[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49011-49012]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22921]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-464-000]

Rover Pipeline LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review
of the Majorsville Compressor Station Amendment

    On May 17, 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) received a variance request from Rover Pipeline
LLC (Rover) under Docket No. CP15-93-000 requesting to increase the
approved delivery capacity at Rover's Majorsville Compressor Station by
100 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d). The request requires the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant
to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act and was processed as an amended
application rather than a variance.

    On June 16, 2017, the Commission issued its Notice of Application
for the Majorsville Compressor Station Amendment, now being considered
in Docket No. CP17-464-000. Among other things, that notice alerted
agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete
all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a
federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the
Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. This
instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the
completion of the EA for the project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--November 1, 2017.
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--January 30, 2018.
    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
project's progress.

Project Description

    Rover proposes to install a third 3,550 horsepower natural gas
compressor unit at the Majorsville Compressor Station \1\ and a new
equipment run at the Majorsville Meter Station in Marshall County, West
Virginia. The new unit would bring the Majorsville Compressor Station
to a total of 10,650 horsepower. The proposal would increase the point
capacity of the Majorsville Compressor Station and the Majorsville
Meter Station from 300 MMcf/d to 400 MMcf/d. Rover would house the new
unit (and the previously approved units) by expanding the length of the
currently under construction compressor building. Rover has not
proposed to expand the station boundary beyond the previously approved
limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Majorsville Compressor Station was approved by the
Commission on February 2, 2017, in Docket No. CP15-93-000 as a
component of the Rover Pipeline Project and is currently under
construction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    On August 4, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Majorsville
Compressor Station Amendment and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to federal, state, and local government
representatives and agencies; environmental and public interest groups;
and other interested parties. It was also sent to all affected
landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are within
0.5 mile of the Majorsville Compressor Station. In response to the NOI,
the Commission received comments from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The primary issues raised by the EPA are purpose and
need, alternatives, and air quality and noise.
    The EPA is currently participating as a cooperating agency in the
preparation of the EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-464), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: October 17, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22921 Filed 10-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8242]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03066]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 93

[Docket No.: FAA-2010-0302; Amdt. No. 93-98A]
RIN 2120-AK64

New York North Shore Helicopter Route

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 23, 2014, the FAA published a final rule to extend the
requirement for an additional two years for pilots operating civil
helicopters under Visual Flight Rules to use the New York North Shore
Helicopter Route when operating along the north shore of Long Island,
New York. The final rule extended the expiration date to August 6,
2016. However, an error in the final rule resulted in the inadvertent
removal of Subpart H of part 93 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. This final rule corrects that error and reinstates the
provisions of Subpart H.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 17, 2015. Subpart H of
part 93 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations expires August
6, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact David Maddox, Airspace Regulation and ATC
Procedures Group, AJV-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
8783; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Lorelei Peter,
International Law, Legislation and Regulations Division, AGC-200,
Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3073; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On July 6, 2012, the FAA published Subpart H of part 93, which
contained the rules governing civil helicopter operations when flying
under visual flight rules along the north shore of Long Island, New
York. This was a two-year rule that expired on August 6, 2014 (77 FR
39911). On June 23, 2014, the FAA published a final rule entitled ``The
Extension of the Expiration Date of the New York North Shore Helicopter
Route'' (79 FR 35488), which was to extend the regulations addressing
helicopter operations along the North Shore for an additional two years
from August 6, 2014 to August 6, 2016. In that rule, the FAA stated
that:

    This action extends the requirement for pilots of civil
helicopters to use the North Shore Helicopter Route when transiting
along the north shore of Long Island for an additional two years,
while the FAA considers whether to make the mandatory use of the
route permanent. The current rule requiring use of the route expires
on August 6, 2014. Public input to this consideration is critical
and additional time is needed to conduct the rulemaking process.
However, the FAA does not want to disrupt the operating environment
and cause any confusion on using the route during this interim
period. Therefore, the FAA finds that a two year extension of the
current rule is warranted to maintain the current operating
environment and permit the agency to engage in rulemaking to
determine future action on this route. (See 79 FR 35489, June 23,
2014)

    However, the Code of Federal Regulations was not amended correctly
and Subpart H of part 93 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations
was inadvertently removed.
    This rule adds Subpart H back in part 93 with an expiration date of
August 6, 2016, as originally intended. Adding Subpart H back into part
93 will ensure that all pilots are aware of the New York North Shore
helicopter route and will make the regulations consistent with the New
York Helicopter Chart. Because the amendment corrects an error and
clarifies the regulations, the FAA finds that the notice and public
procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary, impracticable, and
contrary to the public interest. As this final rule restores helicopter
route information to the Code of Federal Regulations, thereby enhancing
safety, good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make the rule
effective in less than 30 days.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93

    Air traffic control, Airspace, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 93--SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES

0
1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502,
44514, 44701, 44715, 44719, 46301.

0
2. Add new heading for subpart H to part 93 to read as follows:

Subpart H--Mandatory Use of the New York North Shore Helicopter
Route

0
3. Redesignate Sec.  93.101 to subpart H.

0
4. Add new Sec.  93.103 to subpart H to read as follows:

Sec.  93.103  Helicopter operations.

    (a) Unless otherwise authorized, each person piloting a helicopter
along Long Island, New York's northern shoreline between the VPLYD
waypoint and Orient Point, shall utilize the North Shore Helicopter
route and altitude, as published.
    (b) Pilots may deviate from the route and altitude requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section when necessary for safety, weather
conditions or transitioning to or from a destination or point of
landing.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44703, in Washington, DC on February 6, 2015.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-03066 Filed 2-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22054-22057]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9558]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 65

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002]

Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Modified Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) are
finalized for the communities listed below. These modified BFEs will be
used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and
their contents.

DATES: The effective dates for these modified BFEs are indicated on the
following table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in
effect for the listed communities prior to this date.

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below of the modified BFEs
for each community listed. These modified BFEs have been published in
newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since
that publication. The Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administrator has resolved any appeals resulting from this
notification.
    The modified BFEs are not listed for each community in this notice.
However, this final rule includes the address of the Chief Executive
Officer of the community where the modified BFE determinations are
available for inspection.
    The modified BFEs are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
    The modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to remain
qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    These modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management
criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities.

