32258 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Notices 

multiple small business refiners within 

24 months of the date the May 11, 2009, 

Federal Register Notice was published. 

On August 4, 2009, SBA published a 

Notice of Retraction of a Waiver from 

the Nonmanufacturer Rule for PSC 9130 

(Liquid Propellants—Petroleum Base), 

under NAICS code 324110 (Petroleum 

Refineries) seeking comments on the 

proposed retraction of waiver. A final 

Notice of Retraction of a Waiver from 

the Nonmanufacturer Rule for PSC 9130 

(Liquid Propellants—Petroleum Base), 

under NAICS code 324110 (Petroleum 

Refineries) was not published. 

Therefore, SBA is again proposing to 

Retract a Waiver from the 

Nonmanufacturer Rule for PSC 9130 

(Liquid Propellants—Petroleum Base), 

under NAICS code 324110 (Petroleum 

Refineries). The public is invited to 

comment or provide source information 

to SBA on the proposed retraction of a 

waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule for 

the product(s) within 15 days after the 

date of posting in the Federal Register. 

John W. Klein, 

Acting Director, Office of Government 

Contracting. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13777 Filed 6–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY 

Meeting of the Regional Resource 

Stewardship Council 

AGENCY: Tennessee Valley Authority 

(TVA). 

ACTION: Notice of Meeting. 

SUMMARY: The TVA Regional Resource 

Stewardship Council (RRSC) will hold a 

meeting on Wednesday, June 29, 2011, 

to consider TVA’s Natural Resource 

Plan. 

The RRSC was established to advise 

TVA on its natural resource stewardship 

activities. Notice of this meeting is given 

under the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2. 

The management of the Tennessee 

Valley reservoirs and the lands adjacent 

to them has long been an integral 

component of TVA’s mission. As part of 

implementing the TVA Environmental 

Policy, TVA is developing a Natural 

Resource Plan (NRP) that will help 

prioritize techniques for the 

management of TVA’s biological and 

cultural resource management activities, 

recreation management activities, water 

resource protection and improvement 

activities, and reservoir lands planning. 

In accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, TVA is also 

developing an accompanying 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

in which TVA will evaluate the 

preferred strategy for the NRP, as well 

as other viable alternative strategies. 

TVA is using the RRSC as a key 

stakeholder group throughout the 

development of the NRP to advise TVA 

on the issues, tradeoffs, and focus of 

environmental stewardship activities. 

The draft NRP and accompanying draft 

EIS were recently released for public 

comment. At the June 2011 meeting, 

TVA will be seeking advice from the 

RRSC on issues regarding the programs 

which comprise the NRP. 

The meeting agenda includes the 

following: 

1. Introductions. 

2. Natural Resource Plan overview; 

Programs included in the NRP for 

biological, cultural, water, and 

recreational resources and reservoir 

lands planning; Historical spending; 

NRP funding and implementation; and 

incorporation of advice received from 

the RRSC at its April 2011 meeting. 

3. Public Comments. 

4. Council Discussion and Advice. 

The RRSC will hear opinions and 

views of citizens by providing a public 

comment session. The public comment 

session will be held at 2 p.m. E.D.T., on 

Wednesday, June 29. Persons wishing to 

speak are requested to register at the 

door by 1 p.m. E.D.T., on Wednesday, 

June 29 and will be called on during the 

public comment period. Handout 

materials should be limited to one 

printed page. Written comments are also 

invited and may be mailed to the 

Regional Resource Stewardship Council, 

Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West 

Summit Hill Drive, WT 11B, Knoxville, 

Tennessee 37902. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

Wednesday, June 29 from 8:30 a.m. to 

4 p.m. E.D.T. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

Brasstown Valley Resort, 6321 U.S. 

Highway 76, Young Harris, Georgia, 

30582 and will be open to the public. 

Anyone needing special access or 

accommodations should let the contact 

below know at least a week in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth 

Keel, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 

11B, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, (865) 

632–6113. 

Dated: May 25, 2011. 

Anda A. Ray, 

Senior Vice President and Environmental 

Executive, Environment and Technology, 

Tennessee Valley Authority. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13753 Filed 6–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8120–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0183] 

Access to Aircraft Situation Display 

(ASDI) and National Airspace System 

Status Information (NASSI) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of modification to the 

FAA/Subscriber Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA). 

SUMMARY: The FAA has decided that it 

is in the best interests of the United 

States Government and the general 

public to modify Section 9 of the June 

1, 2006 MOA for Industry Access to 

Aircraft Situation Display (ASDI) and 

National Airspace System Status 

Information (NASSI) data, between the 

FAA and Direct Subscribers to ASDI 

and NASSI data-feeds. In recognition of 

the fact that the Privacy Act does not 

protect general aviation operators and 

on-demand air charter aircraft operating 

under 14 CFR part 135 (‘‘on-demand 

aircraft’’) from public knowledge of their 

flight information, the FAA will require 

Direct Subscribers (as a condition of 

signing the MOA) and Indirect 

Subscribers (as a condition of signing 

agreements with Direct Subscribers) to 

block from ASDI and NASSI data-feeds 

available to the public any general 

aviation aircraft or on-demand aircraft 

the registration number for which a 

Certified Security Concern has been 

provided to the FAA by electronic mail 

at CertifiedSecurityConcern@faa.gov or 

by regular mail at FAA Certified 

Security Concern, ATO System 

Operations Services; Room 1002, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591. The FAA will 

no longer accommodate any ASDI- or 

NASSI-related security or privacy 

requests, except such Certified Security 

Concern. 

DATES: A Certified Security Concern 

will be due within July 5, 2011. The 

MOA amendment will be effective 

August 2, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Barry Davis by telephone at (540) 422– 

4650 or by electronic mail at 

barry.davis@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

navigational facilities and services in 

the national airspace system (NAS)— 

including the air traffic controllers, 

radar- and satellite-based systems, air 

traffic control towers and centers, and 

the like—are funded through the Airport 

and Airway Trust Fund and the 

taxpayer-supported general fund, 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Notices 32259 

1Section nine of the MOA provides: 

The ASDI and NASSI data includes the near 

realtime position and other flight data associated 

with civil instrument fight rules (IFR) aircraft. 

