[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29354-29359]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11499]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0039]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Notice and Request for
Comment; State Data Transfer for Vehicle Crash Information

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments on a request for approval of a
new information collection.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is
re-issuing an announcement of our intention to request approval from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a new information
collection and inviting public comments. Before a Federal agency can
collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval
from 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 reinstatement of previously approved collections. This
document describes a collection of information for which NHTSA intends
to seek OMB approval on State Data Transfer for Vehicle Crash
Information collection. On May 31, 2018 NHTSA published a notice in the
Federal Register soliciting public comments with 60-day comment period.
On July 23, 2018, NHTSA extended the comment period to September 14,
2018.\1\ Four comments were received before the comment period expired.
One comment from Governors Highway Safety Association was submitted
after the comment period expired. Given the extended time since the
publication of that notice, NHTSA is publishing this new 60-day notice
to request comment on its proposed State Data Transfer information
collection. This new notice addresses comments received on the original
60-day notice. This notice also announces that NHTSA has requested
emergency clearance from OMB for this information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 83 FR 34912.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 2, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Docket No. NHTSA-
2021-0039 through any of the following methods:
     Electronic submissions: Go to the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except on Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> before coming.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets via internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or access
to background documents, contact Michael Frenchik, Office of Data
Acquisition, Safety Systems Management Division, (NSA-0130), (202) 366-
0641, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W53-303, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), before an agency submits a proposed
collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a
document in the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment period and
otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies
concerning each proposed collection of information. The OMB has
promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a
document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must
ask for public comment on the following: (a) 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; (b) 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; (c) how to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (d) 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 for public comments on the following proposed collection of
information for which the agency is seeking approval from OMB.
    Title: Stata Data Transfer (SDT) for Vehicle Crash Information.
    OMB Control Number: New.
    Form Number(s): None.
    Type of Request: New.
    Type of Review Requested: Regular.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from date of
approval.

Summary of the Collection of Information

    The State Data Transfer (SDT) program is a voluntary collection of
motor vehicle crash data. State agencies collect this information about
motor vehicle crashes on Police Accident Reports (PARs) \2\ for their
own needs. In general, a PAR includes information about the vehicles
and individuals involved in a crash, injuries or fatalities resulting
from a crash, roadway information, environmental information,
information to reconstruct the crash scenes, etc. The SDT is a process
through which participating States transfer their PAR data to NHTSA.
SDT has two components that NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and
Analysis (NCSA) calls protocols:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Police Accident Reports are also known as Police Crash
Reports (PCRs) in some jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The State Data System (SDS) protocol obtains PAR crash data from
States that submit data on an annual basis to NCSA. The data is
submitted via electronic media, such as encrypted CD-ROM/DVD, or
through secured mail or a secure file transfer protocol (SFTP). Files
submitted through the SDS protocol are referred to as ``annual crash
files.''
    2. The Electronic Data Transfer (EDT) protocol obtains PAR crash
data, crash reports or crash images from

participating State crash systems through an electronic data transfer.
Generally, this transfer occurs on a nightly basis following State data
quality control checks and acceptance from each State's centralized
database. The information is transmitted using Extensible Markup
Language (XML) or JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) files through a web
service using Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) protocol
between a State's crash data system and NHTSA.
    The SDT process allows States to submit all of their PAR data to
NHTSA. NCSA will then use this data to develop a census of the
participating State's crashes. The dataset will help NCSA identify
existing and emerging highway safety trends and assess the
effectiveness of motor vehicle safety standards and new and emerging
technologies on vehicle and highway safety programs. NHTSA will also
use the dataset to support NHTSA's Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) program. Specifically, NHTSA will use the data to analyze the
effects vehicle mass has on fatalities in cost benefit analyses for
CAFE rulemakings.

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

    NHTSA plans to utilize the SDT data to identify existing and
emerging highway safety trends, assess the effectiveness of motor
vehicle safety standards, and study the impact of new and emerging
technologies on vehicles and highway safety programs. For example,
NHTSA plans to combine data from the SDT with information about the
type of advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) on crash-involved
vehicles to estimate the effectiveness of vehicles equipped with ADAS
technologies such as lane keeping support, automatic emergency braking,
blind spot detection, etc.
    NHTSA also plans to use the SDT data to automatically pre-populate
the motor vehicle crash data it collects for several other NHTSA data
collection programs. The following are brief descriptions of these data
collection programs:
     FARS (OMB Control No. 2127-0006) is a nationwide census of
fatalities caused by motor vehicle traffic crashes. In addition to PAR
data, FARS includes detailed information regarding the location of the
crash, the vehicles, and the people involved. FARS cases can also
include toxicology report data, medical records, medical examiner
reports, etc.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Additional details about FARS and how the agency collects
this information are available in the supporting statements for the
ICR with OMB Control No. 2127-0006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CRSS (OMB Control No. 2127-0714) is a nationally
representative sample of police-reported crashes involving all types of
motor vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists, ranging from property-
damage-only crashes to those that result in fatalities. CRSS data
elements are a subset of the data elements on each State's PAR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Additional details about CRSS and how the agency collects
this information are available in the supporting statements for the
ICR with OMB Control No. 2127-0714.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     CISS (OMB Control Number 2127-0706) is a nationally
representative sample of minor, serious, and fatal crashes involving at
least one passenger vehicle--cars, light trucks, sport utility
vehicles, and vans--towed from the scene. CISS collects data at both
the crash level through scene analysis and the vehicle level through
vehicle damage assessment together with injury coding. Data collected
through CISS expands upon the information that is collected in a
PAR.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Additional details about CISS and how the agency collects
this information are available in the supporting statements for the
ICR with OMB Control No. 2127-0706.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The SCI Program provides NHTSA with the most in-depth
crash data collected by the agency. The data collected ranges from
basic information contained in routine police and insurance crash
reports, to comprehensive data from special reports produced by
professional crash investigation teams. Hundreds of data elements
relevant to the vehicle, occupants, injury mechanisms, roadway, and
safety systems are collected for each of the over 100 crashes
designated for study annually.
     NTS is a virtual data collection system designed to
provide counts and details regarding fatalities and injuries that occur
in non-traffic crashes and in non-crash incidents. NTS non-traffic
crash data is obtained through NHTSA's information collections for CRSS
and FARS. NTS non-crash injury data is based upon emergency department
records from a special study conducted by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission's National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) All
Injury Program. NTS non-crash fatality data is derived from death
certificate information from the Centers for Disease Control's National
Vital Statistics System.
     CIREN combines crash data collection with professional
multidisciplinary analysis of medical and engineering evidence to
determine injury causation in every crash investigation conducted. The
mission of the CIREN is to improve the prevention, treatment, and
rehabilitation of motor vehicle crash injuries to reduce deaths,
disabilities, and human and economic costs.
    Until recently, the transfer of vehicle crash data from a State's
crash data system to NHTSA's FARS, CRSS and CISS required individuals
to manually enter State vehicle crash data into each of the crash data
systems operated by NHTSA. The SDT program will allow NHTSA to automate
the transfer of State motor vehicle crash data into NHTSA's other data
collection efforts that use this information. NHTSA's SDT program will
reduce the burden for manual data entry and result in more accurate,
high quality and timely data to help save lives, prevent injuries, and
reduce economic costs due to motor vehicle crashes.
    In addition, the SDT data will be made available to other DOT
agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, to support their mission to save
lives on our national roadways.