    These modified BFEs are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these
elevations are made final, and for the contents in those buildings. The
changes in BFEs are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65

    Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:

PART 65--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  65.4  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  65.4 are amended
as follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Date and name of
          State and county            Location and case No.  newspaper where notice   Chief executive officer        Effective date of         Community
                                                                  was published            of community                 modification              No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho:
    Ada (FEMA Docket No.: B-1143)..  Unincorporated areas    May 27, 2010; June 3,   The Honorable Fred        September 1, 2010............      160001
                                      of Ada County (10-10-   2010; The Idaho         Tilman, Chairman, Ada
                                      0170P).                 Statesman.              County Board of
                                                                                Commissioners, 200 West
                                                                                Front Street, Boise, ID
                                                                                83702.
    Valley (FEMA Docket No.: B-      Unincorporated areas    April 15, 2010; April   The Honorable Jerry       August 21, 2010..............      160220
     1143).                           of Valley County (10-   22, 2010; The Star-     Winkle, Chairman,
                                      10-0010P).              News.                   Valley County Board of
                                                                                Commissioners, P.O. Box
                                                                                1350, Cascade, ID 83611.
Indiana:
    Hamilton (FEMA Docket No.: B-    City of Noblesville     April 15, 2010; April   The Honorable John        August 20, 2010..............      180082
     1143).                           (10-05-3162P).          22, 2010; The           Ditslear, Mayor, City
                                                              Indianapolis Star.      of Noblesville, 16
                                                                                South 10th Street,
                                                                                Suite 150, Noblesville,
                                                                                IN 46060.
    Tippecanoe (FEMA Docket No.: B-  City of Lafayette (10-  May 27, 2010; June 3,   The Honorable Tony        May 18, 2010.................      180253
     1143).                           05-3321P).              2010; Journal and       Roswarski, Mayor, City
                                                              Courier.                of Lafayette, 20 North
                                                                                6th Street, Lafayette,
                                                                                IN 47901.
Iowa:
    Black Hawk (FEMA Docket No.: B-  City of Cedar Falls     July 8, 2010; July 15,  The Honorable Jon Crews,  November 12, 2010............      190017
     1143).                           (10-07-0506P).          2010; The Waterloo      Mayor, City of Cedar
                                                              Courier.                Falls, 220 Clay Street,
                                                                                Cedar Falls, IA 50613.
    Polk (FEMA Docket No.: B-1143).  City of Des Moines (09- May 27, 2010; June 3,   The Honorable Franklin    October 1, 2010..............      190227
                                      07-1717P).              2010; Des Moines        Cownie, Mayor, City of
                                                              Register.               Des Moines, 675 Harwood
                                                                                Drive, Des Moines, IA
                                                                                50312.
Kansas: Johnson (FEMA Docket No.: B- City of Overland Park   June 30, 2010; July 7,  The Honorable Carl        June 17, 2010................      200174
 1143).                               (09-07-1710P).          2010; Sun               Gerlach, Mayor, City of
                                                              Publications.           Overland Park, 8500
                                                                                Santa Fe Drive,
                                                                                Overland Park, KS 66212.
Maine:
    Cumberland (FEMA Docket No.: B-  Town of Harpswell (09-  July 12, 2010; July     The Honorable James S.    June 24, 2010................      230169
     1143).                           01-1532P).              19, 2010; The Times     Henderson, Chairman,
                                                              Record.                 Board of Selectmen,
                                                                                P.O. Box 39, Harpswell,
                                                                                ME 04079.
    York (FEMA Docket No.: B-1143).  Town of Hollis (10-01-  July 13, 2010; July     Mr. Stuart B. Gannett,    November 17, 2010............      230150
                                      0538P).                 20, 2010; The Smart     Sr., Chairman, Board of
                                                              Shopper.                Selectmen, 34 Town Farm
                                                                                Road, P.O. Box 9,
                                                                                Hollis, ME 04042.
Massachusetts: Barnstable (FEMA      Town of Falmouth (09-   May 21, 2010; May 28,   Mr. Robert L.             August 26, 2010..............      255211
 Docket No.: B-1143).                 01-1590P).              2010; Falmouth          Whritenour, Jr., Town
                                                              Enterprise.             of Falmouth Manager, 59
                                                                                Town Hall Square,
                                                                                Falmouth, MA 02540.
Michigan:
    Macomb (FEMA Docket No.: B-      Township of Washington  July 7, 2010; July 14,  Mr. Dan O'Leary, Board    June 29, 2010................      260447
     1143).                           (10-05-4289P).          2010; The Romeo         Supervisor, 57900 Van
                                                              Observer.               Dyke Road, Washington,
                                                                                MI 48094.
    Oakland (FEMA Docket No.: B-     City of Novi (10-05-    May 6, 2010; May 13,    The Honorable David       May 24, 2010.................      260175
     1143).                           0812P).                 2010; The Novi News.    Landry, Mayor, City of
                                                                                Novi, 45175 West Ten
                                                                                Mile Road, Novi, MI
                                                                                48375.
Missouri: Cole (FEMA Docket No.: B-  City of Jefferson City  August 19, 2010;        The Honorable John        December 24, 2010............      290108
 1143).                               (10-07-0593P).          August 26, 2010; News   Landwehr, Mayor, City
                                                              Tribune.                of Jefferson City, 320
                                                                                East McCarty Street,
                                                                                Jefferson City, MO
                                                                                65101.