While commercial operators conduct business 

according to a published listing of service and 

schedule, general aviation operators do not. It is 

possible that public knowledge of the flight 

information of general aviation operators could 

compromise the privacy and/or security of 

individuals. The protection of such information is 

not covered under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a), 

and the cost of developing and operating the 

technical mechanisms required to manage that 

information exceeds available FAA resources. The 

FAA recognizes that certain industry initiatives 

exist to collect requests from aircraft owners to 

exclude their aircraft from ASDI data feeds 

available to the public, either in near real time or 

in recorded (historical) format. The FAA 

accommodates these initiatives to the extent they 

support and respect these privacy and security 

interests. All Direct Subscribers (as a condition of 

signing this MOA) and Indirect Subscribers (as a 

condition of signing agreements with Direct 

Subscribers) are asked to consider and respect these 

privacy and security interests when developing 

and/or marketing ASDI and/or NASSI-based 

products. If the FAA determines that any Direct 

and/or Indirect Subscribers develop and/or market 

products that violate this provision, the FAA’s 

rights under Section 15 [Termination of this 

Agreement] shall apply. 

The MOA further defines a Direct Subscriber as 

an entity that receives the ASDI/NASSI data 

directly from the FAA ETMS Hubsite; an Indirect 

Subscriber is an entity that receives the ASDI/ 

NASSI data from a Direct Subscriber or another 

Indirect Subscriber. 

administered by the FAA. The aviation 

industry, when operating under 

instrument flight rules (IFR), must 

provide flight-tracking data to the FAA, 

which the FAA uses for traffic flow 

management purposes. 

In 1997, the FAA began to make air 

traffic flow management data available 

to the aviation and other industries 

through its Enhanced Traffic 

Management System (ETMS) Hubsite. 

The data consists of near real time 

position and other relevant flight data 

for every civil IFR aircraft receiving 

radar services within the NAS. The data 

is called aircraft situation display to 

industry (ASDI) and is filtered to 

exclude military and sensitive 

operations such as Presidential flights, 

drug interdiction flights, and other law 

enforcement and military efforts. The 

ASDI data-feed includes position 

(latitude and longitude) of aircraft, the 

aircraft’s call sign, airspeed, altitude, 

heading, and flight plan information 

including origination and destination 

airports. 14 CFR 91.169. The 

information allows tracking of 

individual flights through the 

conclusion of each flight. 

In 1998, the FAA released selective 

data elements of the national airspace 

system status information (NASSI) to 

industry to enhance the benefits to the 

ASDI data; which increases the 

dispatching flexibility for airlines 

enabling them to more efficiently 

manage their aircraft and crew and other 

operational resources. The NASSI data 

includes information on the status of 

airport runway visual range and special 

use airspace data as well as the status 

of other NAS components. At this time, 

the FAA granted access to the ASDI and 

NASSI data to Subscribers through a 

memorandum of agreement (MOA), 

which set forth the rights and 

responsibilities of the FAA and Direct 

Subscribers of the ASDI/NASSI data. 

The publicly available ASDI hubsite, 

however, does not display complete 

information, due primarily to concerns 

of the National Business Aviation 

Association (NBAA) to limit public 

knowledge of flight paths of general 

aviation aircraft. In 1997, the NBAA 

began working with the FAA and ASDI 

Subscribers to develop a system to 

protect the personal privacy, as well as 

the security, of the NBAA members. 

This effort has culminated in a system 

under which general aviation aircraft 

owners or operators and on-demand 

aircraft have the ability to ‘‘block’’ 

aircraft identification information from 

the ASDI data feed at two levels, one at 

the FAA source (the FAA ETMS 

Hubsite) and a second via the FAA’s 

agreement regarding the data displayed 

by ASDI Direct Subscribers. In these two 

ways, the publicly available Web sites 

either do not receive or filter from 

display certain general aviation 

corporate and other aircraft. 

Under the ‘‘block’’ system between the 

NBAA and the FAA, the NBAA submits 

monthly to the FAA an updated list of 

aircraft to be blocked at the FAA source 

of the ASDI data feed. The FAA Block 

List consists of the aircraft registration 

numbers of those owners who want 

their aircraft to be blocked completely 

from distribution to Subscribers. This 

FAA Block List will filter all flight data 

information, which the FAA will not 

distribute to any Subscriber. 

In contrast, under the ‘‘block’’ system 

between the aircraft owners and Direct 

Subscribers, the aircraft owners have 

filled out a Block Aircraft Registration 

Request (BARR) form, which the NBAA 

circulates monthly to all known Direct 

Subscribers. The BARR List contains 

aircraft call signs that owners wish to 

have blocked from public distribution. 

The FAA does not use or manage the list 

but section nine of the MOA has 

required Direct Subscribers to honor 

such requests. 

In 2000, Congress directed the FAA to 

require that ASDI Direct Subscribers 

demonstrate the capability to selectively 

block the display of any data related to 

any identified aircraft registration 

number and agree to selective blocking 

upon the Administrator’s request. 49 

U.S.C. 44103, note (Pub. L. 106–181, 

Apr. 5, 2000, § 729, Aircraft Situational 

Display Data (ASDD)). The Aircraft 

Situational Display Data provision 

reads: 

(a) In general.—A memorandum of 

agreement between the Administrator 

and any person that directly obtains 

aircraft situational display data from the 

Federal Aviation Administration shall 

require that— 

(1) The person demonstrate to the 

satisfaction of the Administrator that the 

person is capable of selectively blocking 

the display of any aircraft-situationdisplay-to-industry derived data related 

to any identified aircraft registration 

number; and 

(2) The person agree to block 

selectively the aircraft registration 

numbers of any aircraft owner or 

operator upon the Administration’s 

request. 

(b) Existing memoranda to be 

conformed.—Not later than 30 days after 

the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

Administrator shall conform any 

memoranda of agreement, in effect on 

such date of enactment, between the 

Federal Aviation Administration and a 

person under which that person obtains 

aircraft situational display data to 

incorporate the requirements of 

subsection (a). 