Request for Emergency Clearance

    NHTSA has requested emergency clearance from OMB for the SDT
information collection. NHTSA has requested emergency clearance for the
maximum permissible period under 5 CFR 1320.13(f) to allow NHTSA to
collect the information while it completes the normal clearance
procedures. NHTSA has sought emergency clearance because the data
collected through the SDT program are critical to several high priority
projects for this administration. The SDT data will be used to analyze
the effects vehicle mass has on fatalities in cost benefit analyses for
CAFE rulemakings. E.O. 13990 requires NHTSA to ``as appropriate and
consistent with applicable law, [. . .] consider publishing for notice
and comment a proposed rule suspending, revising, or rescinding'' the
SAFE II Rule ``by July 2021.'' Following the normal clearance
procedures will not allow NHTSA to receive approval to collect and use
this data before the deadline.
    The Partnership for Analytics Research in Traffic Safety (PARTS)
also needs this data to determine the effectiveness of automated driver
assistance systems (ADAS) with Departmental leadership expecting
initial analyses later this year.

    Given the priorities identified above, this information is needed
before NHTSA can complete the normal clearance procedures under 5 CFR
part 1320. NHTSA requested that OMB approve or disapprove the
collection of information within 3 days.

Public Comments

    NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register with a 60-day
public comment period to announce the proposed EDT protocol part of SDT
information collection on May 31, 2018 (83 FR 25112). On July 23, 2018,
NHTSA extended the comment period to September 14, 2018, at the request
of State-based stakeholders. The agency received five comments in
response to the 60-day notice on the proposed information collection
titled ``State Data Transfer.'' \6\ NHTSA received comments from the
Transportation Departments of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, and Wyoming in a joint submission (referred to as ``joint State
commenters'' in this document); \7\ the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT); Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA);
Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA); and the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 83 FR 25112, May 31, 2018. NHTSA subsequently extended the
comment deadline to September 14, 2018 (83 FR 34912, July 23, 2018).
    \7\ The South Dakota Department of Public Safety concurs in
these comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CVSA and IIHS were generally supportive of the program while State
commenters expressed some concerns about program. The IIHS encouraged
NHTSA to move forward with the State Data Transfer effort because the
effort would allow for more timely analyses of the data and enable
other opportunities to improve the accuracy of the information
collected. GHSA expressed support for NHTSA's objective to provide more
timely, complete, and high-quality data on motor vehicle crashes and
stated that the electronic transfer of State crash data to NHTSA
provides new opportunities to achieve this goal, as well as reduce time
and cost for State data management activities. However, GHSA also
commented that some States face significant barriers to participating.
    After reviewing the comments, NHTSA has revised its estimates for
number of respondents based on interest from the States and has
reclassified the labor costs associated with the burden hour
calculations. NHTSA believes the other concerns raised by the
commenters can be addressed by providing clarification about the
program and its impact on States.
    Discussion of the comments is organized by topic below. NHTSA
received comments and questions about the program as a whole and
program participation; funding; cost and burden estimates; data
compatibility and standardization; data confidentiality; additional
data elements; and data sharing.

General Program Clarifications

    The joint State commenters stated that the notice included few
specifics about the program and they were uncertain whether
implementation of this proposal would result in only the same
information being provided by the States to NHTSA as is provided today,
via different means, or whether implementation of this proposal would
result in States providing more information than they do today.
    NHTSA Response: The SDT program does result in States providing
more information to NHTSA than they do today. Currently, NHTSA only
collects crash data on a subset of all vehicle crashes. NHTSA collects
data on all crashes involving fatalities through FARS and then collects
samples of crashes through CRSS and CISS. This means that there are
some crashes that States collect data on that are not reported to
NHTSA. The SDT program allows States to submit crash data on all of
their crashes to NHTSA. While the scope of the crashes NHTSA will
collect data on is expanded, it is not NHTSA's intention to use the SDT
program to seek any additional data elements beyond what the States are
providing to NHTSA today. However, because State crash databases may
contain more data elements than NHTSA currently collects in its
existing collections, NHTSA may receive more data elements from some
States than is currently collected. This will vary by State and is
dependent on what data elements the State chooses to send to NHTSA.
Additionally, participating States may choose to only send data on
crashes to pre-populate the existing crash databases (i.e., FARS, CRSS,
and CISS).
    While the SDT program will collect data beyond what States
currently provide to NHTSA, NHTSA expects that the EDT protocol will
reduce the overall burden for participating States. The EDT protocol is
expected to reduce manual data entry in connection with NHTSA's
existing collections of crash data. Participation in either SDT
protocol is completely voluntary and NHTSA expects States to
participate only if they deem it beneficial to them. If a State chooses
to participate in the EDT protocol, NHTSA will work with them to set up
a data feed, which NHTSA will use to pre-populate existing crash
databases. For example, a subset of the data will be pre-populated into
the FARS system. Instead of State analysts manually inputting all of
data into FARS program, they can focus on validating the data in the
system and completing the FARS entry. This pre-coding of data is
expected to reduce time spent on manual data entry and result in more
accurate and higher quality data.