Nebraska: Lancaster (FEMA Docket     City of Lincoln (10-07- June 3, 2010; June 10,  The Honorable Chris       October 8, 2010..............      315273
 No.: B-1143).                        0761P).                 2010; The Lincoln       Beutler, Mayor, City of
                                                              Journal Star.           Lincoln, 555 South 10th
                                                                                Street, Suite 301,
                                                                                Lincoln, NE 68508.
New Hampshire:
    Hillsborough (FEMA Docket No.:   Town of Pelham (09-01-  June 18, 2010; June     The Honorable Douglas     July 6, 2010.................      330100
     B-1143).                         1526P).                 25, 2010; The Lowell    Viger, Chairman, Board
                                                              Sun.                    of Selectmen, 6 Village
                                                                                Green, Pelham, NH 03076.
    Hillsborough (FEMA Docket No.:   Town of Pelham (09-01-  June 21, 2010; June     The Honorable Douglas     July 6, 2010.................      330100
     B-1143).                         1526P).                 28, 2010; The Pelham-   Viger, Chairman, Board
                                                              Windham News.           of Selectmen, 6 Village
                                                                                Green, Pelham, NH 03076.
Vermont:
    Windham (FEMA Docket No.: B-     Town of Wilmington (10- June 14, 2010; June     The Honorable Thomas P.   June 2, 2010.................      500142
     1143).                           01-0925P).              21, 2010; Brattleboro   Consolino, Chair,
                                                              Reformer.               Selectboard, P.O. Box
                                                                                217, Wilmington, VT
                                                                                05363.
    Windham (FEMA Docket No.: B-     Town of Wilmington (10- June 17, 2010; June     The Honorable Thomas P.   June 2, 2010.................      500142
     1143).                           01-0925P).              24, 2010; The           Consolino, Chair,
                                                              Deerfield Valley News.  Selectboard, P.O. Box
                                                                                217, Wilmington, VT
                                                                                05363.
Virginia: Independent City of        City of Fairfax (10-03- June 14, 2010; June     The Honorable Robert F.   October 19, 2010.............      515524
 Fairfax (FEMA Docket No.: B-1143).   0412P).                 21, 2010; The           Lederer, Mayor, City of
                                                              Washington Times.       Fairfax, Fairfax City
                                                                                Hall, 10455 Armstrong
                                                                                Street, Fairfax, VA
                                                                                22030.
Wisconsin:
    Dane (FEMA Docket No.: B-1143).  Village of Black Earth  May 20, 2010; May 27,   The Honorable Patrick     September 24, 2010...........      550079
                                      (10-05-1272P).          2010; The News-Sickle-  Troge, President,
                                                              Arrow.                  Village of Black Earth,
                                                                                1525 Riverview Drive,
                                                                                Black Earth, WI 53515.
    Dane (FEMA Docket No.: B-1143).  Unincorporated areas    May 20, 2010; May 27,   Ms. Kathleen Falk,        September 24, 2010...........      550077
                                      of Dane County (10-05-  2010; The Wisconsin     County Executive, 210
                                      1272P).                 State Journal.          Martin Luther King Jr.
                                                                                Boulevard, Room 116,
                                                                                City-County Building,
                                                                                Madison, WI 53703.
    Green Lake (FEMA Docket No.: B-  Village of Marquette    April 8, 2010; April    Mr. Howard Sell,          March 29, 2010...............      550170
     1143).                           (10-05-1858P).          15,2010; The Berlin     District 6, County
                                                              Journal Newspaper.      Board Supervisor, N3415
                                                                                Highway 72, Markesan,
                                                                                WI 53946.
    Jefferson (FEMA Docket No.: B-   Unincorporated areas    April 29, 2010; May 6,  Ms. Sharon L. Schmeling.  September 3, 2010............      550191
     1143).                           of Jefferson County     2010; Daily Jefferson   Chairperson, Jefferson
                                      (10-05-0806P).          County Union.           County Board, 320 South
                                                                                Main Street, Room 201,
                                                                                Jefferson, WI 53549.
    Waukesha (FEMA Docket No.: B-    Unincorporated areas    April 29, 2010; May 6,  Mr. Daniel P. Vrakas,     September 3, 2010............      550476
     1143).                           of Waukesha County      2010; Lake County       County Executive, 515
                                      (10-05-0806P).          Reporter & Milwaukee    West Moreland
                                                              Journal Sentinel.       Boulevard, Room 230,
                                                                                Waukesha, WI 53188.
    Waukesha (FEMA Docket No.: B-    Unincorporated areas    April 29, 2010, May 6,  Mr. Daniel P. Vrakas,     September 3, 2010............      550476
     1143).                           of Waukesha County      2010, Lake County       County Executive, 515
                                      (10-05-0802P).          Reporter & Milwaukee    West Moreland
                                                              Journal Sentinel.       Boulevard, Room 230,
                                                                                Waukesha, WI 53188.
    St. Croix (FEMA Docket No.: B-   Unincorporated ares of  May 27, 2010; June 3,   Mr. Daryl Standafer,      October 1, 2010..............      555578
     1143).                           St. Croix County (10-   2010; The River Falls   Chairman, St. Croix
                                      05-1230P).              Journal.                County, 1101 Carmichael
                                                                                Road, Hudson, WI 54016.
    St. Croix (FEMA Docket No.: B-   City of River Falls     May 27, 2010; June 3,   The Honorable Don         October 1, 2010..............      550330
     1143).                           (10-05-1230P).          2010; The River Falls   Richards, Mayor, City
                                                              Journal.                of River Falls, 106
                                                                                North Wasson Lane,
                                                                                River Falls, WI 54022.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: April 11, 2011.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-9558 Filed 4-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 40 (Thursday, March 2, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12293-12295]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03963]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0155; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-051-AD;
Amendment 39-18813; AD 2017-05-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
(Airbus Helicopters) (Previously Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus
Helicopters Model BO-105C, BO-105LS A-3, and BO-105S helicopters. This
AD requires inspecting each main rotor blade (MRB) for debonding, and
is prompted by a report of incorrect bonding of the shell to the MRB.
These actions are intended to detect and prevent an unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 17, 2017.
    We must receive comments on this AD by May 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0155; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the
economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at
http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any

recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket
does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one
copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically,
commenters should submit them only one time. We will file in the docket
all comments that we receive, as well as a report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this
rulemaking during the comment period. We will consider all the comments
we receive and may conduct additional rulemaking based on those
comments.

Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued Emergency AD No. 2016-0118-E, dated June 17,
2016, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model BO105
C, BO105 D, BO105 LS A-3, and BO105 S helicopters, all variants except
CB-5, D, DS, DBS-5, and CBS-5. According to EASA, during an inspection
on a Model BO105 S helicopter, debonding was found on the erosion
protective shell (shell) of an MRB, caused by incorrect preparation of
the shell prior to the bonding process. EASA further states that this
condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in loss of the
shell in-flight, which could strike the tailboom or the tail rotor,
causing an imbalance in the main rotor and high vibrations. EASA also
advises that these high vibrations could damage the helicopter,
resulting in loss of tail rotor control and subsequent loss of control
of the helicopter.
    To address this unsafe condition, EASA AD 2016-0118-E requires
repetitive inspections of the shells for debonding within 10 hours
time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at 50-hour TIS intervals. After
the shells have completed 200 hours TIS since the shell was installed
and completed an inspection of the shell, the EASA AD no longer
requires the repetitive 50 hour TIS inspections. The EASA AD applies to
certain part-numbered MRBs on which the shell was last replaced between
December 1, 2010, and February 28, 2015, inclusive, or for which there
is no maintenance record available to determine the date the shell was
last replaced.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
the EASA AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of these same
type designs.

