[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64233-64239]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26532]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0246; Product Identifier 2017-NM-011-AD; Amendment
39-19522; AD 2018-25-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes equipped
with Rolls-Royce Model RB211-Trent 800 engines. This AD was prompted by
reports of inadequate clearance between the thermal protection system
(TPS) insulation blankets and the electronic engine control (EEC)
wiring, which resulted in damaged wires. This AD requires repetitive
inspections of the EEC wire bundles and clips, and corrective actions
if necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 18, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 18,
2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0246.

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-
0246; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other

information. The address for Docket Operations (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
Docket Operations, 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: Kevin Nguyen, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes equipped with Rolls-Royce Model
RB211-Trent 800 engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17154). The NPRM was prompted by reports of
inadequate clearance between the TPS insulation blankets and the EEC
wiring, which resulted in damaged wires. The NPRM proposed to require
repetitive inspections of the EEC wire bundles and clips, and
corrective actions if necessary.
    We are issuing this AD to address damaged wires, which could result
in in-flight shutdown of the engine, or the inability to properly
control thrust, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

Comments

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

Support for the Proposed Rule

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Boeing, and
Rolls-Royce all supported the NPRM.

Request To Include Additional Service Information

    Air New Zealand (ANZ) suggested that paragraph (g) of the proposed
AD could be complied with using either Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-78-0071; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082; because
certain configurations of thrust reversers (T/Rs) are not covered by
Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, but are covered by Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071. ANZ noted that paragraph (h) of
the proposed AD provided credit for previous actions if the previous
inspections were performed in accordance with either Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
78-0082.
    American Airlines (AAL) explained that Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015, is not effective to its fleet
configuration and requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD be
revised to include Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-
0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, as an additional method of
compliance for those airplanes that are identified in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23,
2013, but not affected by Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision
1, dated June 15, 2015. AAL also provided the definitions for a general
visual inspection and detailed inspection from Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, to
support its justification that a general visual inspection would
identify damage to components within the inspection area identified in
the service information and therefore offers an equivalent level of
safety to that of a detailed inspection.
    Delta Air Lines (DAL) explained that Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015, is not applicable to all the
T/Rs affected by the proposed AD, and suggested that paragraph (g) of
the proposed AD follow the same structure as AD 2016-11-16, Amendment
39-18543 (81 FR 39547, June 17, 2016) (``AD 2016-11-16''), which allows
for the use of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071,
Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, in paragraph (k)(1) of AD 2016-11-16
or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15,
2015, in paragraph (k)(2) of AD 2016-11-16, according to airplane
effectivity. DAL observed that the referenced service information was
acknowledged in AD 2016-11-16 to provide the same acceptable level of
safety, and DAL would prefer that either service bulletin be allowed as
an acceptable method of compliance for the inspections required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to include additional
service information as an additional method of compliance for the
inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD. Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23,
2013; and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, dated November 9, 2011;
do not provide inspection requirements for engine configurations that
have incorporated Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated
July 30, 2014. Only Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1,
dated June 15, 2015, contains detailed inspection requirements and
instructions that are applicable to engine configurations that either
have or have not incorporated Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-
H824, dated July 30, 2014. As a result, the EEC wire bundle inspections
specified by Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated
June 15, 2015, are applicable to the ANZ, AAL, and DAL fleet
configurations that are identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013.
    Consistent with the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2016-11-16,
we determined that a general visual inspection as specified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July
23, 2013; and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, dated November 9,
2011; accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD is acceptable
when looking for damage of the EEC wire bundle and clips. On or after
the effective date of this AD, a detailed inspection is required as
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated
June 15, 2015. We have not changed the AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Paragraph (c) Applicability of the Proposed AD

    DAL found the ``and/or'' construction of paragraphs (c)(1) and
(c)(2) of the proposed AD confusing, and requested clarification
regarding the applicability of airplanes that meet one of the two
conditions or both conditions specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2)
of the proposed AD.
    We agree with DAL's request to clarify the applicability of this
AD. We have revised paragraph (c) of this AD to include airplanes that
have incorporated Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July
29, 2014, and the condition specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of
this AD is met on any engine, or both conditions specified in (c)(1)
and (c)(2) of this AD are met on any engine.

Request To Clarify the Intent of the Proposed AD

    DAL requested that we clarify that the intent of the proposed AD is
to maintain the EEC wire bundles inspections described in paragraph (k)
of AD 2016-11-16 until all three of the following terminating actions
have been completed: (1) Incorporating Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014; (2) incorporating Work Package 7 of
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2,
dated July 23, 2013; or

Part 8 or Part 9 of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1,
dated June 15, 2015; as applicable; and (3) incorporating Rolls-Royce
Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014.
    We agree to clarify that the intent of this AD is to maintain the
EEC wire bundles repetitive inspections described in paragraph (k) of
AD 2016-11-16 for certain airplanes. The repetitive inspections
required by paragraph (g) of this AD are no longer required after re-
contoured insulation blankets part numbers (P/N) 315W5115-60, -62, and
-64 are installed on the right T/R half by accomplishing either Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July
23, 2013; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated
June 15, 2015; and the EEC wire bundle and clip are re-routed on the
engine by accomplishing Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824,
dated July 30, 2014. No change to this AD is needed in this regard.