Program Participation

    NHTSA received comments on program participation from ODOT, the
joint State commenters, and GHSA. ODOT asked whether NHTSA has the
authority to compel States to share or transfer data and ODOT, the
joint State commenters, and GHSA commented on the voluntary nature of
the program. The joint State commenters said that a voluntary approach
would be preferred because of substantial legal and financial
challenges to participation. GHSA commented that States are wary about
new technology directives and concerned that the State Data Transfer
will become mandatory. As support for this concern, GHSA mentioned the
significant technical challenges that States faced with the launch of
the Grants Management Solutions Suite (GMSS) by NHTSA's Office of
Regional Operations and Program Delivery.
    NHTSA Response: Participation in the SDT program is completely
voluntary. NHTSA recognizes that some States would face considerable
challenges to participation. Not all States currently have centralized
data systems that would allow integration with NHTSA's interface.
Because a centralized data system is necessary for participation in
SDT, some States would not be able to participate or would need to
first create a centralized data system, which would require significant
time and financial resources.

Funding

    The joint State commenters and ODOT commented about the
availability of funding to help States achieve compliance with the
proposed collection requirement. The joint State commenters state that
States do not have unlimited fiscal or personnel resources to address
these data issues and, absent new funding from USDOT, to implement this
``information collection,'' States will have to meet these new
obligations by using Federal and/or State funds that otherwise would go
to other safety programs and efforts. ODOT pointed out that no funding
has been identified or provided to aid states in creating the software
packages and

translation modules to port the data from the state to NHTSA or to
cover the costs of the creation of a statewide crash database in
jurisdictions where none exists today. ODOT also stated that the SDT
program would require reallocation of States' resources from other
major information programs and information systems.
    NHTSA Response: NHTSA notes that participation in the SDT program
is voluntary. NHTSA understands the challenges of integrating data
systems and, therefore, assesses each State's readiness for SDT
implementation on a case-by-case basis. In order to assist a State
wishing to improve its data systems, NHTSA offers incentive grants to
states that improve State safety data systems, including to improve the
compatibility and interoperability of the State and national data
systems. States that are unable to support data transfer may contact
NHTSA's regional office about whether the State may apply for a 405(c)
State Traffic Safety Information System Improvement grant to improve
its data systems.

Cost and Burden Estimates

    ODOT, the joint State commenters, CVSA, and GHSA commented on
NHTSA's cost and burden estimates for the EDT protocol. ODOT, the joint
State commenters, and CVSA raised concerns that NHTSA underestimated
the cost of participation. Specifically, ODOT stated that it thought
that the estimates significantly underestimated the cost to States in
full-time employee resources and budget by thousands of dollars. The
joint State commenters pointed out that relevant data is not always
housed in the transportation agencies and it may require a great deal
of coordination between State agencies to gather the data. The joint
State commenters also raised concerns about the cost of creating and
testing software programs that may be needed. CVSA commented that many
States would need to undergo significant information technology system
changes to deliver the electronic data in the necessary format and that
NHTSA underestimated the costs. The joint State commenters further
expressed concerns that NHTSA has not issued specifications for the
data to be transferred and its format, which makes estimating costs
difficult. They also expressed concern that the EDT program would
involve changes in the way data is input.
    GHSA expressed concerns that if NHTSA's estimates are averages,
there may be significant deviation based on State needs. However, GHSA
acknowledged that some of the States that have already participated in
SDT agreed with the estimates. GHSA also stated participating States
report that SDT programs were lengthy to set up prior to implementing,
which could include several months of coordinating calls between the
State and NHTSA information technology staff focused chiefly on
coordinating computer code.
    NHTSA Response: The agency has updated the burden estimates for the
EDT protocol to better reflect associated costs and anticipated number
of new participants. These estimates were informed by the actual level
of effort and costs incurred by States that have fully implemented the
EDT protocol. The EDT State burden estimate covers the initial
establishment of the State-NHTSA connection and subsequent, annualized
data transmission and management requirements for submitting data to
NHTSA. This cost does not cover any other cost, such as the design and
implementation of a centralized crash database in a State. While such a
centralized State system is required for SDT participation, the
establishment of a centralized State crash database is outside the
purview of this supplemental Federal program. SDT does not include the
means for which crash data is collected and centralized and should only
be considered the mechanism through which the States provide State
crash data, voluntarily, to NHTSA using an electronic transmission
process.

Data Compatibility and Standardization

    ODOT commented on data compatibility and stated that different
State agencies have responsibility for collecting crash data,
inconsistent legislative reporting requirements, levels of
transparency, and public data reporting limits. CVSA commented on the
related topic of data standardization between States. CVSA stated that
it encourages the adoption of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria
(MMUCC) which provides a standardized data set for describing vehicle
crashes. By further standardizing crash data collected, a more useful
and robust data sample can be accumulated at the Federal level.
    NHTSA Response: NHTSA has, in helping States implement EDT,
encountered issues with data compatibility. NHTSA understands that
States may have different reporting requirements and will work with the
State to seek a mutually acceptable way to implement the EDT protocol.
Regarding data standardization, the more compliant a State is with
MMUCC, the easier it is for NHTSA to integrate a State's data system
into the EDT program. NHTSA cross-references crash data to the MMUCC
5th Edition for internal use. While compliance with MMUCC is optimal
for EDT implementation, it is not required.