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin
(EASB) BO105-10A-128, Revision 0, dated June 16, 2016, for Model
BO105C, D, and S helicopters and EASB No. BO105 LS-10A-016, Revision 0,
dated June 16, 2016, for Model BO105 LS A-3 helicopters. This service
information specifies repetitively inspecting the MRB shell for
delamination in accordance with the helicopter's maintenance manual
procedures.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD is applicable to the Model BO105D helicopter; this AD
is not because it does not have a type certificate in the U.S. The EASA
AD prohibits installing an affected MRB on any helicopter until its AD
actions have been complied with. This AD does not.

AD Requirements

    This AD applies to helicopters with certain part-numbered MRBs with
shells that were last replaced between December 1, 2010, and February
28, 2015, inclusive or where the most recent date of replacement of the
shell cannot be determined from the helicopter maintenance records.
This AD requires inspecting each MRB shell for debonding within 10
hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS until
the MRB reaches 200 hours TIS. After the blade has accumulated 200
hours TIS since the last shell replacement, the 50 hours TIS
inspections are terminated. If there is any debonding, this AD requires
repairing or replacing the MRB before further flight.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 73 helicopters of U.S. Registry.
    At an average labor rate of $85, we estimate that operators may
incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. Inspecting
the MRB shells will require 1 work-hour, for a total cost of $85 per
helicopter and $6,205 for the fleet, per inspection cycle. If required,
replacing an MRB will require 2 work-hours and required parts will cost
$114,000, for a cost per helicopter of $114,170.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting
these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions
needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we find that
the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment
prior to the adoption of this rule because the inspections required by
this AD must be accomplished within 10 hours TIS and 50 hours TIS, a
very short interval for helicopters used in helicopter air ambulance
operations.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good
cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

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.
    We are 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

    We determined that 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, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. 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.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of 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 (AD):

2017-05-03 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Previously
Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH): Amendment 39-18813; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0155; Directorate Identifier 2016-SW-051-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model BO-
105C, BO-105LS A-3, and BO-105S helicopters, certificated in any
category, with a main rotor blade (MRB) part number 105-15103, 105-
15141, 105-15141V001, 105-15143, 105-15150, 105-15150V001, 105-
15152, 105-81013, 105-87214, 1120-15101, or 1120-15103 that has less
than 200 hours time-in-service (TIS) since the MRB erosion
protective shell (shell) was last replaced, and where the shell was
last replaced between December 1, 2010, and February 28, 2015,
inclusive or where the most recent date of replacement of the shell
is unknown.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as debonding of the shell
of an MRB. This condition could result in loss of the shell in-
flight, which could strike the tailboom or tail rotor, resulting in
loss of tail rotor control, high main rotor vibration, and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective March 17, 2017.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 10 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed
50 hours TIS:
    (1) Inspect by tap test each MRB for debonding of the shell.
    (2) If the shell has debonded in any area, before further
flight, repair any debonding that does not exceed the maximum repair
damage limits, or replace the MRB.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation
Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate,
FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817)
222-5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Airbus Helicopters Emergency Alert Service Bulletin (EASB)
BO105-10A-128 for Model BO105C, D, and S helicopters and EASB BO105
LS-10A-016 for Model BO105 LS A-3 helicopters, both Revision 0, and
dated June 16, 2016, which are not incorporated by reference,
contain additional information about the subject of this final rule.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review a copy
of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort
Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency AD No. 2016-0118-E, dated June 17,
2016. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No.
FAA-2017-0155.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6210 Main Rotor
Blade.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 21, 2017.
Lance T. Gant,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-03963 Filed 3-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


to a salvage yard. Public Citizen has also not addressed the fact
that in numerous states police reports are not generally available.
See, e.g. Cal. Veh. Code section 20012 (placing limits on who may
obtain accident reports); Mont. Code section 61-7-114 (restricting
access to accident reports); and Ore. Veh. Code Sec.  802.220
(limiting disclosure of accident reports).

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

    The final step in an Exemption 6 analysis is weighing the competing
privacy and public interests against one another. See Ripskis v. HUD,
746 F.2d 1, 3 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In the case of the EWR VIN information,
there is a strong privacy interest in not being contacted about a death
or personal injury, which often involves personal distress. On the
other hand, the public interest, in terms of information that reveals
what the government is up to is at most, minimal. Thus, on balance,
NHTSA has concluded that the privacy interests far outweigh the public
interest. The balance is similar to that in Center for Auto Safety
because there is no ascertainable public interest of sufficient
significance or certainty to outweigh that right. 809 F. Supp. at
150.\72\ The disclosure of the full VIN would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As a result, the balancing
required by Exemption 6 cuts in favor of protecting the privacy
interests of those individuals over the interests that others may have
in learning their identities. NHTSA is, therefore, according
confidentiality to the last six digits of VINs under FOIA Exemption 6
using a class determination that is set out separately from the other
EWR-based class determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ See generally Horowitz v. Peace Corps, 428 F.3d 271, 278-79
(D.C. Cir. 2005) (discussing balancing required under Exemption 6
and indicating that ``seemingly innocuous information'' can be
subject to the Exemption's protection).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA is adopting a new class determination in 49 CFR Part 512
Appendix D that applies only to those VINs that are provided in EWR
submissions and does not apply as a rule of general application to the
agency's treatment of VINs in other instances.

IV. Exemption 3

    The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) has historically
maintained that NHTSA is precluded by statute from releasing all EWR
data, subject to a limited exception. RMA has relied on a disclosure
provision of the TREAD Act, 49 U.S.C. 30166(m)(4)(C), which provides:

    Disclosure.--None of the information collected pursuant to the
final rule promulgated under paragraph (1) shall be disclosed
pursuant to section 30167(b) unless the Secretary determines the
disclosure of such information will assist in carrying out sections
30117(b) and 30118 through 30121.\73\

    \73\ Sections 30117(b) and 30118 through 30121 involve the
statutory remedy and recall requirements under the Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RMA has asserted that this provision is a FOIA Exemption 3 statute
and therefore, NHTSA is precluded from releasing the data.