Request To Revise Paragraph (c) Applicability of the Proposed AD

    AAL requested that paragraph (c) of the proposed AD be revised to
exclude airplanes with the following configuration combinations from
the applicability of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD:
     Engines with or without incorporation of Rolls-Royce
Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014; T/R halves that
incorporated Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29,
2014; installed re-contoured insulation blankets (P/N 315W5115-60, -62,
and -64 for the right half and P/N 315W5115-63, -59, and -61 for the
left half) by incorporating Work Package 7 of Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013; and
accomplishment of EEC wire bundle and clip inspection using Work
Package 6 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071,
Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, when that T/R was installed.
     Engines with incorporation of Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin
RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014, regardless of T/R half insulation
blanket standards (re-contoured or non-re-contoured insulation
blankets).
    AAL provided the following justifications for their request. We
have included our response to those justifications.
    AAL explained that insulation blanket P/N 315W5115-60, -62, and -64
are optional re-contoured insulation blankets introduced by Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July
23, 2013, to replace original P/N 315W5115-2, -6, or -20 non-re-
contoured insulation blankets that caused the initial potential EEC
wire bundle and clip frettage condition. AAL noted that the optional
re-contoured insulation blankets were designed with the addition of
rulon frettage protection on the insulation blanket face sheet to
prevent potential EEC wire bundle and clip frettage at the inspection
area of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. AAL stated that the
installation of the re-contoured insulation blankets therefore provides
an equivalent level of safety to the repetitive EEC wire bundle and
clip inspections.
    AAL reasoned that Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824,
dated July 30, 2014, changes the EEC wire bundle routing to provide
additional clearance with the T/R non-re-contoured insulation blankets
to eliminate the potential frettage in the area of inspection as
specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD and provides an
equivalent level of safety to the repetitive EEC wire bundle and clip
inspections. AAL added that any existing harness damage will be or has
been addressed during incorporation of this service bulletin during an
engine shop visit.
    We agree to clarify. We have determined that after accomplishing
the work instructions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094,
dated July 29, 2014, there is still not sufficient clearance between
the insulation blankets and EEC wire bundle W0800 and its associated
clip. The EEC wire bundle and clip could still be damaged from making
contact with insulation blankets when one or both of the following
conditions exist:
     The EEC wire and clip are not re-routed on the engine (did
not incorporate Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July
30, 2014); or
     Non-re-contoured insulation blankets (P/N 315W5115-2, -6,
and -20) are installed on the right T/R half.
    We have determined that in order to have proper clearance between
the insulation blankets and the EEC wiring, and to prevent damage,
Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014, must
be incorporated to re-route the EEC wire bundle and clip on the engine;
and re-contoured insulation blankets P/N 315W5115-60, -62, and -64 must
be installed on the right T/R half by accomplishing either Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July
23, 2013; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated
June 15, 2015.
    AAL pointed out that the insulation blankets have repetitive
airworthiness limitation inspection requirements as specified by Boeing
Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) D622W001-9, Section 9,
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), Airworthiness Limitation Item (ALI) 78-AWL-01 that
maintain the blanket rulon material condition. AAL noted that T/Rs that
incorporate Work Package 7 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, for installing re-
contoured insulation blankets no longer have a T/R configuration
specified by Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071,
dated November 25, 2009; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
777-78-0071, Revision 1, dated September 8, 2010; and are not
applicable to the EEC wire bundle and clip inspection as specified in
Work Package 6 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-
0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013.
    AAL also noted that Rolls-Royce Model RB211-Trent 800 engine EEC
wire runs already receive repetitive zonal general visual inspections
as specified by Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 3, Zonal Inspection
Program, item 71-864-01 and item 71-878-02, and receive repetitive
detailed inspections as specified by Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 1,
System Maintenance Program, item 20-540-01 and item 20-540-02, as part
of a Lightning/High Intensity Radiated Fields maintenance program. AAL
stated that these inspections are regulated by the 14 CFR 121.1111
required electrical wiring interconnection systems (EWIS) maintenance
program requirements.
    In regards to AAL's reference to Boeing MPD D622W001-9, Section 9,
AWLs and CMRs, ALI 78-AWL-01, we note that Boeing MPD D622W001-9,
Section 9, AWLs and CMRs, ALI 78-AWL-01 has requirements to inspect the
insulation blankets for damage, but it does not directly inspect the
EEC wire bundle and clip for damage. The intent of this AD is to
specifically inspect the EEC wire bundle and clip for damage. We agree
with AAL's justification that T/Rs with re-contoured insulation
blankets installed no longer have a T/R configuration as specified by
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, November 25,
2009; or Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071,
Revision 1, dated September 8, 2010. Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated

July 23, 2013, does not have clear information and instructions to do a
detailed EEC inspection for T/R halves with re-contoured blankets.
However, as explained by Boeing and Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-
0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015, instructions, and reinforced by
the requirements in this AD, EEC wire bundles and clips are to be
inspected when one or both of the previously described conditions
exists where the EEC wire bundle and clip could still be damaged from
making contact with insulation blankets. We note that this AD mandates
the use of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June
15, 2015, to do the EEC wire bundle and clip detailed inspections,
which is applicable to airplanes in a configuration specified in Boeing
Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July
23, 2013.
    We infer that AAL is suggesting that the existing inspections in
Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 3, Zonal Inspection Program, item 71-864-
01 and item 71-878-02, and detailed inspections in Boeing MPD D622W001,
Section 1, System Maintenance Program, item 20-540-01 and item 20-540-
02 provide an equivalent level of safety to the repetitive wire bundle
and clip inspections. We disagree with that suggestion. We note that
part of the EWIS maintenance program requirement for operators is to
maintain continued airworthiness of the electrical wiring
interconnection systems on the airplane, including the engine. The EWIS
maintenance program requirement is based on the assumption that the
type design is compliant and is not expected to create wiring problems
if the original configuration is maintained. This AD was proposed
because the existing design was found to have details that are expected
to lead to a wiring chafing problem on at least some airplanes.
Therefore, we determined that more frequent and detailed inspections
are necessary to address this unsafe condition. The inspections in
Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 3, Zonal Inspection Program, item 71-864-
01 and item 71-878-02; and Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 1, System
Maintenance Program, item 20-540-01 and item 20-540-02; are not
sufficient to address the identified unsafe condition of this AD. The
repetitive inspection intervals for Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 1,
System Maintenance Program, item 20-540-01 and item 20-540-02; and
Boeing MPD D622W001, Section 3, Zonal Inspection Program, item 71-864-
01 and item 71-878-02; are longer than the 2,000 flight-hour repetitive
inspection interval specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, and they can
be escalated to a longer interval without FAA ACO Branch approval. In
accordance with 14 CFR part 39 (Sec.  39.5 and Sec.  39.13), this AD is
issued to address the unsafe condition identified in paragraph (e) of
this AD.
    Therefore, we do not agree to revise paragraph (c) of this AD as
proposed by the commenter. We did not change the AD in this regard.

Request To Include Terminating Action

    DAL requested that we include terminating action for airplanes that
accomplish the modification in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the
proposed AD. DAL explained that paragraph (c) of the proposed AD states
that if airplanes with Rolls-Royce engines, which have accomplished the
action in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29,
2014, have neither the condition in paragraph (c)(1) of the proposed AD
nor the condition in paragraph (c)(2) of the proposed AD, that the rule
is not applicable. DAL noted that there is no terminating action
paragraph in the proposed AD.
    We agree to clarify the requirements of this AD. As discussed in
the above comments: For any affected airplane on which the modification
specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, and the replacement of all
affected parts (non-re-contoured insulation blankets) identified in
paragraph (c)(1) of this AD with non-affected parts (re-contoured
insulation blankets) have been accomplished on both engines, that
airplane is no longer affected by this AD. For clarity, we have added
paragraph (i) to this AD to specify terminating actions for the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD and
redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

Request To Extend the Compliance Time

    AAL requested that for engines that have not incorporated Rolls-
Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014, the
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD be required within
2,000 flight hours, rather than 500 flight hours, after the effective
date of the AD, if re-contoured insulation blankets (P/N 315W5115-60, -
62, -64) were installed on the T/R by Work Package 7 of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23,
2013, and, during installation of the insulation blanket on the T/R
halves, the EEC wire bundle inspection was accomplished on the engine
in accordance with Work Package 6 of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request because we have
determined that both the EEC wiring modification specified in Rolls-
Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30, 2014, and
installation of the re-contoured insulation blankets specified in Work
Package 7 of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071,
Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013, are necessary to prevent the chafing
condition that is the subject of this AD. In the absence of both of
those modifications, we have determined that a 2,000 flight hour
inspection interval is necessary. The 500 flight hours is meant to be a
grace period for those airplanes on which the interval has lapsed (due
to inspections being terminated in AD 2016-11-16), as well as airplanes
that are nearing the end of the inspection interval. AAL did not
provide adequate justification for a longer grace period. We did not
change this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify the Requirements of Paragraph (g) of the Proposed AD
for a Certain Repaired Wire Condition