Data Confidentiality

    ODOT stated that there are security risks to a State's
responsibility to protect personal identifying data and expressed
concerns that by sending the data to a Federal agency, it would become
a public record and be discoverable. ODOT and the joint State
commenters are concerned that access to Federal data adds litigation
risks to States and individuals. ODOT stated that it has a significant
liability settlement threshold and NHTSA's data system is likely to
generate new court cases that the State must defend. The joint State
commenters concern that this data transfer to USDOT-NHTSA could create
tension with, if not conflict with, State confidentiality protocols and
requirements. The joint State commenters stated, 23 U.S.C. 148,
``Highway safety improvement program,'' includes paragraph (h)(4),
which provides that ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for
any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery
or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or
considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from
any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports,
surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.'' The joint State commenters
expressed concern that, given the relationship of any highway safety
data to the safety purposes of 23 U.S.C. 148, moving data from State
control to Federal control, at a minimum, risks undercutting the intent
of 23 U.S.C. 148(h)(4), which includes allowing a State to review
safety trends on specific routes for program purposes without having to
disclose such information (protection from discovery). The joint State
commenters noted that nothing in the notice states that consideration
has been given to the potential implications for 23 U.S.C. 148(h)(4),
as well as for tort exposure more generally.
    GHSA recommended that NHTSA may be able to encourage State
participation by clarifying the specific data elements sought in this
program and whether and how States might ``scrub'' personal data, HIPAA
information, or other sensitive data before submission. GHSA stated
NHTSA clearly has robust procedures in place to comply with 23 U.S.C.
403 (e), which prohibits the public release of crash data that
identifies individuals, but the

States would benefit from some additional perspective.
    NHTSA Response: Data collected by NHTSA is subject to Federal law.
Consistent with Federal law, and NHTSA policy, personally identifiable
information (PII) contained in SDT data will not be disclosed to the
public. All SDT data is encrypted during transfer and maintained in a
password protected network drive, with limited access. SDT data is not
directly published or made available to analysts outside of DOT because
of States concerns. Study data (e.g., FARS, CRSS, CISS, etc.) is
published annually only after thorough quality control that ensures PII
is withheld from disclosure. NHTSA may also publish aggregated SDT data
in reports that analyze the data without disclosing any PII to the
public.

Additional Data Elements

    The IIHS commented that, to increase the value of the data
collected, the agency should collect vehicle specific (VIN-based)
information on advanced crash avoidance and driving automation
technologies, particularly in vehicles for which the features are
optional. The information could be obtained from manufacturers and
included in the final publicly-available crash databases. This would be
a major step in enabling researchers to estimate how such features
affect crash risk.
    NHTSA Response: We appreciate IIHS's suggestions about identifying
vehicle specific information for the purposes of analyzing the data
when safety equipment is optional on a vehicle line and not standard.
However, collecting vehicle specific information on the type of safety
features the vehicle is equipped is outside the scope of this
information collection clearance.

Data Sharing

    GHSA and CVSA commented about data sharing. GHSA commented that
States want details on how NHTSA plans to use SDT data on the Federal
level and asked about how the data would be made available to other
Federal agencies. CVSA commented that the data that is collected at the
Federal level should be made available to more than just the U.S.
Department of Transportation and other Federal agencies. CVSA
recommended that the collected data be made available to States,
academia, organizations and other interested parties that can utilize
the data to help improve highway safety.
    NHTSA Response: NHTSA intends to share the data to other DOT
agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, to support their mission to save
lives on our national roadways. However, NHTSA will not be making the
data available to analysts outside of DOT because of concerns expressed
by some of the State participants.
    Affected Public: State Governments.
    This voluntary information collection involves State governments,
and specifically the State agencies that collect crash data.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 38.
    Currently, 31 States are voluntarily submitting their annual crash
database to NHTSA using the SDS protocol once the Annual file is
complete and 19 States are voluntarily submitting their State's data
using the EDT protocol where the transfer occurs on a nightly basis.
NHTSA estimates that, on average, in each of the next three years,
there will be 31 States submitting data using the SDS protocol and 23
States submitting data using the EDT protocol. NHTSA estimates that
there will be 15 States submitting data through both EDT and SDS.
Therefore, NHTSA estimates the total number of respondents to be 38.