    RMA's views were rejected by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia in Public Citizen v. Mineta, 444 F.Supp.2d 12, 16-
18 (2006). In the October 2006 NPRM, we noted that the judgment in that
case is on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (No. 06-5304). 71 FR at 63745. We stated that should
the Court of Appeals reverse the District Court, the agency may proceed
to issue a final rule exempting EWR data from disclosure in a manner
consistent with the D.C. Circuit's decision or terminate the EWR
Appendix C portion of this rulemaking as unnecessary.
    We did not seek comment on the Exemption 3 issue. RMA provided
comments nonetheless. Apart from scope issues, the agency rejects RMA's
views. As our rationale, we incorporate by reference the Brief for the
Federal Appellee in the pending appeal in Public Citizen v. Peters (No.
06-5304) (filed July 6, 2007).

V. Other EWR Data

    The data elements of the EWR rule were established in July of 2002.
The 2003 CBI rule that was remanded by the district court did not
resolve the confidentiality of EWR information on deaths and injuries,
which is based on claims and notices, or the confidentiality of
property damage claims. Those matters were left to individual
manufacturers to pursue through individual requests for confidentiality
should the manufacturers choose to pursue them. The October 2006 NPRM
did not propose to include information on deaths or personal injury, or
property damage claims (collectively claims data) as part of our
Exemption 4-based class determinations. We stated that these items
involve a collection of information, many pieces of which are publicly
available in court documents and newspaper articles.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See, e.g. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rollover/etc/synopsis.html
 (noting the number of deaths attributed

to failing Firestone tires mounted on Ford Explorer vehicles),
http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/pub/12_12/briefs/6704-1.html

(reporting on lawsuit arising from an alleged failure of a Yokohama
tire), http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/main_tire.html (noting the number of

deaths related to alleged failures involving Goodyear tires compiled
by CBC News), and http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/cars/dangeroustires/index2.html
 (covering tire design problems and

mentioning a multi-million dollar award against Dunlop).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RMA submitted comments. RMA's comments are outside the scope of the
NPRM. Should RMA or its members seek a rule on this issue, they should
file an administrative petition for rulemaking. See 49 CFR Part 552. To
be clear, NHTSA is not deciding in this notice that EWR claims data is
or is not confidential. Insofar as a manufacturer desires confidential
treatment for EWR claims data, it should submit a request for
confidentiality for those data to NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR Part
512.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ The manufacturer that requests confidential treatment
should address whether the information regarding these categories is
already available through publicly accessible court documents. See,
e.g. Lambert v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Case No. 1:03-CV-00382
(W.D. Mich.) (June 11, 2003) (death case), Bayanay v. Continental
Tire, Case No. 6:02-CV-00205 (E.D. Okla.) (April 22, 2002) (death
case), and Swank v. BridgestoneFirestone, Case No. 1:01-CV-00982
(M.D. Ala. 2001) (property damage and injury case). The manufacturer
should also address the obvious legal problem of granting
confidentiality for information that is already publicly available.
See Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Dep't of Energy, 169 F.3d 16, 19
(D.C. Cir. 1999). In any event, in light of the availability of this
information and its questionable utility by competitors, the
manufacturer likely will have a substantial burden in showing that
disclosure of this collected information would result in substantial
competitive harm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Identification of Confidential Business Information Located in
Electronic Files

    The NPRM proposed amendments to the agency's regulations for
requesting confidentiality for certain information submitted to the
agency on electronic media. See 71 FR at 63736. In practice, NHTSA's
Confidential Business Information regulations have been applied most
often to the submissions of information in the context of enforcement
and rulemaking actions and to other submissions required under the
agency's regulations, as well as to voluntary submissions. NHTSA
proposed to add new requirements for identifying confidential
information submitted in electronic form. In the last few years,
increasingly, the information that is the subject of a request for
confidentiality has been submitted on CDs and DVDs, rather than on
paper. Under the existing regulations, the submitter is required to
mark each page of a paper submission containing information claimed to
be confidential with the word ``CONFIDENTIAL''. 49 CFR 512.6. In
addition, brackets are to be used to designate information claimed to
be confidential where the entire page is not claimed to be
confidential. Id. Under the proposed rule, electronic submissions would
be marked with sequential page numbers or identifiers, confidential
materials within these submissions would be marked with brackets,
individual pages

would be marked as confidential as needed, 71 FR at 63746, and files
that cannot be marked internally would be named to ensure that NHTSA
can properly identify material that is claimed as confidential. Id. We
noted that pagination requirements are not unusual and consistent with
the rules governing Federal court filings. See 71 FR at 63746 (citing
requirements of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure).
    The agency's proposed amendment to section 512.6, which would
replace section 512.6(b)(3), read as follows:

    (c) Submissions in electronic format.
    (1) Persons submitting information under this Part may submit
the information in electronic format. Except for early warning
reporting data submitted to the agency under 49 CFR 579, the
information shall be submitted in a physical medium such as a CD-
ROM. The exterior of the medium (e.g., the disk itself) shall be
permanently labeled with the submitter's name, the subject of the
information and the word ``CONFIDENTIAL''.
    (2) Pages and materials claimed to be confidential must be
designated as provided in Sec.  512.6(b)(1)-(2). Files and materials
that cannot be marked internally, such as video clips or executable
files, shall be renamed prior to submission so the characters
``CONF'' or the word ``CONFIDENTIAL'' appear in the file name.
    (3) Each page within an electronic file that is submitted for
confidential treatment must be individually numbered in the order
presented with a sequential numeric or alpha-numeric system that
separately identifies each page contained in that submission.
    (4) Electronic media may be submitted only in commonly available
and used formats.