Section nine of a 2006 MOA between 

the FAA and Direct Subscribers 

addresses the 2000 legislative directive.1

Under this section, the FAA states that 

it accommodates industry initiatives 

that collect requests from general 

aviation aircraft owners to exclude their 

aircraft from ASDI data feeds available 

to the public, either in near real-time or 

in recorded (historical) format. The FAA 

further requires Direct Subscribers and 

Indirect Subscribers to respect the 

privacy and security interests of the 

general aviation aircraft owners or 

operators when developing or marketing 

ASDI or NASSI-based products. Due to 

these arrangements between the FAA, 

the general aviation aircraft operators, 

and the Direct and Indirect Subscribers, 

the public currently does not have 

access to concrete information about a 

large number of users of the NAS. 

Today’s change to FAA policy and the 

MOA will disclose the aircraft on the 

ASDI (time-delayed) Web site unless the 

general aviation owner or operator, or 

on-demand aircraft, submits to the FAA 

a Certified Security Concern. A Certified 

Security Concern would be based on 

either (a) the facts and circumstances 

establishing a Valid Security Concern 

(i.e., a verifiable threat to person, 

property or company, including a threat 

of death, kidnapping or serious bodily 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
32260 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Notices 

harm against an individual, a recent 

history of violent terrorist activity in the 

geographic area in which the 

transportation is provided, or a threat 

against a company); or (b) the general 

aviation aircraft owner or operator 

satisfying the requirement for a bona 

fide business-oriented security concern 

under Treasury Regulation 1.132–5(m), 

‘‘Employer-provided transportation for 

security concerns,’’ 26 CFR 1.132–5(m). 

A generalized security concern or 

privacy interest no longer will suffice to 

block the aircraft from the ASDI data 

feed. Absent appropriate certification, 

the ASDI data feed will disclose aircraft 

and flight specific information. It is 

important to note that this information 

does not disclose the identity of the 

occupants of the aircraft or the business 

or other purpose of the flight. 

Under section 7.1.8 of the MOA, the 

FAA is authorized, and has the sole 

right, with timely notification, to modify 

the MOA if it is in the best interests of 

the United States Government or the 

general public. As explained more fully 

below, the FAA finds that the 

modification of the MOA conforms to 

the Federal Open Government Act, 

complies with Executive Branch 

policies and directives, makes Federal 

Government information more open, 

transparent and accessible to the public, 

and carries out the DOT Open 

Government Directive promoting 

proactive release of DOT data. The 

aircraft registration numbers of blocked 

aircraft and the associated flight plans 

are already releasable under the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and 

are not protected personal information 

under the Privacy Act. An agency may 

change its policies when in the public 

interest and is not compelled to retain 

outdated policies. Accordingly, the 

MOA modification is in the best 

interests of the Government and the 

public. 

Consistency With Aircraft Situational 

Display Data (ASDD) Law 

The NBAA and the National Air 

Transportation Association (NATA) 

state that the change to the MOA is not 

consistent with the ASDD provision, 49 

U.S.C. 44103 note. Congress’s intent 

behind the ‘‘selectivity’’ portion of this 

provision, according to NBAA and 

NATA, was to authorize privacy on 

behalf of a general aviation aircraft 

owner and to give the FAA merely a 

secondary role of facilitating the 

blocking at an aircraft owner’s request. 

The NATA states that the requirement 

for an ASDI Subscriber to demonstrate 

a capability to ‘‘selectively block’’ data 

was intended to authorize the aircraft 

owner—not the FAA—to select the data 

to be blocked. The NBAA believes the 

ASDD provision was both intended to 

reinforce the existing BARR program 

and to ensure that the FAA continued 

its practice of honoring all blocking 

requests. They both contend that the 

FAA lacks discretion to determine 

which aircraft owners/operators are 

eligible for blocking and which requests 

it will forward to ASDI Subscribers. 

The FAA disagrees with the 

respective associations’ contentions that 

today’s proposal is inconsistent with the 

ASDD provision. The text of the ASDD 

provision (see above) contains two 

features—(1) that the Subscriber is 

capable of ‘‘selectively blocking’’ aircraft 

tail numbers from the ASDI and (2) that 

the Subscriber will selectively block 

such data ‘‘upon the [FAA] 

Administration’s request.’’ The 

provision affords the FAA discretion in 

determining the circumstances under 

which it may ‘‘request’’ the selective 

blocking of the data. There is nothing in 

the ASDD provision that impairs the 

FAA’s ability to deny requests to block 

data and to display ASDI-data. 

Indeed, the ASDD provision does not 

direct the FAA to honor any or all 

requests of an aircraft owner. Rather, the 

FAA is authorized to make the request 

in circumstances it determines to be in 

the public interest. Therefore, the FAA 

may convey the request to the 

Subscriber on its own initiative or in 

response to a request made by an 

aircraft owner. In the latter 

circumstance, the FAA may look behind 

the reason for the aircraft owner’s 

request to selectively block aircraft data. 

As explained further below, for reasons 

of transparency and in support of the 

Administration’s Open Government 

efforts, the FAA has determined that 

requests for selective blocking should be 

honored only upon receipt of a Certified 

Security Concern. 

Justification for Change in Policy 

Several commentators, including the 

NBAA, NATA, General Aviation 

Manufacturers Association (GAMA), 

Sprint United Management Company, 

Global Business Travel Association 

(GBTA), McAfee & Taft P.C. (a law firm), 

and Patton Boggs LLP (a law firm), state 

that the FAA did not articulate a 

justification for the proposed change to 

the MOA and did not explain the 

findings underlying its conclusion that 

the change is in the best interest of the 

Government and the public. As 

explained below, today’s change is 

justified by disclosure and openness 

requirements set forth in Federal law, 

executive branch directives and 

policies, and court decisions. 

The Openness Promotes Effectiveness 

in our National Government Act of 2007 

(the Open Government Act or the Act), 

Public Law 110–174 (Dec. 31, 2007), 

promotes openness in Government and 

enhances the Freedom of Information 

Act (FOIA) statute (5 U.S.C. 552) by 

requiring Federal agencies to be more 

transparent in their responses to FOIA 

requests. In particular, the Act 

strengthens FOIA ‘‘to promote 

accessibility, accountability, and 

openness in Government,’’ finding: 

• The American people firmly believe 

that our system of government must 

itself be governed by a presumption of 

openness; 

• FOIA establishes a ‘‘strong 

presumption in favor of disclosure;’’ 

• ‘‘Disclosure, not secrecy, is the 

dominant objective’’ of FOIA; and 

• Congress should ensure that the 

Government ‘‘remains open and 

accessible to the American people and 

is always based not upon the ‘need to 

know’ but upon the fundamental ‘right 

to know.’’’ 5 U.S.C. 552 note. 