    For engines which require inspections as specified in paragraph (g)
of this AD, AAL requested clarification that the inspection of the wire
bundle can be accomplished without removal of any harness
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape protection applied to the wire
bundle, provided that the PTFE tape protection is not damaged, and
provided the wire bundle had received an inspection and was repaired if
damaged prior to application of the protective tape wrap. AAL explained
that it had already identified the potential wire bundle interference
condition through its continuous airworthiness maintenance program
(CAMP) prior to release of Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin
777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013. As a result, AAL
accomplished a fleet-wide general visual inspection of the EEC wire
bundle W0800 for damage in the inspection area, accomplished any
required repairs, and then wrapped the W0800 harness with PTFE tape in
accordance with the approved procedures in its CAMP.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request because we do not have
sufficient information in the AAL request to clarify nor expand
paragraph (g) of this AD for wire bundles that have been modified by
AAL's CAMP. We do not consider it appropriate to include various
provisions in an AD applicable only to individual airplane
configurations or to a single operator's

unique use of an affected airplane. However, AAL and others may request
an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, provided sufficient
data are submitted to substantiate that the AMOC would provide an
acceptable level of safety. We did not change this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Requirements of Paragraph (g) of the Proposed AD for
Engine Inspection in the Shop

    AAL requested clarification to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to
confirm that after the effective date of this AD, installation of an
engine that had a shop visit meets the requirements of an inspection,
and in that case, that the next inspection is required within 2,000
hours of engine installation.
    We agree to clarify paragraph (g) of this AD. If, during a shop
visit, an EEC wire bundle and clamp inspection was done as specified in
Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2,
dated July 23, 2013; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, dated
November 9, 2011; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1,
dated June 15, 2015; then the next inspection can be done within 2,000
flight hours from the last inspection done in the shop. However, if an
inspection other than the one specified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013; or
Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, dated November 9, 2011; or Boeing
Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2015; was
done, operators must request an AMOC in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. No change to this AD is needed.

Request To Modify Relationship to Affected ADs

    DAL requested that AD 2005-07-24, Amendment 39-14049 (70 FR 18285,
April 11, 2005) (``AD 2005-07-24'') and AD 2016-11-16 be added to
paragraph (b) of the proposed AD. DAL also requested that the proposed
AD be incorporated as a revision to AD 2016-11-16 or a supersedure to
AD 2016-11-16 in order to provide a clear relationship between the
actions required. DAL observed that paragraph (b) of the proposed AD
states that no ADs are affected by this rule, but paragraph (l) of AD
2016-11-16 states that accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014, will terminate paragraph (k) of AD
2016-11-16. DAL also submitted that paragraph (k) of AD 2016-11-16
pertains to the EEC wire bundle inspections that are described in the
``Discussion'' section of the proposed rule. DAL stated that paragraph
(q) of AD 2016-11-16 describes accomplishments that are terminating
actions to AD 2005-07-24, which include the EEC wire bundle inspections
as described in paragraph (k) of AD 2016-11-16. DAL contended that the
proposed rule reinstates these inspections and therefore affects the
requirements of AD 2005-07-24 as described in paragraph (q) of AD 2016-
11-16.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request because this AD is a
stand-alone AD and does not impact nor change the requirements of AD
2005-07-24 or AD 2016-11-16. The T/R inner wall and TPS configuration,
and certain engine configurations affected by the actions in this AD
are not configurations affected by AD 2005-07-24 or AD 2016-11-16. This
AD is only applicable to airplanes with certain T/R halves on which the
actions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29,
2014, have been accomplished, and the condition specified in paragraph
(c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD is met on any engine, or both conditions
specified in (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD are met on any engine. This
AD is not applicable to airplanes with T/R halves of certain inner wall
and TPS configurations specified in AD 2005-07-24 and AD 2016-11-16 on
which the actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
78A0094, dated July 29, 2014, have not been accomplished. Therefore,
this AD has no direct relationship to and does not change the
requirements of AD 2005-07-24 or AD 2016-11-16.
    After accomplishing paragraph (l) of AD 2016-11-16 to install
serviceable thrust reverser halves (by accomplishing Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-78A0094, dated July 29, 2014), and paragraph (n)
of AD 2016-11-16 to revise the maintenance or inspection program, the
repetitive inspection requirements of AD 2016-11-16 are terminated.
However, Boeing and the FAA have determined that inadequate clearance
between the TPS non-re-contoured insulation blankets and the EEC wiring
still exists after completing the actions required by AD 2016-11-16,
which will result in damaged wires, and an unsafe condition still
exists.
    We have determined not to revise or supersede AD 2016-11-16 because
of the high rate of inner wall failures and the urgency of the safety
issue. We have also determined that the required actions must be
accomplished to ensure continued safety. Revising this AD as requested
would necessitate (under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act) reissuing the notice, reopening the period for public comment,
considering additional comments subsequently received, and eventually
issuing a final rule. In light of this, and in consideration of the
unsafe condition, we have determined that further delay of this AD is
not appropriate. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the change described previously and minor
editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated
June 15, 2015. The service information describes, among other things,
procedures for repetitive inspections of the EEC wire bundles and
clips, and corrective actions if necessary.
    We also reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-
0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013. This service information
describes, among other things, procedures for installing re-contoured
insulation blankets on the right T/R halves and performing an EEC wire
bundle and clip inspection.
    We also reviewed Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated
July 30, 2014. This service information describes procedures for
modifying the engine by rerouting the EEC wire bundle and clip.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 55 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
          Action                 Labor cost          Parts cost       Cost per product           operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...............  Up to 6 work-hours x                $0  Up to $510 per          Up to $28,050 per
                            $85 per hour = $510                     inspection cycle.       inspection cycle.
                            per inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the repairs specified in this AD. We estimate the
following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required
based on the results of the inspection. We have no way of determining
the number of aircraft that might need these repairs or replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of EEC wire harness...............  1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85          $8,500          $8,585
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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):

2018-25-11 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19522; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0246; Product Identifier 2017-NM-011-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 18, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300
series airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with Rolls-
Royce Model RB211-Trent 800 engines, on which the actions specified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0094 have been incorporated,
and the condition specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD
is met on any engine, or both conditions specified in (c)(1) and
(c)(2) of this AD are met on any engine.
    (1) Thermal protection system (TPS) non-re-contoured insulation
blankets having part numbers (P/N) 315W5115-2, -6, or -20 are
installed on the thrust reverser (T/R) inner wall.
    (2) Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July 30,
2014, has not been incorporated on the engine.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine
exhaust.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of inadequate clearance between
the TPS insulation blankets and the electronic engine control (EEC)
wiring, which resulted in damaged wires. We are issuing this AD to
address damaged wires, which could result in in-flight shutdown of
the engine, or the inability to properly control thrust, and
consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive EEC Wire Bundle Inspection

    Within 2,000 flight hours since the most recent EEC wire bundle
inspection done as specified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 777-78-0071; or Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082; or
within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later: Do a detailed inspection for damage of the
EEC wire bundles and clips, and do all applicable corrective
actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15,
2015. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.
Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000
flight hours.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the service information specified in
paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071,
Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013.
    (2) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, dated November 9, 2011.