    The Alliance and AIAM submitted comments addressing the proposed
changes to Section 512.6. Both commenters largely agree with the
proposed changes. AIAM observed that the proposal is workable as is and
did not foresee any problems with the changes. The Alliance raised
questions about the practicability, feasibility, and desirability of
the proposed requirement that electronic pages be marked
``confidential'' and that brackets be inserted around information
claimed as confidential. The Alliance voiced similar concerns about the
proposed requirement that pages in electronic submissions be marked
with page numbers or other sequential identifiers.
    The Alliance asserted that the contents of some electronic
submissions cannot be marked with brackets, be stamped as confidential
or otherwise be numbered or marked with sequential identifiers.
According to the Alliance, files such as video clips or executable
files do not have individual pages, cannot be altered, and, therefore,
cannot be marked. Other files, such as spreadsheet or database files,
do not have page breaks or do not have the capacity to ``bracket''
information. As NHTSA often requests spreadsheet or database files in
their ``native'' format, the Alliance noted that complying with such
requests precludes marking these files unless the submitter converts
the files to another format. In the Alliance's view, the agency's
analogy in its proposal to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,
which require that all submissions to the court be paginated, is inapt
because court documents are still submitted on paper.
    According to the Alliance, its member companies and NHTSA both wish
to ensure that confidential data are properly identified when
submitted, that NHTSA can properly review and segregate confidential
data, and that the burdens placed on those submitting the data are
reasonable. Given these goals, the Alliance notes that a variety of
means could produce the same result as NHTSA's proposal.
    The Alliance urged the agency to be both flexible and pragmatic
when considering the requirements of the final rule. If files or data
cannot be marked with brackets or individual page notations, it
suggested that submitters be allowed to designate materials for which
confidentiality is sought in the request letter and, in this fashion,
refer the agency to indices or placemarks that exist inside the file in
their native format. Therefore, the Alliance stated that confidential
portions of video files could be identified by the ``running time''
data embedded in the file. Confidential data within a spreadsheet could
be identified in a confidentiality request letter designating only
those columns or rows for which confidential treatment is sought.
Noting that the language proposed for Section 512.6(c)(3) appeared to
contemplate that page numbers or sequential markings need only apply to
those pages for which confidential treatment is sought, the Alliance
suggested that submitters could provide NHTSA with sufficient
information to identify confidential data by numbering or marking only
those pages. An alternative reading--that all pages in an electronic
submission requesting confidentiality must be marked--would, in its
view, be unduly burdensome.
    Consistent with these views, the Alliance suggested an alternative
version of the agency's proposed regulatory text. These alternative
versions modified both Section 512.6(c)(2)--which contains the agency's
proposed requirements for brackets and marking individual pages--and
Section 512.6(c)(3)--setting forth NHTSA's proposed requirements for
page numbering--by altering Section 512.6(c)(2) to address page
numbering and Section 512.6(c)(3) to address brackets and page marking.
In particular, the Alliance suggested the following language:

    (c) Submissions in electronic format.
* * * * *
    (2) Electronic files with content that can be marked with page
designations must be so marked so that any page can be located using
the file name and page number. Files with content that has page
designations shall be identified in the request for confidentiality
by file name and page numbers or, at the option of the submitter, by
sequence number. If files cannot be marked with page or sequence
number designations, then the portions of the files that are claimed
to be confidential shall be described by other means in the request
for confidential treatment.
    (3) Electronic files with content that can be marked must be
marked ``Confidential'' at the top of each page. If only a portion
of the content of a page is claimed to be confidential, the
confidential portion shall be designated by brackets. If the
confidential portion cannot be marked with brackets, it must be
identified by another method, such as font change or symbols,
whenever feasible. The submitter must use one method consistently
for electronic files of the same type within the same submission and
the method used must be described in the request for
confidentiality. Files and materials that cannot be marked
internally, such as video clips or executable files or files
provided in a format specifically requested by the agency, shall be
renamed prior to submission so the characters ``Conf'' or the word
``Confidential'' appear in the file name.

    The Alliance's suggested language differs from the agency's
proposal in several ways. Marking file content with either page
numbers, brackets or the legend ``Confidential'' is required only when
that content can be marked. Where the content cannot be marked,
submitters may choose other means of identification, including changing
existing attributes of the content, if these changes are clearly and
consistently identified in the submitter's request for confidential
treatment.
    We are modifying our earlier proposal to address the issues raised
by the Alliance and a governmental issue. The agency agrees that some
materials do not have paper equivalents or are not, particularly when
submitted in their original or ``native'' format, capable of being
marked with brackets, page notations, page numbers or other sequential
identifiers. We also concur in the Alliance's interpretation that our
proposed Section 512.6(c)(3) would require numbering or sequential
marking of only those pages or items for

which confidential treatment is sought. The Alliance's suggestions for
page numbering or sequential marking provide for accurate
identification of confidential information within electronic
submissions.
    However, in a number of respects, the revisions suggested by the
Alliance lack sufficient specificity to ensure that confidential
materials will be adequately identified in a consistent manner. The
Alliance's suggested revision to proposed Section 512.6(c)(2) provides
that content files that cannot be marked with page numbers or
sequential marks be ``described'' by other means. However, the
categories of materials that ``cannot'' be marked are not adequately
defined by the Alliance's revision. Also, the ``other means'' suggested
by the Alliance does not provide sufficient guidance to submitters. The
agency also notes that when such other means are used, these other
methods may only be ascertained through examination of the request for
confidential treatment, which often becomes separated from the
materials, and not by examination of the information alone.
    There have been other questions pertaining to whether within
governmental parlance the word confidential refers to confidential
business information.
    To address the foregoing issues, the final rule specifies that
pagination or sequential marking is required, except when files are
submitted in their ``native'' format and only to the extent that the
native format does not contain, or allow for, any internal indices. For
example, a video file does not readily lend itself to marking with page
numbers. Such files do, however, contain indices in their native format
in the form of individual frames within the file itself. Spreadsheets
contain internal indices in the form of columns and individual rows. In
both cases, existing indices within the files serve as a substitute for
sequential numbering. The final rule requires that those submitters
seeking confidentiality of files in their native format must state that
the native format precludes sequential page marking and specify an
alternate means of identifying specific confidential material within
the file. If internal indices exist, the submitter must provide an
explanation of how these internal indices are arranged and apply to
data within the file. We are also adding a requirement that an
electronic copy of the submitter's request for confidential treatment
be provided on the media containing the confidential data to reduce the
possibility that explanations of alternative marking schemes become
separated from the data.
    We are also adopting the proposed requirement that electronic media
may be submitted only in commonly used and available formats to address
occasional problems the agency has encountered when attempting to
review files prepared using uncommon software applications, such as
proprietary databases. To address requests for confidentiality, we must
be able to open the files and examine the data submitted. We received
no comments addressing this issue. This requirement would be satisfied
by the submission of data in widely used formats such as PDF, Word
documents, and Excel spreadsheets.
    As proposed, requests for confidential treatment for information
submitted to the agency must provide the information claimed as
confidential in a physical medium such as a CD-ROM. They may not be
sent to the agency by e-mail. No comments were received addressing this
issue either. There have been occasions where manufacturers have
attempted to submit information claimed as confidential via e-mail. Not
only was this action not allowed under the existing regulations, but
tracking requests for confidential treatment submitted in this manner
is very difficult and far more prone to error than a physical
submission. Permitting submissions and accompanying requests for
confidential treatment in this manner affects the agency's ability to
provide timely responses to these requests and the Chief Counsel's
office's ability to transmit the information to the relevant office
within NHTSA. In addition, the Department of Transportation limits the
overall amount of e-mail information that an individual may maintain,
which presents problems, including storage issues. We also have
encountered difficulties in receiving attachments to e-mails that
contain very large amounts of information. To ensure NHTSA's ability to
properly track and handle this information, we are requiring that the
information be placed on appropriate physical media, such as CDs, when
requesting confidential treatment.
    Finally, a question has been raised whether the word confidential
could result in confusion. NHTSA's longstanding view has been that the
word confidential means confidential business information as used in
the title of 49 CFR part 512 Confidential Business Information and that
the focus is on information that is exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
In another context, involving national security information, the word
confidential has a different meaning. To make clear that we are dealing
with confidential business information, we are adjusting the proposed
regulation to use the words confidential business information instead
of confidential.
    The foregoing changes are included in a new 49 CFR 512.6(c) that
replaces 49 CFR 512.6(b)(3).