The Open Government Act underlines 

Congress’ heightened interest in a 

Federal agency’s responsiveness to, and 

compliance with, FOIA requests and 

disclosures, respectively. This 

Congressional support of openness and 

disclosure of agency records and 

information informs the FAA’s decision 

to change its policy to one of presumed 

disclosure of the ASDI data-feed to the 

public. 

Similarly, the Presidential 

Memorandum on Transparency and 

Open Government (January 21, 2009), 

the Presidential Memorandum on the 

Freedom of Information Act (January 21, 

2009), an Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Open Government 

Directive (December 8, 2009), a U.S. 

Dept. of Justice Attorney General FOIA 

Memorandum (March 19, 2009), and a 

DOT Open Government Plan (2010– 

2015) require transparency in, and 

disclosure of, Government information. 

http://www.dot.gov/open/plan. 

In particular, the Presidential Open 

Government Memorandum announced 

the Obama Administration’s 

commitment to ‘‘creating an 

unprecedented level of openness in 

Government’’ and ‘‘establish[ing] a 

system of transparency, public 

participation, and collaboration.’’ It 

directed departments and agencies to 

put information about their operations 

[and decisions] online and make it 

‘‘readily available to the public.’’ The 

OMB Open Government Directive, 

which implemented the Presidential 

Memorandum, states that, with respect 

to information ‘‘the presumption shall 

be in favor of openness’’ in order ‘‘to 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Notices 32261 

increase accountability, promote 

informed participation by the public, 

and create economic opportunity.’’ The 

Presidential FOIA Memorandum 

instructs Federal agencies, including the 

FAA, that FOIA should be administered 

with a ‘‘clear presumption: in the face of 

doubt, openness prevails.’’ It further 

provides: 

The Government should not keep 

information confidential merely because 

public officials might be embarrassed by 

disclosure, because errors and failures might 

be revealed, or because of speculative or 

abstract fears. (italics supplied) 

The Attorney General FOIA 

Memorandum reinforces the principle 

that openness is the Government’s 

default position for FOIA issues, directs 

an agency not to withhold information 

simply because it may do so legally, and 

encourages agencies to post information 

online in advance of FOIA requests. The 

DOT Open Government Plan requires 

the Department to be ‘‘even more 

transparent, participatory, and 

collaborative’’ and to release data 

‘‘proactively’’ making it available online. 

Under these Executive Branch 

policies and directives, the FAA cannot 

retain the default position of concealing 

information about general aviation 

aircraft flights on public ASDI datafeeds simply because of generalized 

privacy or security concerns. Rather, the 

FAA’s default position must be one of 

openness. Accordingly, the FAA has 

determined that only a Certified 

Security Concern would justify 

nondisclosure of general aviation 

aircraft, or on-demand aircraft, flights. 

The change in the MOA, to display 

general aviation aircraft, and on-demand 

aircraft, on the ASDI and NASSI datafeed websites in the absence of a 

Certified Security Concern, is in the best 

interests of the Government and the 

public. The NBAA says this change is 

not necessary because the FAA has 

disclosed no complaints from the public 

about the lack of ASDI or NAASI 

information or abuse of the BARR 

program by private aircraft. But 

complaints by the public are not preconditions to providing information to 

the public. Rather, Government 

disclosure of information it collects is 

an integral part of a constitutional 

democracy and informed public. By 

proactively disclosing information, the 

FAA is forestalling complaints about 

lack of access to Government-provided 

information and about potential abuse 

by private aircraft owners or operators 

of any aircraft blocking programs. As 

Congress recognized in its findings to 

the Open Government Act of 2007 (Pub. 

L. 110–175, Dec. 31, 2007; 5 U.S.C. 552 

note), ‘‘our constitutional democracy, 

our system of self-government, and our 

commitment to popular sovereignty 

depends upon the consent of the 

governed; such consent is not 

meaningful unless it is informed 

consent.’’ 5 U.S.C. 552 note, § 2(1)(A)– 

(B). 

Additionally, two recent and 

significant court decisions inform the 

FAA’s decision regarding whether 

general aviation aircraft, or on-demand 

aircraft, identities should be kept 

private. The first, Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) v. 

AT&T, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 1177 (2011), 

affirmed the FCC’s finding that FOIA 

Exemption 7 does not protect a 

business’ privacy because the term 

‘‘personal privacy’’ does not extend to 

corporations. The second, National 

Business Aviation Association (NBAA) 

v. Federal Aviation Administration, 686 

F. Supp. 2d 80 (D.D.C. 2010), affirmed 

the FAA’s decision to release the list of 

NBAA members’ aircraft registration 

numbers, because they were not 

protected under FOIA Exemption 4 as 

‘‘commercial’’ information; nor were 

they protected under Exemption 6, 

which does not reach the privacy 

interests of businesses or corporations. 

These intervening developments—by 

Congress, the Executive Branch, and the 

courts—caused us to reconsider whether 

it is in the best interest of the 

Government and the public to exclude 

from public view general aviation 

aircraft flight displays in the absence of 

a Certified Security Concern. As set 

forth above, given the strong public 

interest in openness and disclosure, we 

find that it is not. 

Rationale for Certified Security 

Concern Requirement 

The Open Government initiatives 

described above, however, do not 

mandate that Federal agencies disclose 

information on a carte blanche basis. 

See OMB Open Government Directive at 

2 (‘‘the presumption [with respect to 

Government information] shall be in 

favor of openness (to the extent 

permitted by law and subject to valid 

privacy, confidentiality, security or 

other restrictions))’’ (italics supplied); 

Attorney General’s FOIA Memorandum 

at 1 (‘‘disclosure obligation under the 

FOIA is not absolute. The Act provides 

exemptions to protect, for example, 

national security, personal privacy, 

privileged records, and law enforcement 

interests’’); DOT Open Government Plan 

version 1.2, Overview (DOT will 

‘‘increase agency transparency and 

accountability by * * * continuing to 

release DOT data in a timely manner by 

proactively making it available online in 

consistent, open formats, while assuring 

accuracy and protecting privacy, 

security, and confidentiality’’). The FAA 

carefully considered whether the 

privacy and security concerns for 

blocking the general aviation aircraft 

and on-demand aircraft from ASDI datafeeds were ‘‘valid’’ under the OMB Open 

Government Directive and thereby 

subject to protection and nondisclosure. 