(i) Optional Terminating Action

    Accomplishing the actions in paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this
AD terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)
of this AD for the modified engine installation only.
    (1) Installing re-contoured insulation blankets P/N 315W5115-60,
-62, and -64 on the right T/R halves in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of either Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 777-78-0071, Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013; or
Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June 15,
2015.
    (2) Modifying an engine in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated
July 30, 2014.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kevin Nguyen,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3555; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (l)(4) of this AD.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78-0082, Revision 1, dated June
15, 2015.
    (ii) Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 777-78-0071,
Revision 2, dated July 23, 2013.
    (iii) Rolls-Royce Service Bulletin RR.211-71-H824, dated July
30, 2014.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on November 29, 2018.
James Cashdollar,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-26532 Filed 12-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 244 (Thursday, December 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 60663]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27446]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2017-100]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory activities.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before January 10, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-1156
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynette Mitterer, AIR-673, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356,
email [email protected], phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Alphonso
Pendergrass, ARM-200, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, email
[email protected], phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 15, 2017.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager, Transport Standards Branch.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2017-1156.
    Petitioner: Hillwood Airways LLC.
    Sections of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  25.855(a), 25.857(e),
and 25.1447(c)(1).
    Description of Relief Sought: Allow the carriage of up to five
non-crewmembers (commonly known as supernumeraries), to support
humanitarian relief efforts on Boeing 737-700C airplanes.

[FR Doc. 2017-27446 Filed 12-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 127)]
[Notices]
[Page 36443-36444]
[DOCID:fr03jy07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings  1

June 26, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Number: EC07-66-001; ES07-26-002; EL07-45-001.
    Applicants: Entergy Gulf States, Inc.; Entergy Gulf States
Louisiana, L.L.C.; Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services, Inc et al. submit a narrative that
explains their proposed journal entries, in response to FERC's 6/1/07
request for additional information.
    Filed Date: 06/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070625-0294.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 2, 2007.

    Docket Number: EC07-109-000.
    Applicants: Gexa Energy LLC; FPL Energy LLC.
    Description: Gexa Energy LLC and et al. submit an application for
authorization of transfer of jurisdictional assets, request for waivers
and for expedited action under section 203 of the Federal Power Act.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070622-0015.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 5, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Number: ER02-1632-003; ER06-386-001.
    Applicants: Energy America, LLC; Direct Energy Services, LLC.
    Description: Direct Energy Services, LLC and Energy America, LLC
submit a notice of Non-Material Change in Status Regarding Market-Based
Rate Authority.
    Filed Date: 06/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070621-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-415-002.
    Applicants: DTE Pontiac North LLC.
    Description: DTE Pontiac North LLC submits a notice of no material
change in status.
    Filed Date: 06/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070621-0122.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 10, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-788-001.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corp.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corporation,
designated as agent for AEP Operating Companies submits an amendment to
the Interconnection and Local Delivery Service Agreement 1426 with the
Village of Republic.
    Filed Date: 06/18/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070620-0104.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, July 09, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1040-000.
    Applicants: Hopewell Cogeneration Ltd Partnership.
    Description: Hopewell Cogeneration Limited Partnership submits an
application seeking authorization to sell electric energy, capacity and
ancillary services.
    Filed Date: 06/15/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070619-0132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 06, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1044-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits the First Revised Sheet 109 et al.
to Substitute First Revised Rate Schedule, Amended and Restated AC
Intertie Agreement with Bonneville Power Administration.
    Filed Date: 06/15/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070619-0133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, July 06, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1049-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits a Notice of Termination of Service
Agreement 67 dated 8/1/97 with Black Bills Corporation for Network
Integration Transmission Service.
    Filed Date: 06/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070620-0163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 10, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1050-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revisions to the PJM
Open Access Transmission Tariff and the Reliability Assurance
Agreement.
    Filed Date: 06/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070621-0121.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 10, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1051-000.
    Applicants: Texzon Utilities, Ltd.
    Description: Texzon Utilities Ltd submits a notice of succession
reflecting their name change.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070620-0164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 11, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1052-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp
    Description: PacifiCorp submits an unexecuted Network Integration
Transmission Service Agreement with Black Hills Corporation designated
as Original Service Agreement 347 to FERC Electric Tariff, Sub Sixth
Revised Volume 11.
    Filed Date: 06/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070620-0165.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 10, 2007.
    Docket Number: ER07-1053-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits revisions to its
Amended and Restated Operating Agreement and Open Access Transmission
Tariff pursuant to section 205 of the FPA.
    Filed Date: 06/19/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070621-0123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, July 10, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1054-000.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.
    Description: Southern Company Services, Inc, as agent for Alabama
Power Company et al. submits a service agreement for long-term firm
point-to-point transmission service under the Open Access Transmission
Tariff of its FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 5.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070621-0068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 11, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1055-000.
    Applicants: Northeast Utilities Service Company.
    Description: Northeast Utilities Service Co, on behalf of
Connecticut Light and Power Company et al. submits a Notice of
Termination to cancel the Nu Operating Companies' Service Agreement 2
to FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 8 etc.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070621-0069.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 11, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1056-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co submits First Revised
Sheet 6 et al. to the Cherry Valley, Crafton Hills and Green Spot
Pumping Stations Interconnection Facilities Agreement with the State of
California Dept of Water Resources.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070621-0070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 11, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1057-000.
    Applicants: Perryville Energy Partners, LLC.
    Description: Perryville Energy Partners, LLC submits its Second
Revised Sheet 22 to its FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume 2.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070621-0071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 11, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1058-000.
    Applicants: Glacial Energy of Maryland Inc.
    Description: Glacial Energy of Maryland Inc submits a petition for
acceptance of initial tariff, waivers and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: 06/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070622-0013.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1059-000.
    Applicants: Connecticut Light & Power Company.
    Description: The Connecticut Light and Power Co submits revised
Interconnection and Operations Agreement with the Lake Road Trust,
designated as First Revised Service Agreement 104.
    Filed Date: 06/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070622-0014.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1060-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corp submits
amendment (the SC Certification and Termination Amendment) to the ISO
Tariff.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070622-0009.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 11, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1061-000.
    Applicants: AB Energy.
    Description: AB Energy, Inc submits a notice of cancellation of its
market based rate electric tariff, Rate Schedule FERC 1.
    Filed Date: 06/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070622-0011.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007.