Frequency

    The frequency of this information collection varies State-by-State,
potentially from daily to annually, as agreed upon by NHTSA and the
individual States. State participating in the SDS protocol typically
send a file to NHTSA once a year with all the crashes occurring during
a calendar year. States send these files when it has completed its
quality control process. For the EDT States, the data is usually
transferred every night with the crash cases that have completed the
quality control process since the last nightly transfer.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 683 hours.
    SDT receives the crash data from States in two different ways. SDS
information is obtained annually from States submitted in a more
traditional method via electronic media through secured mail or a
Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP). NHTSA assumes a participating
State already has a centralized electronic crash database. Currently,
31 States are voluntarily submitting their annual crash database to
NHTSA, with five States sending electronic media and 26 states
uploading the database to an SFTP site. Since NHTSA accepts the States'
centralized electronic crash database without changes, NHTSA estimates
that it will required eight hours for a State Database Administrator to
save a copy of the State's annual crash database onto a SFTP site or
electronic media. We estimate an additional four hours will be required
for an administrative assistant to package and send the electronic
media to NHTSA.
    To estimate the labor cost associated with submitting the SDS
information, NHTSA looked at wage estimates for the type of personnel
involved with copying, packaging and sending the database. NHTSA
estimates the total labor costs associated with copying the database by
looking at the average wage for Database and Network Administrator and
Architects. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) estimates that the
average hourly wage for Database and Network Administrator and
Architects (Standard Occupational Classification #15-1240, May 2020) is
$47.80.\8\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that State and
local government workers' wages represent 61.9% of total labor
compensation costs.\9\ Therefore, NHTSA estimates the hourly labor
costs for copying the database to be $77.22 ($47.80 / 61.9%) for
Database and Network Administrator and Architects. The cost associated
with the eight hours of Database and Network Administrator labor is
estimated to be $617.76 per respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See May 2020 National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates United States, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (accessed April 16, 2021).
    \9\ See Table 1. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by
ownership (Dec. 2020), available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm (accessed April 16, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 5 States sending electronic media, NHTSA estimates the
total labor costs for packing and sending the database by looking at
the average wage for Secretaries and Administrative Assistants. The BLS
estimates that the average hourly wage for Secretaries and
Administrator Assistants (Standard Occupational Classification #43-
6014, May 2020) is $19.43 \10\ By using the same estimate that wages
represent 61.9% of the total compensation cost of labor, NHTSA
estimates the total labor hour for packing and sending the database on
electronic media to be $31.39. Therefore, the cost associated with the
four hours to send the electronic media is estimated to be $125.56 per
respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See May 2020 National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates United States, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (accessed April 16, 2021).

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

    Combining these copying and packing and sending burden estimates
for SDS, NHTSA estimates that the total burden hours associated with
this collection will be 268 (248 + 20 hours) hours and total labor cost
associated with the collection will be $19,151 ($617.76 x 31 States)
for copying and $628 ($125.56 x 5 States) for packing and sending, for
a total of $19,779 ($19,151 + $628) for the SDS protocol.
    The EDT protocol burden hour estimate is based on the level of
effort reported by the States that have fully implemented SDT. NHTSA
estimates that in each of the next three years, there will be two new
States joining the 19 States already participating in SDT program using
the EDT protocol. Therefore, NHTSA estimates that there will be, on
average, 23 EDT protocol States in each of the next three years. Cost
and burden estimates for the EDT protocol are divided in two: A one-
time implementation effort, and an annual maintenance effort. Both
estimates assume a participating State already has a centralized
electronic crash database. The burden for the one-time implementation
of the SDT program is estimated at 200 hours. NHTSA estimates that
these hours will account for work done by State IT (150hrs) and FARS
program personnel (50hrs).
    Once implemented, the hourly burden on States associated with SDT
maintenance is estimated at five hours per year, based upon currently
participating States' experiences. This time is generally used to
troubleshoot any connection issues or refine mapping protocols for any
data elements that have changed.
    NHTSA estimates the cost for IT personnel burden hours using the
Bureau of Labor Statistics' mean wage estimate for Software developers
and Programmers (Standard Occupational Classification #15-1250) of
$52.86.\11\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that for State and
local government workers, wages represent 61.9% of total
compensation.\12\ Therefore, the total hourly cost associated with the
IT burden hours is estimated to be $85.40 per hour. The cost associated
with the 150 hours of IT personnel labor is estimated to be $12,810.00
per respondent. Initial SDT implementation is also expected to involve
50 hours of FARS program personnel time. There is no additional cost to
the States associated with these hours because these costs may be
charged to the Federal Government through the FARS cooperative
agreements. Thus, total labor cost for EDT implication costs per State
are estimated to be $12,810.00. The total annual implementation burden
cost per year is estimated to be $25,620 ($12,810.00 x 2 new State
respondents).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See May 2020 National Occupational Employment and Wage
Estimates United States, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm (accessed April 16, 2021).
    \12\ Employer Costs for Employee Compensation by ownership (Dec.
2020), available at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm
(accessed April 16, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After initial implementation of a SDT interface, the ongoing cost
burden to participating States is estimated at 5 hours per State
annually, based on a survey of currently participating States. Per the
loaded labor rates for State IT staff outlined above, 5 hours of work
translates to an estimated total annual maintenance burden of $427.00
per State respondent maintaining participation in the SDT program.
NHTSA estimates that there will be, on average, 23 States participating
in EDT program in each of the next three years. Therefore, the annual
maintenance cost for the States is a total of $9,821.00 ($427.00 x 23
States) per year.
    Combining these implementation and maintenance burden estimates for
the EDT protocol, NHTSA estimates that the total burden hours
associated with this collection will be 415 hours and total labor cost
associated with the collection will be $35,441.00.
    The total estimated burden for SDT is 683 (268 SDS + 415 EDT) and
total estimated labor cost is $55,220 ($19,779 SDS + $35,441 EDT).
    A summary of the burden estimates is provided in the table below.

                                                               SDT Burden Estimate Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Burden per     Total burden      Cost per        Cost per       Total labor
                       Burden type                          Respondents     respondent         hours        burden hour     respondent         cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDS Copying.............................................              31               8             248          $77.22         $617.76      $19,150,56
                                                                                19,151
SDS Packing and sending.................................               5               4              20           31.39          125.56          627.80
                                                                                628
EDT IT Implementation...................................               2             150             300           85.40       12,810.00       25,620.00
                                                                                25,620
EDT Maintenance.........................................              23               5             115           85.40          427.00        9,821.00
                                                                                9,821
                                                          ..............  ..............             683  ..............  ..............          55,220
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost: $0.
    NHTSA does not expect that participating states will incur any
costs beyond the labor hour cost associated with the burden hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate
of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; 49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.