The Presidential FOIA Memorandum 

is instructive in defining the term 

‘‘valid’’ for purposes of withholding 

aircraft identification numbers from 

disclosure on ASDI/NASSI data feed. It 

instructs Federal agencies not to keep 

information confidential based on 

potential embarrassment or ‘‘speculative 

or abstract fears.’’ 

In applying the ‘‘validity’’ standard to 

an FAA request to selectively block 

aircraft identification numbers on ASDI/ 

NASSI data-feed, it is logical to utilize 

the Treasury Regulation governing 

‘‘Employer-provided transportation for 

security concerns.’’ That regulation 

contains two features that make it 

applicable to these circumstances. First, 

it specifically applies to air 

transportation, expressly referring to 

‘‘flights on the employer’s aircraft’’ (26 

CFR 1.132–5(m)(1), (2)(iii)) and to 

‘‘employer-provided aircraft,’’ (26 CFR 

1.132–5(m)(4)). Second, it acknowledges 

concrete, non-speculative, nongeneralized reasons for a security 

concern justifying use of corporate 

aircraft for personal flights. These 

reasons include as an ‘‘overall security 

program,’’ factors such as a threat of 

death or kidnapping of or serious bodily 

harm to the employee, or a recent 

history of violent terrorist activity in the 

geographic area in which the 

transportation is provided. 26 CFR 

1.132–5(m)(2). 

The NBAA, NATA, McAfee & Taft 

P.C., Patton Boggs LLP, Peregrine Jet, 

LLC, Sprint United Management 

Company, and others comment that the 

Certified Security Concern requirement 

establishes an unjustifiably high bar and 

creates a test that the FAA lacks the 

ability to administer. We disagree. The 

new test is justified as complying with 

the Open Government policies and 

directives. As discussed above, a 

generalized, non-specific security 

concern would not constitute a ‘‘valid’’ 

concern under the Executive Branch 

directives. Moreover, the FAA, in most 

cases, anticipates relying on good-faith 

certifications. 

Today’s change to the MOA also 

comports with the NBAA FOIA decision 

as it relates to security concerns posed 

by the release of flight data. There, the 

court found it ‘‘highly unlikely’’ that the 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
32262 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Notices 

FOIA release of the aircraft registration 

numbers would impact the security of 

aircraft or aircraft passengers. 686 F. 

Supp.2d at 87. The court stated that the 

public would receive only registration 

numbers, would not receive any other 

identifying or associated narrative, and 

the after-the-fact FOIA disclosure would 

not permit investigation of real-time 

location data. Likewise, the types of 

disclosures facilitated by today’s 

amendment to the MOA are unlikely to 

impact the security of aircraft or aircraft 

passengers. The public ASDI/NASSI 

data-feed is not in real-time. 

Nevertheless, those aircraft owners or 

operators demonstrating Certified 

Security Concerns may have their 

aircraft identification withheld from 

public view. 

The NBAA and MEDEX Global 

Solutions also question whether a U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA) Advisory– 

Security Information for Aircraft 

Owner/Operators & Airport Managers 

(April 20, 2006)—should qualify as a 

Valid Security Concern and a basis for 

non-disclosure. The TSA Advisory 

references an Arabic web forum message 

explaining how to identify private 

American jets and urging Muslims to 

destroy all such aircraft. This Advisory 

is generalized and, without more 

information or data, would not 

constitute an individualized threat to 

particular general aviation aircraft to 

satisfy the requirements of a ‘‘valid’’ 

security concern. 

Application of Certified Security 

Concern to Corporate Aircraft 

Occupants and to On-Demand Air 

Charters 

The NATA and others comment that 

the Certified Security Concern standard 

is too narrow and suggest that, at a 

minimum, it not only apply to an 

employee but extend to persons such as 

corporate directors, guests, and key 

shareholders who are authorized to use 

corporate aircraft. NATA also suggests 

that the Certified Security Concern 

cover on-demand air charters, operating 

under 14 CFR part 135, which currently 

participate in the FAA Block program to 

prevent unwanted tracking of the 

clientele they serve. 

The FAA clarifies that the Certified 

Security Concern does extend to the 

security of the aircraft passengers who 

may not be employees of the aircraft 

owner or operator. Therefore, assuming 

a Valid Security Concern exists for 

corporate directors, guests and/or key 

shareholders, a Valid Security Concern 

may be provided to the FAA by a 

general aviation aircraft owner or 

operator who carries such passengers. If 

the FAA has sufficient advance notice of 

the Valid Security Concern, the FAA 

will block the aircraft data. The FAA 

does not intend the scope of the Valid 

Security Concern to be limited solely to 

the security of the aircraft owner’s key 

employees. 

The FAA will accommodate a Valid 

Security Concern for certain passengers 

on an on-demand aircraft, assuming a 

certification is submitted and the FAA 

has sufficient advance notice, which is 

a minimum of thirty days, to block the 

aircraft data. The request would also 

need to specify the period of time 

during which a Valid Security Concern 

will exist regarding the security of the 

aircraft or aircraft passengers. 

Privacy Concerns 

Many commenters, individuals and 

those representing a wide spectrum of 

industry, including Altria Client 

Services, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy 

Corporation, Federal Express 

Corporation, GAMA, Gaylord 

Entertainment Company, Jim Wilson & 

Associates, LLC (a real estate 

development company), the NBAA, 

NATA, Proctor & Gamble Company, and 

Sprint United Management Company, 

claimed that the FAA is improperly 

ignoring the privacy and/or business 

concerns of the corporate aircraft 

owners, key employees, shareholders, 

executives, and/or passengers and 

occupants of other general aviation or 

on-demand charter aircraft. The FAA 

finds that these concerns previously 

were rejected in the context of FOIA 

Exemption 4 (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4)) 

(pertaining to ‘‘commercial’’ 

information), FOIA Exemption 6 (5 

U.S.C. 552(b)(6)) (pertaining to 

‘‘personnel files’’ and ‘‘personal 

privacy’’); and FOIA Exemption 7(C) (5 

U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(C)) (pertaining to 

‘‘personal privacy’’ rights). Courts 

rejected the privacy concerns raised by 

commenters in the analogous FOIA 

context and FAA does not find that they 

have identified a material basis to treat 

the FAA’s release of time-delayed NAS 

data differently. 