    Docket Number: ER07-1062-000.
    Applicants: AB Energy NY, Pty. Ltd.
    Description: AB Energy NY, Pty. Ltd submits a petition for
acceptance of initial tariff, waivers and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: 06/21/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070622-0010.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, July 12, 2007.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Number: ES07-40-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Application of Southwest Power Pool, Inc under Section
204 of the Federal Power Act for an order authorizing the issuance of
securities.
    Filed Date: 06/20/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070622-0016.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 11, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-12808 Filed 7-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60332-60337]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20926]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 577

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0001]
RIN 2127-AL66

Update Means of Providing Recall Notification

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA proposes to amend the means of recall notification to
owners and purchasers required under the Safety Act to be in an
electronic manner, in addition to first class mail, in accordance with
Section 30130 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(MAP-21) and Section 24104 of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act). Through this proposed rule, NHTSA also
seeks to improve the efficacy of recalls by requiring manufacturers to
send additional notifications of defects or noncompliance with
applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) if a second
notification by the manufacturer does not result in an adequate number
of motor vehicles or replacement equipment being returned for remedy.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2016. In
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also seeking
comment on amendments to an information collection. See the Paperwork
Reduction Act section under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices below.
Please submit all comments relating to the information collection
requirements to NHTSA and to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section on or before October 31,
2016. Comments to OMB are most useful if submitted within 30 days of
publication.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
     Internet: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Room W12-
140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 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. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, please include the
docket number of this document.
    You may also call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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 discussion below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments 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 19476 at 19477-
78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For substantive issues: Jennifer
Timian, Office of Defects Investigation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues: Justine
Casselle, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary
II. Notification Requirements Before and After MAP-21 and FAST Act
III. NHTSA's Proposed Amendment To Require Notification to Owners
and Purchasers by Electronic Means in

Addition to Notification by First Class Mail
    A. Public Response to NHTSA's ANPRM
    B. Suggested Approaches for Electronic Notification
    C. Limitations to Electronic Notification Approaches
    D. Privacy Considerations and Impacts of Any Existing Laws
IV. Proposed Changes to Notification Requirements
V. Proposed Changes to Follow-Up Requirements
VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
    A. Adjusted Estimates for Current Information Collections
    B. Estimates for New Information Collections

I. Executive Summary

    In the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21),
Congress enacted a provision authorizing NHTSA to amend the means by
which a manufacturer of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment
provides notification to owners, purchasers, and dealers that a vehicle
or equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or does
not comply with an applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard
(FMVSS). Public Law 112-141, 31310, 126 Stat. 758 (2012). More
recently, Section 24104 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
Act (FAST Act) expressly provided that NHTSA amend 49 CFR part 577 to
require notification to owners and purchasers by electronic means in
addition to notification by first class mail. Public Law 114-94, 24104
(2015). MAP-21 further authorized NHTSA to improve recall effectiveness
by requiring manufacturers to send additional notifications of defects
or noncompliance if a second notification by the manufacturer does not
result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or equipment being
returned for remedy. Public Law 112-141, 31310, 126 Stat. 758 (2012).
NHTSA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)
soliciting comments and supporting information about what NHTSA might
require as to electronic notification. See 81 FR 4007 (January 25,
2016). We asked questions to facilitate comments from stakeholders on
what means of notification, based on their experience, have been most
effective in providing information to customers and motivating
customers to have safety recall remedies performed. As part of
implementing the MAP-21 and FAST Act notification provisions, and after
consideration of comments received in response to the ANPRM, we now
propose to amend Part 577 to require electronic notification means in
addition to first class mail notification to owners and purchasers.
This proposed update is not intended to change the scope of the
existing rule, other than as specifically described in this notice, but
is intended to aid in efficiently and effectively improving safety
recall completion rates.

II. Notification Requirements Before and After MAP-21 and FAST Act

    49 U.S.C. 30118(c) requires that, in the event of a defect or
noncompliance with an applicable FMVSS in a motor vehicle or
replacement equipment, manufacturers notify owners, purchasers, and
dealers of the vehicle or equipment pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30119. The
manner by which this required notice is given to owners, purchasers,
and dealers of vehicles or equipment is governed by 49 U.S.C. 30119(d).
Prior to MAP-21, for vehicle recalls, section 30119(d) required notice
to be sent by first class mail to the registered owner or, if the
registered owner could not be identified, to the most recent purchaser
known to the manufacturer. 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(1)(A)-(B). For recalls of
replacement equipment, the statute required notification by first class
mail to the most recent purchaser. Id. Manufacturers were also required
to notify dealers under the statute ``by certified mail or quicker
means if available.'' 49 U.S.C. 30119(d)(4).
    Section 31310 of MAP-21 amended the notice provisions in 49 U.S.C.
30119(d) to allow the Secretary of Transportation, and by delegation
NHTSA's Administrator, the flexibility to determine the manner by which
notifications about safety recalls under 49 U.S.C. 30118 must be sent.
The amended statutory language authorized the Agency to engage in a
rulemaking to permit notification to owners and purchasers of safety
recalls by means other than first class mail. In December 2015,
Congress enacted the FAST Act expounding on this authority by expressly
requiring the Agency to amend 49 CFR 577.7 to include notification to
owners and purchasers by electronic means in addition to notification
by first class mail.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Notification to dealers and distributors is generally
required to be sent ``by certified mail, verifiable or electronic
means such as receipts or logs from electronic mail or satellite
distribution system, or other more expeditious and verifiable
means.'' 49 CFR 577.7(c)(2). Dealers and distributors are not
notified by first class mail. Therefore, the FAST Act did not
require the Agency to change the means of notification for dealers
and distributors, and we are not proposing to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 31310 of MAP-21 aimed to improve the efficacy of recalls
not just through updating the means of notification, but also through
allowing the Secretary to order additional notifications when
necessary. Previously, 49 U.S.C. 30119(e) authorized the Secretary to
order a second notification if the Secretary determined that the first
notification failed to result in an adequate number of motor vehicles
or items of equipment being returned for remedy. The statute was
silent, however, as to whether additional notifications beyond a second
notification could be required. Section 31310 resolved this question by
amending 49 U.S.C. 30119(e), which now, under 49 U.S.C.
30119(e)(2)(A)(i), authorizes the Secretary to order additional
notifications if the Secretary determines that a second notification
also failed to result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or items
of equipment being returned for remedy.