Chou-Lin Chen,
Associate Administrator, National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2021-11499 Filed 5-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


From: " Flynn, Amy E." [ Amy_ E._ Flynn@ omb. eop. gov]

Sent: 12/ 13/ 2005 05: 31 PM To: Jason Burnett Subject: PM NAAQS comments Jason,

Please find attached comments from DOT/ FHWA on the coarse PM section of the monitoring rule. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks,  Amy


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51459-51462]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20842]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0079; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-06-AD;
Amendment 39-17148; AD 2012-16-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Pratt &
Whitney Division PW4052, PW4152, PW4056, PW4156A, PW4060, PW4060A,
PW4060C, PW4062, PW4062A, PW4158, PW4460, PW4462, PW4164, PW4164C,
PW4164C/B, PW4168, and PW4168A turbofan engines with certain high-
pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 front hubs installed. This AD was
prompted by Pratt & Whitney's updated low-cycle-fatigue analysis that
indicated certain HPT stage 1 front hubs could initiate a crack prior
to the published life limit. This AD requires removing the affected HPT
stage 1 front hubs from service using a drawdown plan. We are issuing
this AD to prevent failure of the HPT stage 1 front hub, which could
lead to an uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective September 28, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of September 28,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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:<PHONE_NUMBER>) 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: James Gray, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2012 (77 FR
16967). That NPRM proposed to require removing the affected HPT stage 1
front hubs from service using a drawdown plan.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    One commenter, The Boeing Company, supported the contents of the
proposed AD (77 FR 16967, March 23, 2012), as written.

Request To Modify Applicability

    Commenters United Airlines, United Parcel Service Co. (UPS), Pratt
& Whitney (P&W), and MNG Airlines requested that part numbers (P/Ns)
52L301 and 51L201-021 be added to the applicability paragraphs (c)(1)
and (c)(2) of the proposed AD (77 FR 16967, March 23, 2012). The
commenters noted that the applicability of the proposed AD is
inconsistent since it includes some assembly P/Ns and some detail P/Ns.
    We agree. We revised the applicability paragraphs of this AD to
include the referenced P/Ns for consistency.

Request To Change Compliance Time

    Commenters UPS, MNG Airlines, and Onur Air requested that the
compliance time be changed to ``at next piece-part exposure after the
effective date of this AD or before accumulating the number of cycles
listed in this AD, whichever occurs later.'' MNG Airlines indicated
that its engines would lose 1,382 flight cycles, which would cost more
than $1,000,000 and force early shop visits. Onur Air noted that its
engines would lose 1,300 cycles and it would cause stub life problems
on other life limited parts. UPS also expressed its concern over the
increased shop burden from a hub life reduction.
    We do not agree. We determined that removal of the HPT stage 1
front hubs according to the compliance times in paragraph (f) of this
AD provides an acceptable level of safety for the fleet. This
acceptable level of safety would not be maintained if all HPT stage 1
front hubs were allowed to remain in service until the next piece-part
exposure above the number of cycles listed in this AD. For this reason,
we also cannot adjust the compliance time to account for potential stub
life problems that might occur in the other rotors. We did not change
the AD.

Request To Reference the PW4000 Engine Manual Chapter 05 Life Limits

    Commenters MNG Airlines and P&W requested that the phrase ``former
life limits cannot be exceeded'' be added to compliance paragraphs
(f)(1)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD (77 FR 16967, March 23,
2012), or that some other reference to the PW4000 Engine Manual Chapter
05 life limits be added when the stage 1 front hub is operating during
the 1,000 cycle drawdown. United commented that a reference to the
reduced life limits be included in Chapter 05 of the Airworthiness
Limitations Section (ALS) of the PW4000 Engine Manual.
    We do not agree. The Chapter 05 life limits cannot be exceeded. For
those hubs beneath the Chapter 05 life limit, this AD requires removal
according to the drawdown schedule in the AD, which is before the
Chapter 05 limit is reached. This AD's requirements are independent
from the Chapter 05 life limits in the ALS of the PW4000 Engine Manual.
We did not change the AD.

Request Revisions to Service Information To Be Incorporated by
Reference

    P&W, UPS, and United requested revisions to the service information
that is incorporated by reference in the AD. P&W requested that the AD
reference the new P&W Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW4ENG A72-821,
dated July 6, 2012 and P&W ASB No. PW4G-100-A72-246, dated June 28,
2012, which address the unsafe condition and contain the affected part
numbers by serial number for the PW4000-94'' and PW4000-100'' engines.
UPS also asked that the AD be revised to note that any subsequent
revision of the service bulletin (SB) can be used for compliance.
    We agree in part. Our proposed AD (77 FR 16967, March 23, 2012),
referenced the P/N-serial number (S/N) tables of affected parts in the
old SBs. We agree that we should use the new P&W SBs. We changed
paragraph (c) of this AD to incorporate the P/N-S/N tables from the new
P&W ASBs, specifically from P&W ASB No. PW4ENG A72-821, dated July 6,
2012 and P&W ASB No. PW4G-100-A72-246, dated June 28, 2012.
    We disagree that the AD should be revised to incorporate future
revisions of an ASB because we do not know the contents of SBs not yet
published. We did not change the AD based on UPS's comment.