VII. Updated Agency Contact Information

    In June 2007, the agency's offices moved to a new location. The
current version of 49 CFR part 512 does not yet reflect this change. In
today's notice, the new mailing address has been substituted at 49 CFR
part 512.7. The agency's change of address does not require notice. 5
U.S.C. 553(b).

VIII. Data Quality Act Issues

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (the ``Data Quality Act'') requires agencies
to take certain affirmative steps to maximize the utility, objectivity,
and integrity of data agencies disseminate to the public. This final
rule establishes a number of class determinations applicable to those
portions of the early warning reporting information determined likely,
if released, to cause substantial competitive harm and to impair the
government's ability to obtain data necessary to the operation of the
agency's defect detection and remediation program. Such submissions are
entitled to confidential treatment under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of
Information Act.
    RMA asserted that the class determinations that we proposed failed
to satisfy the Data Quality Act. It contended that the Data Quality Act
provides an independent basis to prohibit the disclosure of the EWR
data the agency determined is not within the purview of Exemption 4.
The RMA believes that the agency's release of EWR data would reasonably
suggest to the public that the agency agrees with the data and would be
relied on by the public as official NHTSA information. The RMA asserted
that the EWR information is subject to the Data Quality Act because it
is factual data prepared by third parties, and in the RMA's opinion,
not covered by any of the 12 exceptions contained in the DOT
guidelines. The RMA also argued that the final rule does not meet the
Data Quality Act's ``utility'' requirement and as written would not
present manufacturers'' data in an accurate, clear, complete and
unbiased manner and in a proper context.

    We disagree. Under today's rule, most of the categories of EWR data
will not be disclosed to the public, except under 49 U.S.C. 30167 or
court order. We note that the EWR information not addressed in today's
rule--reports of claims and notices of deaths, personal injury and
property damage and some production numbers--involves factual matter
and does not constitute data relied on or developed as part of a
determination by the agency. Also RMA's members may submit individual
requests for confidentiality regarding these data. Accordingly, this
rule does not implicate Data Quality Act concerns.
    Moreover, even if EWR data were subject to the Data Quality Act,
the early warning program is not subject to the requirements of the
Data Quality Act because it falls within an express exemption. The OMB
guidelines define the dissemination of information as agency initiated
or sponsored distribution of information to the public, but does not
include responses to requests for agency records under the Freedom of
Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act or
other similar law. (67 FR 8460). Thus, the Data Quality Act does not
apply to data that the agency is required to disclose under FOIA, which
would be the case with the quarterly reported death, injury, and
property damage claim numbers provided under EWR, but only to
information that the agency discloses as part of an agency-initiated or
sponsored dissemination of information.
    Consistent with OMB's guidance, the Department of Transportation
developed a set of guidelines on information dissemination, which
includes an exception for ``responses to requests under FOIA, Privacy
Act, the Federal Advisory Committee Act or other similar laws.'' \76\
The information not covered by a class determination of
confidentiality, or otherwise protected by a FOIA exemption, must be
released under FOIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ DOT's Information Dissemination Quality Guidelines, at 12
(Effective Oct. 1, 2002). The DOT guidelines are available for
public inspection at http://dms.dot.gov (click on the ``Data

Quality'' link and then ``guidelines'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The process established by Part 512 allows the agency to make
available to the public information subject to FOIA by determining in
advance which information is entitled to protection under a FOIA
exemption. The FOIA provides the analytic foundation for the
determination of which data will be publicly available and which will
be protected from public disclosure. Accordingly, this information
qualifies under the FOIA exception created by the OMB guidelines.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ The FOIA mandates that the agency make broadly available
information that has already been the subject of a FOIA request
granted by the agency. An agency must make available for public
inspection and copying ``records * * * which have been released to
any person [under FOIA] and which, because of the nature of their
subject matter, the agency determines have become or are likely to
become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same
records.'' 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2)(D). In addition, under the Electronic-
FOIA Amendment of 1996, the information, if created after November
1, 1996, must be made available in an electronic format to the
public. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, in Public Citizen v. Mineta (D.D.C. Civil No. 04-463), RMA
dismissed its Data Quality Act claim regarding the CBI rule that
ultimately was remanded.

IX. Privacy Act Statement

    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) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

X. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures (44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979)). This rulemaking
action is not significant under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' or the Department's regulatory policies and procedures. There
are no new significant burdens on information submitters or related
costs that would require the development of a full cost/benefit
evaluation. As indicated in the preamble, this document would remedy a
deficiency identified by a Federal court and does not raise any new
legal or policy issues. This rule does not present novel policy issues.
Instead, it resolves issues that have been addressed in the past,
including in litigation.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) This rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will impose no additional reporting obligations on
small entities beyond those otherwise required by the Safety Act and
the early warning reporting regulation. This rule addresses the
agency's treatment of early warning reporting data and clarifies
procedures for all submitters, including small entities, with regard to
confidentiality. The rule protects certain categories of early warning
reporting information from disclosure to ensure consistency in the
treatment of information that is likely to cause substantial
competitive harm to submitters if disclosed.
    In addition, small entities, which generally submit items in hard
copy format, are expected to and may continue to do so. Those wishing
to submit information in electronic format would be able to do so using
the procedures that we are clarifying in this proposal. Therefore, a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for this action.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's rule pursuant to Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action will not have ``federalism
implications'' because it will not have ``substantial direct effects on
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,'' as specified in section 1 of the
Executive Order.

D. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 requires 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 annually
(adjusted for inflation with a base year of 1995). This rule will not
result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million
annually.

E. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on
existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard
for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden
reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    NHTSA notes that there is no requirement that individuals submit a
petition for reconsideration or pursue other administrative proceedings
before they may file suit in court.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The existing requirements of Part 512 are considered to be
information collection requirements as that term is defined by the
Office of Budget and Management (OMB) in 5 CFR part 1320. Accordingly,
the existing Part 512 regulation was submitted to and approved by OMB
pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). At
the time that we submitted the prior requirements of Part 512, these
requirements were approved through January 31, 2008. This rule does not
revise the existing currently approved information collection under
Part 512. Instead, the rule contains the same requirements as before
and only clarifies procedures as to electronically-submitted items to
the agency for which confidentiality is sought. It does not require
electronic submissions.

G. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. This action does not meet either
of these criteria.

H. 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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 512

    Administrative procedure and practice, Confidential business
information, Freedom of information, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration amends 49 CFR Chapter V, Code of Federal Regulations, by
amending Part 512 as set forth below.
0
1. The authority for Part 512--Confidential Business Information
continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322; 5 U.S.C. 552; 49 U.S.C. 30166, 49
U.S.C. 30167; 49 U.S.C. 32307; 49 U.S.C. 32505; 49 U.S.C. 32708; 49
U.S.C. 32910; 49 U.S.C. 33116; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

0
2. Section 512.6 is amended by removing paragraph (b)(3) and adding a
new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

Sec.  512.6  How should I prepare documents when submitting a claim for
confidentiality?

* * * * *
    (c) Submissions in electronic format--
    (1) Persons submitting information under this Part may submit the
information in an electronic format. Except for early warning reporting
data submitted to the agency under 49 CFR part 579, the information
submitted in an electronic format shall be submitted in a physical
medium such as a CD-ROM. The exterior of the medium (e.g., the disk
itself) shall be permanently labeled with the submitter's name, the
subject of the information and the words ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION''.
    (2) Confidential portions of electronic files submitted in other
than their original format must be marked ``Confidential Business
Information'' or ``Entire Page Confidential Business Information'' at
the top of each page. If only a portion of a page is claimed to be
confidential, that portion shall be designated by brackets. Files
submitted in their original format that cannot be marked as described
above must, to the extent practicable, identify confidential
information by alternative markings using existing attributes within
the file or means that are accessible through use of the file's
associated program. When alternative markings are used, such as font
changes or symbols, the submitter must use one method consistently for
electronic files of the same type within the same submission. The
method used for such markings must be described in the request for
confidentiality. Files and materials that cannot be marked internally,
such as video clips or executable files or files provided in a format
specifically requested by the agency, shall be renamed prior to
submission so the words ``Confidential Bus Info'' appears in the file
name or, if that is not practicable, the characters ``Conf Bus Info''
or ``Conf'' appear. In all cases, a submitter shall provide an
electronic copy of its request for confidential treatment on any medium
containing confidential information, except where impracticable.
    (3) Confidential portions of electronic files submitted in other
than their original format must be marked with consecutive page numbers
or sequential identifiers so that any page can be identified and
located using the file name and page number. Confidential portions of
electronic files submitted in their original format must, if
practicable, be marked with consecutive page numbers or sequential
identifiers so that any page can be identified and located using the
file name and page number. Confidential portions of electronic files
submitted in their original format that cannot be marked as described
above must, to the extent practicable, identify the portions of the
file that are claimed to be confidential through the use of existing
indices or placeholders embedded within the file. If such indices or
placeholders exist, the submitter's request for confidential treatment
shall clearly identify them and the means for locating them within the
file. If files submitted in their original format cannot be marked with
page or sequence number designations and do not contain existing
indices or placeholders for locating confidential information, then the
portions of the files that are claimed to be confidential shall be
described by other means in the

request for confidential treatment. In all cases, submitters shall
provide an electronic copy of their request for confidential treatment
on any media containing confidential data except where impracticable.
    (4) Electronic media may be submitted only in commonly available
and used formats.
0
3. Section 512.7 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  512.7  Where should I send the information for which I am
requesting confidentiality?

    A claim for confidential treatment must be submitted in accordance
with the provisions of this regulation to the Chief Counsel of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building W41-227, Washington, DC 20590.

0
4. Appendix C to Part 512 is revised read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 512--Early Warning Reporting Class Determinations

    (a) The Chief Counsel has determined that the following
information required to be submitted to the agency under 49 CFR 579,
Subpart C, if released, is likely to cause substantial harm to the
competitive position of the manufacturer submitting the information
and is likely to impair the government's ability to obtain necessary
information in the future:
    (1) Reports and data relating to warranty claim information and
warranty adjustment information for manufacturers of tires;
    (2) Reports and data relating to field reports, including dealer
reports, product evaluation reports, and hard copies of field
reports; and
    (3) Reports and data relating to consumer complaints.
    (b) The Chief Counsel has determined that the following
information required to be submitted to the agency under 49 CFR 579,
Subpart C, if released, is likely to cause substantial harm to the
competitive position of the manufacturer submitting the information:
    (1) Reports of production numbers for child restraint systems,
tires, and vehicles other than light vehicles, as defined in 49 CFR
579.4(c); and
    (2) Lists of common green tire identifiers.
0
5. Appendix D to part 512 is redesignated as Appendix E to Part 512 and
a new Appendix D to Part 512 is added to read as follows:

Appendix D to Part 512--Vehicle Identification Number Information

    The Chief Counsel has determined that the disclosure of the last
six (6) characters, when disclosed along with the first eleven (11)
characters, of vehicle identification numbers reported in
information on incidents involving death or injury pursuant to the
early warning information requirements of 49 CFR part 579 will
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy within
the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6).
0
6. Newly redesignated Appendix E to Part 512 is revised to read as
follows:

Appendix E to Part 512--OMB Clearance

    The OMB clearance number for this part 512 is 2127-0025

    Issued on: October 10, 2007.
Nicole R. Nason,
Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E7-20368 Filed 10-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P