce healthcare and
other economic costs associated with motor vehicle crashes. The
agency's goal is to reduce the rate of fatalities from speeding-related
crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was
established to reduce the mounting number of deaths, injuries, and
economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes on the Nation's
highways. As part of this statutory mandate, NHTSA is authorized to
conduct research as a foundation for the development of motor vehicle
standards and traffic safety programs.
    NHTSA has periodically updated its knowledge and understanding of
the public's attitudes and behaviors with respect to speeding. In 1998,
NHTSA conducted a national survey (National Survey of Speeding and
Other Unsafe Driving Actions: Volume III: Countermeasures, Final
Report) which indicated 71% of the general public favored automated
devices for speed enforcement, and 76% believed the use of automated
devices reduced speeding-related accidents. This survey also showed
females were 15% more likely to be in favor of using automated speed
enforcement than males, as well as, reasons why the public liked or
disliked automated speeding devices. Twenty percent (20%) liked
automated speeding devices because photo evidence proved a violation
and 19% liked it because it increased driver awareness and fewer law
enforcement officers were needed for traffic enforcement. Twenty-six
percent (26%) did not like automated speeding enforcement because it
invaded privacy, was a violation of rights or was a governmental
infringement. Four years later NHTSA sponsored another national survey
(National Survey of Speeding and Unsafe Driving Attitudes and Behavior:
2002: Volume II.) that found 68% of the general public believed the use
of automated speed enforcement was good for anyone driving at least 20
miles per hour more than the speed limit, and 78% favored automated
enforcement in a school zone. Fifty-Six percent (56%) of the public
favored photos being taken of the driver from a frontal view while 32%
favored taking photos of the rear license plate only. Since these
surveys were conducted years ago they cannot be used to evaluate new
programs scheduled to be initiated in the next few years.
    Beginning in 2008, NHTSA intends to administer a demonstration
project over a three-year period that will include two years where
selected sites will incorporate both traditional law enforcement and
use of automated enforcement of speeding in the demonstration area. The
demonstration project will be accompanied by a Public Information and
Education campaign about speeding and driving safety. Before and after
this demonstration project, NHTSA will conduct telephone surveys in
waves of up to 400 adult drivers living in the selected demonstration
project areas, as well as, a comparison area. These surveys will
measure the change in public attitude about speeding and driving
behavior resulting from the enforcement and Public Information and
Education campaigns.
    These surveys will collect the following type of information:
Whether members of the general public support automated enforcement; if
the support varies by the specific speed being traveled; where the
speeding occurs, such as a school zone or other road type; whether
there is a preference for photos to be taken of the driver versus the
license plate of the vehicle; whether there are a differences by sex or
age; the reasons for supporting or not supporting automated speed
enforcement versus traditional law enforcement officer enforcement;
whether members of the general public are aware of the public
information campaign in their area about speeding; whether this public
information campaign has caused them to change their opinions toward
speeding or whether the public information campaign has affected their
behavior by causing them to be more careful about observing speed
limits or reducing the speed they drive; the overall effectiveness of
the public information campaign; determining what is an appropriate
balance between automated speed enforcement and traditional law
enforcement officer enforcement; whether members of the general public
believe automated speeding enforcement should be expanded, and the
effectiveness of automated and traditional enforcement measures on
reducing crashes, injuries and saving lives.
    These surveys will help NHTSA to evaluate a demonstration project
on speed management using automated and traditional speed enforcement.
The findings will be used to help focus the program and determine which
activities achieve the greatest benefit. This information will then be
used to develop new programs to decrease the likelihood of speeding,
and to provide

informational support to States, localities, and law enforcement
agencies that will aid them in their efforts to reduce speeding crashes
and injuries. This demonstration project could be a model for how
jurisdictions can develop a self-sustaining and effective speed
management program using both traditional and automated speed
enforcement methods. A demonstration project incorporating rational
speed limits, a public communications plan and rigorously enforced
speed limits over a defined geographic area will assist jurisdictions
in understanding how to gain higher compliance with speed limits and
bring about a reduction in speeding-related crashes, injuries and
deaths.

Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number and
Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)

    Under this proposed effort, NHTSA intends to conduct telephone
surveys to collect data from up to 1,600 licensed drivers age 18 and
older. Interviews will be conducted with persons at residential phone
numbers selected through random digit dialing and located within the
jurisdiction where the speed enforcement demonstration project is
conducted, as well as control areas. Businesses will be ineligible for
the sample and will not be interviewed. No more than one respondent
will be selected per household. Each member of the sample will complete
one interview. After each wave is completed and the data analyzed, the
findings will be disseminated to the participating States for review.

Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting From the Collection of Information

    NHTSA estimates the respondents in the sample will require an
average of 10 minutes to complete the telephone interviews. Thus, the
estimated reporting burden hours on the general public will be a
maximum of 137 hours per year, for two years. The respondents will not
incur any reporting cost from the information collection. The
respondents also will not incur any record keeping burden or record
keeping cost from the information collection.

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

Marilena Amoni,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
 [FR Doc. E8-2016 Filed 2-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P