The FOIA Exemption 4 and 6 issues 

were addressed in the NBAA case, a 

‘‘reverse’’ FOIA case. There, a Federal 

district court granted the FAA’s 

summary judgment motion that general 

aviation aircraft registration numbers 

are releasable. The court found that 

general aviation aircraft registration 

numbers are not protected ‘‘commercial’’ 

information (under FOIA Exemption 4) 

when released as historical ASDI 

website data, that FOIA Exemption 4 

does not protect personal information, 

and that FOIA Exemption 6 does not 

protect the privacy interests of 

businesses or corporations. 

FOIA Exemption 4 protects from 

disclosure ‘‘trade secrets and 

commercial or financial information 

obtained from a person and privileged 

or confidential.’’ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4). The 

court affirmed the FAA’s finding that 

the registration numbers were not 

protected as ‘‘commercial’’ under 

Exemption 4, because the registration 

numbers do not provide commercial 

information. Although the NBAA 

argued in that case that the ASDI data 

release could result in public knowledge 

of ‘‘sensitive negotiations, likely 

business transactions or future 

movement of senior company 

leadership possibly jeopardizing their 

security as well as proprietary business 

information,’’ the court found the public 

would not be able to determine the 

identity of the occupants, discover the 

business purpose of the flight, track the 

flight in real-time, or discern the reasons 

the aircraft owner had for blocking the 

information. 686 F. Supp. 2d at 86–87. 

Rather, with further inquiry and using 

the registration numbers, the public 

could find only the name of the owner 

who sought to block the information 

disclosure, the make and model of the 

aircraft, and flight data, without any 

narrative. 

After finding that the registration 

numbers did not constitute commercial 

information within the meaning of FOIA 

Exemption 4, the court addressed 

NBAA’s contention that that data 

should be protected under privacy and 

security interests because its release 

would compromise the privacy and 

security of the aircraft and their ‘‘high 

profile’’ occupants. As to the privacy 

interest, the court found that ‘‘personal 

privacy’’ concerns of general aviation 

aircraft occupants are not a relevant 

concern under Exemption 4, because 

that exemption covers ‘‘confidential 

commercial information.’’ 686 

F.Supp.2d at 87. 

Turning to Exemption 6, which 

exempts from public disclosure 

‘‘personnel and medical files and similar 

files the disclosure of which would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy,’’ the court 

found it does not provide a basis for 

protecting asserted privacy interests of 

general aviation aircraft owners or 

operators. It held that FOIA Exemption 

6 ‘‘does not extend to * * * businesses 

or corporations.’’ Id. See also FCC, 131 

S. Ct. at 1184 (‘‘[W]e have regularly 

referred to [Exemption 6] as involving 

an individual’s right to privacy.’’) 

With regard to Exemption 7, the 

Supreme Court in FCC v. AT&T recently 

decided that a corporation has no 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Notices 32263 

2The NBAA refers to a ‘‘search and seizure case,’’ 

United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 

2010), holding that the police may not use a GPS 

device to track a suspect for a prolonged period. 

This decision is in the minority and does not 

supersede the holding in United States v. Knotts, 

460 U.S. 276 (1983) that ‘‘[a] person traveling in an 

automobile on public thoroughfares has no 

reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements 

from one place to another.’’ 460 U.S. at 281. 

3The NBAA, for example, cites to a collection of 

statutes (the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud 

and Abuse Prevention Act; the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act of 1991; the Internal 

Revenue Service confidentiality requirements in 26 

U.S.C. 6103; the Family Educational Rights and 

Privacy Act; the Health Insurance Portability and 

Accountability Act; the Fair Credit Reporting Act; 

the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act; the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act; the Electronic 

Communications Privacy Act; the Cable 

Communications Policy Act; the Video Privacy 

Protection Act; the Gramm-Leach Bliley (Financial 

Services Modernization Act); the Controlling the 

Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and 

Marketing Act; the Health Information Technology 

for Economic and Clinical Health Act) and FTC/ 

Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task 

Force reports and proposed legislation in the area 

of privacy, as examples that the FAA should follow. 

4The NBAA states that the Notice needs to 

conform to Executive Order 12866, 64 Federal 

Register, Part VIII (Oct. 4, 1993), ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ which requires an 

identification of the problem the agency intends to 

address. EO 12866 is not, by its terms, applicable 

here, because the Notice merely amends a voluntary 

Memorandum of Agreement between the FAA and 

Subscribers to an FAA-provided data-feed. Even if 

the Executive Order applied, the Notice identifies 

the problem it intends to address—that is, to 

improve the transparency and openness on the FAA 

ASDI- and NASSI data-feeds to the public, in 

compliance with the Executive Branch Open 

Government directives and policies. 

5 Id., EO 12866; see also, Executive Order 13563, 

Sec. 7(d), ‘‘General Provisions,’’ 76 FR 3,821 (Jan. 

21, 2011), ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review.’’ 

‘‘personal privacy’’ rights under that 

provision. Exemption 7(C) protects from 

disclosure ‘‘records or information 

compiled for law enforcement purposes, 

but only to the extent that [their] 

production * * * could reasonably be 

expected to constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of personal privacy.’’ 5 U.S.C. 

552(b)(7)(C). Thus, the Court rejected 

the notion that a corporation may claim 

a privacy interest in protecting 

information that would ‘‘embarrass’’ it. 

131 S. Ct. at 1181. The Court explained 

that, as a matter of tort common law, the 

concept of ‘‘personal privacy’’ did not 

apply to corporations. Id. at 1183–84. 

Many of the commenters, particularly 

NBAA, NATA and McAfee & Taft, state 

that disclosure of the aircraft 

identification numbers on the ASDI/ 

NASSI data-feeds constitutes an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy of 

aircraft owners and operators. They 

believe that disclosure is a threat to the 

competitiveness of U.S. companies, 

because it may enable interested 

persons to track potential business 

transactions or mergers.As stated in 

Section 9 of the MOA, the Privacy Act 

(5 U.S.C. 552a) does not protect the 

ASDI Web site information: 

The protection of such information [flight 

information of general aviation operators] is 

not covered under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 

552a), and the cost of developing and 

operating the technical mechanisms required 

to manage that information exceeds available 

FAA resources. 