III. NHTSA's Proposed Amendment To Require Notification to Owners and
Purchasers by Electronic Means in Addition to Notification by First
Class Mail

    In the ANPRM, NHTSA invited comments and supporting information on
how the Agency can best leverage the new flexibilities given under MAP-
21 and the FAST Act to update the required means manufacturers use,
whether as a first notification or as a follow-up notification, to
successfully notify their customers and urge them toward seeking the
free remedies offered. The ANRPM posed several questions about the
variety of means and methods manufacturers use to communicate with
their customers. Additionally, the ANPRM posed several questions about
general owner knowledge and behavior, and asked commenters to present
any data on owner behavior in the recall context, including whether
owners were responsive to incentives and to the currently prescribed
content and layout of the notifications.

A. Public Response to NHTSA's ANPRM

    We received 16 comments in response to the ANPRM regarding our
proposed update of Part 577. Comments were submitted by Advocates for
Highway Safety; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance);
American Automotive Leasing Association; IHS Automotive (IHS); FCA US
LLC (FCA); General Motors LLC (GM); Global Automakers (Global); NAFA
Fleet Management Association (NAFA); National Automobile Dealers
Association (NADA); National Independent Automobile Dealers Association
(NIADA); Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA); Pandora Media, Inc.
(Pandora); Tire Industry Association (TIA); Truck and Engine
Manufacturers Association

(EMA); New Jersey Gasoline, C-Store, and Automotive Association
(NJGCA); and Tesla Motors (Tesla).
    Many of the comments addressed general owner knowledge and behavior
and proposed potential changes to the specific information provided to
owners and the layout of the notifications. Many also proposed that
NHTSA should conduct studies on these matters. Although the comments
were insightful, NHTSA is not proposing additional or changed
requirements as to the specific content and layout of notifications at
this time. This NPRM is limited to updating the means of notification
by requiring electronic notification.

B. Suggested Approaches for Electronic Notification

    Most commenters generally supported the use of electronic means and
provided suggestions on which types would be best suited for recall
notifications. Advocates for Highway Safety stated its belief that
email and text message notification should be required, as both methods
allow for delivery receipt. It also suggested that newspaper, radio,
television, internet, and social media be required methods of
notification. Finally, it suggested that manufacturers use direct-to-
vehicle communications to notify owners.
    IHS suggested that social media, digital radio broadcasts, and
connected car applications are ``future looking applications of
reaching audiences who may not respond to direct mail or even email
notices.'' IHS further commented that some manufacturers use a method
called Voice Broadcast which is a ``notice in advance of the mailing or
other communication to alert the consumer to the forthcoming first
class mail communication.''
    The Alliance recommended that the Agency permit a multi-tiered
approach that allows manufacturers to use a variety of electronic
communication methods. The Alliance noted that manufacturers already
use multiple electronic communication methods such as ``robo-calls,
agent-assisted calls, Facebook notifications, and other means,''
especially when recall completion rates are low.
    Similar to the Alliance's comments, GM suggested that any changes
to Part 577 be flexible, allowing for new technologies as they arise,
and further commented that the demographics of the vehicle and the
particular recall issue must be better understood as they each play a
key role in recall completion rates. GM noted that it has used robo-
calls, live calls, in-vehicle calls, and social media to reach out to
its owners. The company found social media effective for the purpose of
raising awareness, but could not tie it to significant gains in recall
completion.
    Tesla provided a contextual example of successful electronic
notifications used in a recent recall. As Tesla has every Tesla
customer's email address, email notifications were sent to every
customer two weeks before the physical mailings were ready to be
mailed. Thirty percent of Tesla customers had their vehicle remedied by
the time the physical mailings were sent via first class mail. Tesla
agrees that electronic notification is instantaneous but, though very
effective, should be supplemental to the current first class mail
standard.
    NAFA agreed that electronic notification should be added to the
existing first class mail notification.
    NIADA suggested that NHTSA move away from a ``one-sized fits all
approach,'' and allow notification means such as email, text messaging,
internet, OnStar, Blue Link, and other technologies. NIADA commented
broadly that it supports strategies that expand how owners are reminded
of recalls.
    Pandora noted that it worked with GM in the past to notify targeted
owners with audio notifications about open recalls. Pandora further
shared that its notifications are interactive and can connect a user
directly to scheduling or to a manufacturer's Web site.
    EMA shared that many fleets and dealers already use a variety of
electronic means to connect with owners, such as email, telephone, text
messages, direct service database flags, and more.
    TIA and NJGCA provided no data as to the effectiveness of first
class mail notifications, but opined that ``change-of-address'' impacts
notifications. TIA further commented that tire manufacturers ``could
use the Internet and social media to notify owners about safety recalls
. . .'' but tire manufacturers currently only provide first class mail
notifications and sometimes a press release.

C. Limitations to Electronic Notification Approaches

    Not all commenters supported the use of electronic means during the
recall notification process and some commenters highlighted some
concerns or limitations with various methods of electronic
communications.
    Survey results provided by the Alliance and Global included
information about the success of various means of notification. Per the
results, neither was able to correlate recall completion rates with a
specific outreach method. The Alliance and Global noted that there is
no ability to connect social media outreach to particular VINs and no
guarantee that owners will not treat emails from manufacturers as SPAM
or JUNK, even with a valid delivery receipt.
    GM also recognized some concerns such as the difficulty of
obtaining owner email addresses without paying a third-party and social
media privacy policies. GM did not recommend that email notification
replace first class mail notification, and noted that delivery rates
through first class mail can be as high as 96%.
    The American Automotive Leasing Association stated its position
that a change to Part 577 should not burden lessors with requirements
to send any additional notifications, email or otherwise, to vehicle
lessees.
    EMA commented that existing first class mail notification is very
effective for commercial vehicle recalls because the owner records are
typically better kept amongst the commercial vehicle market.
Additionally, EMA does not believe social media notifications will be
useful for the commercial vehicle market.

D. Privacy Considerations and Impacts of Any Existing Laws

    Three (3) commenters, the Alliance, GM, and TIA, commented on
specific privacy concerns or existing state and Federal laws that might
be impacted by the use of electronic recall communications.
    GM noted that the expertise to market via electronic communications
is often housed in the manufacturer's marketing department. While a
specific legal restriction was not cited, GM did suggest that owner
data from state registrations would need housing in a ``safe haven''
where the manufacturer could only use that data within legal
constraints. GM further mentioned that some social media privacy
policies restrict the amount of feedback the vehicle manufacturer can
obtain and some publishers do not offer any feedback at all. As such,
it would be difficult to measure the effectiveness of some social media
recall notifications.
    The Alliance commented that some forms of social media, like
Twitter, restrict the amount of content shared to users. For example, a
recall communication containing a summary of the recall, safety risk,
available remedy, and contact information would be difficult to
transmit given Twitter's 140 character limit restriction. Also, the
Alliance recommended an additional study needed to ensure new means of
notification do not conflict with the Controlling the Assault of Non-
Solicited

Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM Act), the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), and the Do-Not-Call Implementation Act as
amended.
    TIA cautioned the Agency in requiring additional personal
information to be provided back to the tire manufacturers in order to
facilitate electronic recall notifications. TIA noted that 49 CFR part
574 prohibits manufacturers from using registration information for
marketing purposes; however, TIA claims tire manufacturers have
circumvented this prohibition and TIA worries any additional data that
tire retailers must collect (such as customer email addresses) may
create a competitive disadvantage to independent tire retailers.