Request To Modify Compliance Wording

    P&W requested that the phrase ``or at the next piece-part exposure
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first'' be
removed from the compliance paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) and (f)(2)(ii). P&W
indicated that, based on the proposed AD, operators may not be able to
run HPT stage 1 front hubs, identified in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and
(c)(1)(ii), that are exposed at piece-part between 17,000 and 18,000
cycles-since-new (CSN) and HPT stage 1 front hubs, identified in
paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3), that are exposed between 12,700 and
13,700 CSN, to the full 1,000 cycle drawdown.
    We partially agree. We agree that the AD if adopted as proposed
could have forced removal of HPT stage 1 front hubs prior to reaching
18,000 CSN and 13,700 CSN, respectively. We disagree that we should
remove the at piece-part exposure wording from paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)
and (f)(2)(ii) of the AD, because HPT stage 1 front hubs that are
exposed at piece-part after 18,000 CSN and 13,700 CSN should not go
back into service, even if they have not accumulated an additional
1,000 cycles in service. We therefore, revised paragraphs (f)(1)(ii)
and (f)(2)(ii) of the proposed AD (77 FR 16967, March 23, 2012), to
clarify that these HPT stage 1 front hubs should be removed at the next
piece-part exposure above 18,000 CSN and 13,700 CSN, respectively,
rather than at the next piece-part exposure after the effective date of
the AD. This change is consistent with the installation prohibition for
HPT stage 1 front hubs in paragraph (g) of this AD.

Request for Allowance for Mixed-Model Management

    United asked that the AD include an allowance for mixed-model
management.
    We do not agree. The AD does not restrict use of mixed-model
management. If an operator uses mixed-model management, then 18,000 CSN
and 13,700 CSN should be used in the calculation for the respective
engine models included in paragraph (c) of this AD. We did not change
the AD.

Request To Add Credit for Prior Compliance

    FedEx Express (FedEx) asked that the AD include credit for
compliance to prior SBs.

    We do not agree. Operators can take credit for previous actions
based on paragraph (e) of this AD. We did not change the AD.

Request To Clarify Requirements for P/N 51L901

    FedEx asked that the AD requirements for stage 1 front hub, P/N
51L901, be clarified. FedEx claimed that the relevant service
information section of the AD and its applicability are contradictory.
    We do not agree. We reviewed the P/N references and find no
contradictions between the two sections. We did not change the AD.

Revision to Cost of Compliance

    In reviewing our cost of compliance estimate made in the NPRM (77
FR 16967, March 23, 2012), we found that our estimate was wrong.
Specifically, we found that we based our estimate on the number of
engines installed on airplanes worldwide rather than just on the U.S.
fleet. Therefore, we changed our estimate to reflect U.S. operators
only. This change reduced the number of engines affected from 954 to
289 and the total cost estimate from $23,049,537 to $6,981,578.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator nor
increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD would affect 289 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry. About 183 engines use a 20,000 CSN life
limit for the HPT stage 1 front hub. For these engines, we estimate the
lost part life to have a value of about $25,400 per engine. About 106
engines use a 15,000 CSN life limit. For these engines, we estimate the
lost life to have a value of about $22,013 per engine. Based on these
figures, we estimate the total cost of the AD to U.S. operators is
$6,981,578.

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) 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, 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.

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):

2012-16-01 Pratt & Whitney Division: Amendment 39-17148; Docket No.
FAA-2012-0079; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-06-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 28, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following Pratt & Whitney Division
turbofan engines:
    (1) PW4052, PW4152, and PW4056 turbofan engines, including
models with any dash number suffix, with a high-pressure turbine
(HPT) stage 1 front hub part number (P/N) listed in Table 1 to
paragraph (c) of this AD installed.
    (2) PW4156A, PW4060, PW4060A, PW4060C, PW4062, PW4062A, PW4158,
PW4460, and PW4462 turbofan engines, including models with any dash
number suffix, with an HPT stage 1 front hub P/N listed in Table 1
to paragraph (c) of this AD installed.

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
P/N 51L601........................  All serial numbers (S/Ns).
P/N 52L401........................  With a S/N not listed in Table 5 of
                                     the Accomplishment Instructions of
                                     Pratt & Whitney Alert Service
                                     Bulletin (ASB) No. PW4ENG A72-821,
                                     dated July 6, 2012.
P/N 51L201, P/N 51L201-001, P/N     All S/Ns.
 51L201-021.
P/N 51L901, P/N 52L301............  With an S/N not listed in Table 7 of
                                     the Accomplishment Instructions of
                                     Pratt & Whitney ASB No. PW4ENG A72-
                                     821, dated July 6, 2012.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) PW4164, PW4164C, PW4164C/B, PW4168, and PW4168A turbofan
engines with an HPT stage 1 front hub, P/N 51L901, installed with an
S/N not listed in Table 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Pratt & Whitney ASB No. PW4G-100-A72-246, dated June 28, 2012.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by Pratt & Whitney's updated low-cycle-
fatigue analysis that indicated certain HPT stage 1 front hubs could
initiate a crack prior to the published

life limit. This AD requires removing the affected HPT stage 1 front
hubs from service using a drawdown plan. We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the HPT stage 1 front hub, which could lead to an
uncontained engine failure and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(f) Removal of HPT Stage 1 Front Hubs From Service

    (1) For HPT stage 1 front hubs listed in paragraph (c)(1) of
this AD, do the following:
    (i) If the HPT stage 1 front hub has accumulated 17,000 or fewer
cycles-since-new (CSN) on the effective date of this AD, remove the
HPT stage 1 front hub from service before accumulating 18,000 CSN.
    (ii) If the HPT stage 1 front hub has accumulated more than
17,000 CSN on the effective date of this AD, remove the HPT stage 1
front hub from service before accumulating an additional 1,000
cycles-in-service (CIS) or at the next piece-part exposure above
18,000 CSN, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For HPT stage 1 front hubs listed in paragraphs (c)(2) and
(c)(3) of this AD, do the following:
    (i) If the HPT stage 1 front hub has accumulated 12,700 or fewer
CSN on the effective date of this AD, remove the HPT stage 1 front
hub from service before accumulating 13,700 CSN.
    (ii) If the HPT stage 1 front hub has accumulated more than
12,700 CSN on the effective date of this AD, remove the HPT stage 1
front hub from service before accumulating an additional 1,000 CIS
or at the next piece-part exposure above 13,700 CSN, whichever
occurs first.