Aircraft registration information 

(including aircraft type, current status 

and ownership of aircraft, registration 

number, etc.) is in a System of Records 

protected by the Privacy Act. (See 

System Notice for Privacy Act Record 

System, DOT/FAA 801, Aircraft 

Registration System; 65 FR 19,518 (Apr. 

11, 2000). As stated in the System 

Notice, however, one of the routine uses 

of this information is to ‘‘[m]ake aircraft 

registration data available to the public.’’ 

Id. 

Moreover, some commenters, 

including the NBAA and McAfee & Taft 

P.C., claim that disclosure of general 

aviation aircraft on the ASDI/NAASI 

database would unlawfully allow the 

tracking of aircraft, in violation of the 

Fourth Amendment’s protection against 

unreasonable searches and seizures and 

would amount to a type of ‘‘warrantless 

government surveillance.’’ The Fourth 

Amendment protections against 

unreasonable searches and seizures, 

however, are not applicable to the 

ASDI/NAASI database. The FAA is not 

tracking aircraft in the context of 

enforcing criminal statutes; rather it 

tracks aircraft operating under IFR, for 

safety purposes and to manage the 

efficient use of the navigable airspace. 

Therefore, any concerns about 

warrantless surveillance are not relevant 

to the ASDI/NAASI database 

disclosure.2

The commenters further contend that 

the FAA is required by privacy 

expectations to continue to block 

general aviation and on-demand aircraft. 

They point to various Federal statutes 

through which Congress has directed 

state and Federal agencies to protect 

individuals’ privacy interests.3 The 

NATA states that, because the privacy 

interests of aircraft owners are similar to 

those of automobile owners, the FAA 

should adapt the protections in Drivers 

Privacy Protection Act of 1994 to 

general aviation aircraft owners and 

operators. 

The FAA notes that the Federal 

statutes and policies on privacy referred 

to by the NBAA and the NATA pertain 

to other Federal and State agencies and 

interests and not to the FAA’s ASDI/ 

NASSI database program. The FAA may 

not adopt, for purposes of finding 

‘‘valid’’ privacy concerns on the part of 

aircraft owners or operators or their 

passengers, the statutes that are 

applicable in other situations simply 

because Congress has seen fit to 

authorize certain Federal agencies or 

States to regulate and enforce specific 

privacy protections. The Executive 

Branch policies authorize a Federal 

agency to withhold from disclosure only 

information that is supported by ‘‘valid’’ 

privacy or security concerns. 

Administrative Processes 

The NBAA also asserts that the Notice 

did not comply with administrative 

procedures.4 The FAA, however, need 

not comply with the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et 

seq., to effect changes to the MOA, 

because it simply is modifying an 

agreement it has entered into with 

Subscribers to access FAA data under 

the FAA’s procurement authority, 49 

U.S.C. 106(l)(6), which is independent 

of the APA. The MOA change is 

designed to improve the FAA’s 

management of its data to enhance 

transparency and openness to the 

public. The FAA is taking this action 

after evaluating the public interest, and 

the action is in full accordance with the 

agency’s public interest responsibilities 

on behalf of Open Government and 

transparency. 

Additionally, the Executive Orders do 

not create any enforceable substantive 

or procedural right against the United 

States.5 Consequently, the procedures 

and Executive Orders cited by NBAA 

are not controlling in this situation. As 

stated in section 4 of MOA, the FAA’s 

authority to enter into it ‘‘is governed 

by’’ 49 U.S.C. 106(l)(6). That statutory 

provision states that: 

The [FAA] Administrator is authorized to 

enter into and perform such contracts, leases, 

cooperative agreements, or other 

transactions, as may be necessary to carry out 

the functions of the Administrator and the 

Administration [FAA]. The Administrator 

may enter into such contracts, leases, 

cooperative agreements, and other 

transactions with any * * * person, firm, 

association, corporation, or educational 

institution, on such terms and conditions as 

the Administrator may consider appropriate. 

Amending section 9 of the MOA as 

proposed is merely a change to the 

MOA ‘‘terms and conditions’’ that the 

Administrator deems appropriate, 

consistent with the change procedure 

set forth in the MOA. The MOA is not 

an FAA rule, and amendment of the 

MOA does not, in itself, require the 

FAA to adhere to the rulemaking 

process set forth in the APA. 

Nevertheless, this amendment to the 

MOA is arguably a change to FAA 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
32264 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Notices 

policy that affects members of the 

public, and, the FAA has accordingly 

complied and is fully complying with 

the APA for purposes of adequately 

informing the public of the proposed 

change and providing them with 

sufficient time to comment. For 

example, the Notice provided the 

statement of the basis and purpose of 

the proposed change—that of the best 

interest of the Government and of 

providing public knowledge of 

information about aircraft that has been 

judicially determined, not to be 

protected as commercial or privacyprotected information. As described 

above, disclosure of the information is 

also justified by the Open Government 

Act and Open Government Presidential 

directives and executive orders and 

policies. 

The NBAA states that DOT Order 

2100.5 (1980), pertaining to 

streamlining regulations, requires the 

FAA’s Notice to be clear, based on 

necessity, consider alternatives, and not 

impose unnecessary burdens. The DOT 

Order, however, is not legally binding; 

it serves for internal guidance and 

procedural purposes only, without 

creating any requirements. Moreover, 

the FAA Notice clearly and adequately 

states the proposed change in the MOA 

and the basis for the change. It 

proposed, for comment, an alternative to 

the current, broad exclusion from ASDI/ 

NASSI data-feed for general aviation 

aircraft owner and operators. The 

comments reflected the parties’ 

understanding of the proposed change, 

the reasons for the change, and 

suggested alternatives to the proposed 

change. Accordingly, the FAA provided 

adequate notice for informed comment. 

The 30 day comment period was 

sufficient and complied, to the extent 

applicable, with the APA. The FAA 

received no requests for further time 

within which to accept comments. 