IV. Proposed Changes to Notification Requirements

    After considering the relevant comments provided, we propose to
amend 49 CFR 577.7 to require notification by electronic means in
addition to first class mail every time a recall notification is
required. The proposal gives the recalling manufacturer the flexibility
to define and determine the electronic means they feel are most
effective to employ in an effort to optimize the recalls completion for
a particular recall campaign. As many of the commenters noted, there
are a wide variety of electronic means currently available for use by
manufacturers and some have chosen to use as a supplementary means of
notification with varying degrees of success. A flexible approach
values the knowledge and experience of the recalling manufacturers
concerning what means are most likely to reach and resonate with their
owners and motivate them toward taking steps to have their products
remedied.
    Accordingly, we propose defining ``electronic means'' to include
``electronic mail, text messages, radio or television notifications,
vehicle infotainment console messages, over-the-air alerts, social
media or targeted online campaigns, phone calls, including automated
phone calls, or other real time means.'' As with any recall
communication, the Agency retains the discretion to require other means
and additional notifications if the manufacturer's chosen means is
impractical, does not feasibly reach all of the purchasers or owners
impacted, or the Agency otherwise deems inappropriate. At this time we
decline to set any additional and mandatory notification means beyond
the electronic means identified here.
    The Agency recognizes that the proposed definition of ``electronic
means'' is broad and that certain proposed means of electronic
notification may be difficult to achieve in practice given the current
content requirements of 49 CFR part 577. We propose a broad definition
of ``electronic means'' now in anticipation that we may amend the
content requirements of 49 CFR part 577 in the future. However, at this
time, we propose to require that any electronic notification issued
under this paragraph comply with the content requirements of 49 CFR
part 577, or provide a hyperlink to a notice that complies with the
content requirements of 49 CFR part 577, or a representative copy of
such a notice along with instructions on how a vehicle owner can
determine whether his or her vehicle is impacted.
    Vehicle safety recalls require inclusion of the owner's VIN in the
part 577 notification letter. We recognize that is not always feasible
through social media or other electronic means where a notice may be
viewed by more than one individual. In that case, a representative copy
of a notice may be used, so long as additional information is given as
to how an owner could readily determine whether his or her vehicle or
equipment is impacted by the recall. For those manufacturers that are
currently required to support NHTSA's VIN search tool and offer VIN-
based safety recall search tools on their Web sites pursuant to
existing regulation, the communication must also direct viewers to
NHTSA's VIN search tool \1\ and the manufacturer's search tool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NHTSA's VIN search tool is available at https://vinrcl.safercar.gov/vin/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It must be noted that this proposed rule does not alter a
manufacturer's requirements under 49 CFR part 573, nor is an amendment
to 49 CFR part 573 required at this time. Manufacturers must continue
to comply with 49 CFR 573.6 by filing representative copies of ``all
notices, bulletins, and other communications that relate directly to
the defect or noncompliance and are sent to more than one manufacturer,
distributor, dealer or purchaser.'' Electronic notifications are
notices, bulletins, or other communications under 49 CFR 573.6.
Currently, manufacturers provide representative copies to NHTSA via the
online Recalls Portal. Upon the publishing of the Final Rule,
manufacturers will continue to do so, as the online Recalls Portal will
be updated to allow for manufacturers to select their choice among one
of the allowable electronic means. Representative copies are required
even if a manufacturer chooses to issue Part 577-compliant notices via
electronic means such as radio or television notifications, vehicle
infotainment console messages, over-the-air alerts, telephone calls, or
other allowable means. In practice, manufacturers can submit to the
online Recalls Portal copies of electronic messages (emails),
screenshots of messages or alerts, and scripts of calls or ads, for
example.
    We also note that 49 CFR 577.7(c)(2) concerning notifications to
dealers and distributers already contains language providing for
notification ``by certified mail, verifiable electronic means such as
receipts or logs from electronic mail or satellite distribution system,
or other more expeditious and verifiable means. . . .'' At this time,
the Agency does not believe a change to the required means of
notification to dealers and distributers is warranted.
    In response to concerns expressed about whether the proposed
electronic notification requirement will conflict with existing federal
laws aimed at protecting consumers and businesses from unwanted
electronic messages, the Agency's position is that it will not. Recall
notifications are safety-related informational messages. The proposed
changes in this rulemaking are not intended to exempt from federal
laws, including but not limited to the CAN-SPAM Act, the TCPA, and the
Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, conduct that is unlawful under those
laws.
    We request comments on this proposal and any alternative approaches
that allow for numerous electronic notification means, but at the same
time ensure that the notification communicates the long-standing and
essential components of traditional Part 577 first class mailings. That
is, that the manufacturer had decided there is a safety defect or
failure to meet minimum safety standards; that the safety defect or
failure to comply increases the risk of a motor vehicle crash, injury
and/or fire; a safety recall is being conducted; and a remedy will be
provided at no cost. More specifically, we request comment on our
proposed approach to permit discretion in the means chosen to meet the
requirement of electronic notification. In addition to our request for
comments on our proposed definition of ``electronic means,'' we request
comment on whether the terms ``social media or targeted online
campaigns'' need further definition, given that such proposed
electronic notification means are fundamentally different from other
means targeted at individual owners. Finally, we request comment on our
proposal to require inclusion of directions to NHTSA's VIN search tool
and the manufacturer's search tool, for

social media campaigns, for example, which we believe will allow owners
to readily ascertain the application of the safety recall to vehicles
and equipment they own.

V. Proposed Changes to Follow-Up Requirements

    As mentioned above, MAP-21 authorized NHTSA to require
manufacturers to send additional notifications of defects or
noncompliance if a second notification by the manufacturer does not
result in an adequate number of motor vehicles or equipment being
returned for remedy. Public Law 112-141, Sec.  31310, 126 Stat. 758
(2012). Although 49 CFR 577.10 currently provides that the
Administrator ``may authorize the use of other media besides first-
class mail for a follow-up notification,'' we propose a minor revision
to this section for clarity and consistency purposes. Still subject to
the Administrator's approval, we propose clarifying that a follow-up
notification shall be sent by first class mail and by electronic means
in the same manners we propose be included in 49 CFR 577.7 above. We
request comment on this proposed clarification.