(g) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install into any
engine any HPT stage 1 front hubs listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this
AD that are at piece-part exposure and exceed 18,000 CSN, or any HPT
stage 1 front hubs listed in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this AD
that are at piece-part exposure and exceed 13,700 CSN.

(h) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, piece-part exposure means that the
part is completely disassembled and removed from the engine.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for
this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact James Gray,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-238-
7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service
information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise:
    (i) Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW4ENG A72-
821, dated July 6, 2012.
    (ii) Pratt & Whitney ASB No. PW4G-100-A72-246, dated June 28,
2012.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt
& Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860-565-
7700; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may review this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may also review the 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 Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 26, 2012.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-20842 Filed 8-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 128 (Wednesday, July 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 40262]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16055]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Aircraft Noise
Certification Documents for International Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on April 19, 2013, vol. 78, no. 76, page 23628. This
collection ensures that U.S. operators have proper noise certification
information when they fly outside the U.S., in compliance with ICAO,
Annex 16, Volume 1, Amendment 8.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 2, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0737.
    Title: Aircraft Noise Certification Documents for International
Operations.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 14 CFR part 91 requires operators of U.S. registered
civil aircraft flying outside the United States to carry aircraft noise
certification information on board. This rule is needed to ensure
consistent compliance with the ICAO, Annex 16, Volume 1, Amendment 8
that requires certain noise information be carried on board the
aircraft. The rule requires that this information be easily accessible
to the flight crew and presentable upon request to the appropriate
foreign officials.
    Respondents: Approximately 73 operators of aircraft currently
registered to U.S. mainline air carriers.
    Frequency: One-time initial response per aircraft subject to the
rule, for the information to be recorded and maintained.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 25 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 31 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 25, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-16055 Filed 7-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 60)]
[Notices]
[Page 14842-14844]
[DOCID:fr29mr07-129]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55517; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to NYSE Rule 440A (``Telephone
Solicitations'')

March 23, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on January 25, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed amendments to its Rule 440A, as described
in Items I, II and III below, which items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The New York Stock Exchange LLC is filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission proposed Rule 440A (``Telephone Solicitations'')
which addresses member organizations' telephone solicitations of
customers.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the

NYSE's Web site (http://www.NYSE.com), at the NYSE's principal office,

and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. The Exchange has
prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    NYSE Rule 440A (the ``Rule'') addresses member organizations'
telephone solicitations of customers. Rule 440A(g) provides ``No member
or member organization may use a telephone facsimile machine, computer
or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone
facsimile machine, computer or other device.''
    Subsection 440A(g)(1) provides that a facsimile advertisement is
not ``unsolicited'' where the recipient has granted the member
organization prior express invitation or permission to deliver the
advertisement, as further defined in the Rule. This proposed amendment
to NYSE Rule 440A would provide that such an advertisement also will
not be considered ``unsolicited'' where there is an ``established
business relationship'' as defined in the present Rule 440A(j).
    In addition, changes are proposed to delete the term ``member'' as
used in the Rule to reflect the recent reorganization of the
Exchange,\3\ and the term ``allied member'' as redundant within the
context of the present regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 53382 (Feb. 27, 2006), 71 FR
11251 (Mar. 6, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2005-77).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    The amendments to Rule 440A(g) were adopted by the Exchange on
December 2, 2004 \4\ to incorporate regulations issued by the Federal
Communications Commission (``FCC'') and the Federal Trade Commission
(``FTC'') relating to the implementation of the National Do Not Call
registry and the amendments to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991.\5\ The FCC and FTC regulations contained no exception for
facsimiles sent to customers with which a broker-dealer had an
``established business relationship'' as such term was defined.
Subsequently, Congress passed legislation \6\ which restored an
exemption for unsolicited faxes sent to a recipient with whom the
sender had an established business relationship. Accordingly, the
proposed amendments to NYSE Rule 440A(g)(1) will add an exception for
established business relationships to the definition of ``unsolicited''
and will also set forth the measures necessary for a customer to opt
out of the receipt of further communications. These standards, which
are taken from applicable FCC regulations,\7\ generally require that
the member organization and the person not only have an established
business relationship,\8\ but also that the member organization obtain
the fax number from the recipient (or the recipient's web site,
directory, or advertisement). Further, the recipient must not have
stated on those materials that they do not accept unsolicited
advertisements at the listed number. The member organization must also
take reasonable steps to verify that the recipient consented to have
the number listed.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 34-52579 (Oct. 7, 2005), 70 FR
60119 (Oct. 14, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2004-73).
    \5\ Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, FCC 03-153 (Jun. 26, 2003), 68 FR 44144
(Jul. 25, 2003).
    \6\ Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-21, 119 Stat.
359 (2005).
    \7\ FCC 06-42 (Apr. 5, 2006), 71 FR 56893 (Sept. 28, 2006).
    \8\ An established business relationship is defined as a prior
existing relationship formed by voluntary two-way communication
between a member organization and a person where the person has,
generally speaking, done business with the member organization
within the 18 months preceding the telephone call, the member
organization is the broker-dealer of record for the person's account
within those 18 months, or the person has contacted the member
organization to inquire about a product or service within the three
months preceding the telephone call.
    \9\ The Exchange expanded this description of the standards and
added the definition of ``established business relationship'' to
this notice during a telephone conversation between William Jannace,
Managing Director, Rule and Interpretive Standards, NYSE Regulation,
and Elizabeth MacDonald, Special Counsel, Division of Market
Regulation, Commission, March 20, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) \10\ of the Act which requires NYSE to have rules
that are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
proposed amendments will move the Rule into conformity with revised
federal regulatory standards and ensure that customers are able to opt
out of the receipt of undesired communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    a. By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    b. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2007-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-06. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the

submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with
respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission,
and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change
between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be
withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's
Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-06 and should be
submitted on or before April 19, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5816 Filed 3-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P