VI. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order
12866 or Executive Order 13563. NHTSA has considered the impact of this
NPRM under the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. This action would amend Part 577 to update the procedures
by which manufacturers notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of
defects and noncompliances in an effort to improve vehicle safety
recall completion rates. The rulemaking imposes no new significant
burdens on the manufacturers and does not create significant related
costs that would require the development of a full cost/benefit
evaluation. Since this action also does not change the number of those
organizations or individuals subject to this requirement, the impacts
of the rule are limited. Therefore, this rulemaking has been determined
to be not ``significant'' under the Department of Transportation's
regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of the Office of
Management and Budget.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have also considered the impact of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The following provides the factual basis for this
certification under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). The amendments almost entirely
affect manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
    SBA uses size standards based on the North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS''), Subsector 336--Transportation
Equipment Manufacturing, which provides a small business size standard
of 1,000 employees or fewer for automobile manufacturing businesses.
Other motor vehicle-related industries have lower size requirements
that range between 100 and 750 employees. For example, according to the
SBA coding system, businesses that manufacture truck trailers, travel
trailers/campers, and vehicular lighting equipment, qualify as small
businesses if they employ 500 or fewer employees. Small businesses are
subject to the notification requirements and therefore may be affected
by the proposed changes in this NPRM. However, the impacts of this
rulemaking on small businesses are minimal, as this proposed procedural
update does not impose a significant additional burden or additional
costs.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4,
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, 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. Because this rulemaking would not have a $100
million effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment will be prepared.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
et. seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. In compliance with
the PRA, we announce that NHTSA is seeking comment on a revision of a
currently approved collection.
    Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
    Title: 49 CFR part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0004.
    Form Number: The collection of this information uses no standard
form.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three (3) years from the
date of approval.
Summary of the Collection of Information
    This approved information collection is associated with 49 CFR Part
573 and portions of 49 CFR part 577, and consists of important safety
recall information that motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment
manufacturers must submit.
Description of the Need for the Information and Use of the Information
    The information is needed for NHTSA to better serve the public by
effectively monitoring safety recalls and by providing timely recall
information to consumers regarding specific vehicles. Owners and
purchasers will benefit from the increased ease with which they can
ascertain information on recalled vehicles. The public at large will
benefit from a decrease in the numbers of defect or noncompliant
vehicles on public roads and, concurrently, a decrease in the incident
or risk of incident of injuries and fatalities associated with those
defects and failures to comply, that we expect to result from increased
recalls completion rates stemming from the public's enhanced ability to
quickly locate important safety recall information on vehicles they
drive.
Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number, and
Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)
    Should this proposal be made final, we expect that all
manufacturers regulated by NHTSA and currently subject to the defect
and noncompliance reporting and notification requirements will continue
to be subject to the updated requirements.
Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting From the Collection of Information
    Today's proposed rule requiring manufacturers to notify their
affected owners by electronic means in addition to first class mail
notifications will add some paperwork burden to the industry. However,
electronic methods such as email, social media accounts, over-the-air
communications and others are existing technologies and largely free of
charge.
    Given the recent increase in the number of safety recalls the
Agency administers yearly and the volume of products included in those
recalls, this information collection burden hour total is increased
from previous estimates. The Agency anticipates that each recall

will require 4 burden hours for the manufacturer to plan its strategy
for meeting the electronic notification requirement and executing that
strategy. With an estimated 854 recalls filed each year, we estimate a
new 3,416 burden hours (854 recalls x 4 hours) for this new
requirement.
    Comments are invited on:
     Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Department, including
whether the information will have practical utility.
     Whether the Department's estimate for the burden of the
information collection is accurate.
     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.
    A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication. Send comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: NHTSA Desk Officer. PRA comments are
due within 30 days following publication of this document in the
Federal Register.
    The Agency recognizes that the collection of information contained
in today's proposed rule may be subject to revision in response to
public comments.

Regulatory 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.

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).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 577

    Administrative practice and procedure, Motor vehicles, Motor
vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Proposed Regulatory Text

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, NHTSA proposes to amend
49 CFR part 577 as follows:

PART 577--DEFECT AND NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION

0
1. The authority citation for part 577 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30102, 30103, 30116-121, 30166; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.8.

0
2. Amend Sec.  577.7 by revising paragraph (a)(2)(i) through (iv) and
adding paragraphs (a)(2)(v) and (vi) to read as follows:

Sec.  577.7  Time and manner of notification.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) In the case of a notification required to be sent by a motor
vehicle manufacturer, by first class mail and by electronic means to
each person who is registered under State law as the owner of the
vehicle and whose name and address are reasonably ascertainable by the
manufacturer through State records or other sources available to him.
If the owner cannot be reasonably ascertained, the manufacturer shall
notify the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. The
manufacturer shall also provide notification to each lessee of a leased
motor vehicle that is covered by an agreement between the manufacturer
and a lessor under which the manufacturer is to notify lessees directly
of safety-related defects and noncompliances.
    (ii) In the case of a notification required to be sent by a
replacement equipment manufacturer--
    (A) By first class mail and by electronic means to the most recent
purchaser known to the manufacturer, and
    (B) (Except in the case of a tire) if decided by the Administrator
to be required for motor vehicle safety, by public notice in such
manner as the Administrator may require after consultation with the
manufacturer.
    (iii) In the case of a manufacturer required to provide
notification concerning any defective or noncomplying tire, by first
class or certified mail and by electronic means.
    (iv) In the case of a notification to be sent by a lessor to a
lessee of a leased motor vehicle, by first class mail and by electronic
means to the most recent lessee known to the lessor. Such notification
shall be sent within ten days of the lessor's receipt of the
notification from the vehicle manufacturer.
    (v) Notification by electronic means required by paragraph (a)(2)
of this section is defined to include notification by electronic mail,
text messages, radio or television notifications, vehicle infotainment
console messages, over-the-air alerts, social media or targeted online
campaigns, telephone calls, automated or otherwise, or other real time
means. No matter the means identified by the manufacturer, the
Administrator retains the discretion to require other means and
additional notifications if the manufacturer's chosen means is
impractical, does not feasibly reach all of the purchasers or owners
impacted, or is otherwise deemed inappropriate. Any electronic
notification issued under this paragraph must either comply with the
content requirements of Sec.  577.5(b) through (g) of this part,
provide an internet hyperlink to a notice that complies with the
content requirements of Sec.  577.5(b) through (g), or provide an
internet hyperlink to a representative copy of a notice that complies
with the content requirements of Sec.  577.5(b) through (g) along with
instructions on how the purchaser or owner can determine whether his or
her vehicle or equipment is impacted.
    (vi) In the case of a notification by electronic means that may be
viewed by more than one individual, manufacturers who are currently
required to support NHTSA's VIN search tool and offer VIN-based safety
recall search tools pursuant to existing regulation under this chapter,
such notification must direct viewer to NHTSA's VIN search tool and the
manufacturer's search tool.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  577.10 by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  577.10  Follow-up notification.

* * * * *
    (g) A follow-up notification shall be sent by first class mail and
by electronic means pursuant to Sec.  577.7(a)(2) of this part.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, the Administrator may
authorize the use of other media besides first class mail and
electronic means for a follow-up notification.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 25, 2016 under authority
delegated pursuant to 49 CFR 1.95.
Gregory K. Rea,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-20926 Filed 8-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P