The NBAA also asserts that the Notice 

did not discuss or analyze the costs and 

benefits associated with the new 

restrictions, under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563. However, the Notice 

does not constitute a regulation subject 

to a cost/benefit analysis. Rather, it is at 

most merely a change in policy 

regarding how and when the FAA will 

release public information. Further, 

even if the Notice was subject to cost/ 

benefit analysis, the commenters did not 

submit data, information, or statistics on 

costs, if any, that they might assert to be 

associated with the Notice. In any event, 

the costs associated with compliance 

with a Certified Security Concern 

already have been undertaken by 

corporations or businesses to comply 

with the Treasury regulation and, for 

companies or individuals that are 

concerned about security threats, the 

costs to ascertain and verify such threats 

would have inherent benefits to those 

concerned. The benefits to disclose, in 

the ASDI/NASSI data-feed, those 

aircraft without Certified Security 

Concerns, would inure to the public in 

the form of more transparency and 

openness as to the use by general 

aviation aircraft of the Federallysubsidized airports and airways. 

Modified Section 9 of the MOA 

Accordingly, section 9 of the MOA is 

hereby modified as follows: 

9. Security Interests 

The ASDI and NASSI data includes 

the near real time position and other 

flight data associated with civil 

instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft. 

While commercial operators conduct 

business according to a published 

listing of service and schedule, general 

aviation operators and on-demand air 

charter aircraft operating under 14 CFR 

part 135 (‘‘on-demand aircraft’’) do not. 

It is possible that public knowledge of 

the ASDI and NASSI data of certain 

general aviation and on-demand aircraft 

operators could compromise the 

security of individuals or property. 

General aviation aircraft identification 

numbers must be excluded from public 

ASDI and NASSI data-feeds in the event 

a general aviation aircraft owner or 

operator provides the FAA, at least 

annually, a written certification (a 

‘‘Certified Security Concern’’) that (a) the 

facts and circumstances establish a 

Valid Security Concern regarding the 

security of the owner’s or operator’s 

aircraft or aircraft passengers; or (b) the 

general aviation aircraft owner or 

operator satisfies the requirements for a 

bona fide business-oriented security 

concern under Treasury Regulation 

1.132–5(m). On-demand aircraft 

identification numbers must be 

excluded from public ASDI and NASSI 

data-feeds in the event an on-demand 

aircraft operator provides the FAA, with 

a minimum of thirty days’ advance 

notice and specification of the period of 

time during which a Valid Security 

Concern will exist with respect to that 

aircraft, a written certification that the 

facts and circumstances establish a 

Valid Security Concern regarding the 

security of the aircraft or aircraft 

passengers. The FAA will provide the 

Direct Subscribers, on a monthly basis, 

a list of the aircraft covered by a 

Certified Security Concern. 

A Valid Security Concern is a 

verifiable threat to person, property or 

company, including a threat of death, 

kidnapping or serious bodily harm 

against an individual, a recent history of 

violent terrorist activity in the 

geographic area in which the 

transportation is provided, or a threat 

against a company. The FAA will no 

longer accommodate any ASDI- or 

NASSI- related security or privacy 

requests, except such Certified Security 

Concern. All Direct Subscribers (as a 

condition of signing this MOA) and 

Indirect Subscribers (as a condition of 

signing agreements with Direct 

Subscribers) must block any general 

aviation aircraft, and on-demand 

aircraft, registration numbers included 

on the FAA-provided list of aircraft 

covered by a Certified Security Concern. 

If the FAA determines that any Direct or 

Indirect Subscriber develops or markets 

products that violate this provision, the 

FAA’s rights under Section 15 shall 

apply. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, 

effective 60 days from the date of this 

Notice, the FAA will no longer 

accommodate requests to bar the release 

of aircraft flight tracking data unless an 

aircraft owner or operator provides a 

Certified Security Concern, as defined 

in this Notice. Absent a Certified 

Security Concern by a general aviation 

aircraft owner or operator (and absent a 

Valid Security Concern by an ondemand aircraft), the FAA will disclose 

aircraft on its ASDI and NASSI websites 

and will not request that Subscribers 

exclude those aircraft on the public 

(time-delayed) ASDI- and NASSI datafeeds. The information to be disclosed 

on the ASDI/NASSI data-feeds would 

include the aircraft position, call sign, 

airspeed, heading and flight plan as well 

as status of airport runway visual range, 

special use airspace data and status of 

other NAS components. The FAA will 

maintain the current system of blocking 

the release of aircraft tracking data until 

the effective date of the Notice. 

To be blocked from the ASDI/NASSI 

data-feeds, any general aviation aircraft 

owner or operator covered by a Certified 

Security Concern must submit such 

concern within 30 days from the date of 

this Notice and at least annually 

thereafter to the FAA by electronic mail 

at CertifiedSecurityConcern@faa.gov or 

by regular mail at FAA Certified 

Security Concern; ATO System 

Operations Services; Room 1002; 800 

Independence Avenue, SW.; 

Washington, DC 20591. An on-demand 

aircraft covered by a Valid Security 

Concern must similarly submit such 

concern on a minimum of 30 days’ 

notice and specify the period of time 

during which such a security concern 

will exist with respect to the aircraft or 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 107 / Friday, June 3, 2011 / Notices 32265 

1Specifically, the agreement includes trackage 

‘‘* * * between MP 260 and the connection with 

MMA’s Van Buren Subdivision at MP 264 and 

between the connection with MMA’s Van Buren 

Subdivision and MP V 22.7 of the Van Buren 

Subdivision, and between MP V 22.7 of the Van 

Buren Subdivision and the connection with CN at 

MP 194.1 of CN’s Nappadoggin Subdivision, 

including the trackage across the Van Buren Bridge, 

* * * and the track between MP V 22.7 and MP V 

23.72 for headroom * * * .’’ 

2See Montreal, Me. & Atl. Ry.—Discontinuance of 

Service and Aban.—in Aroostook and Penobscot 

Cntys, Me., AB 1043 (Sub-No. 1) (STB served Dec. 

27, 2010). 

3The transaction in Docket No. FD 35518 is 

related to the following concurrently filed 

pleadings. In Docket No. FD 35519, Maine Northern 

Railway Company—Trackage Rights Exemption— 

Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway, Ltd., MNRC 

has filed a notice of exemption for overhead 

trackage rights over an MMA line to the south to 

access Eastern Maine Railway (EMR), to which 

MMA also has agreed as part of the State’s 

acquisition of the 233-mile line. In Docket No. FD 

35520, The New Brunswick Railway Company— 

Continuance in Control Exemption—Maine 

Northern Railway Company, The New Brunswick 

Railway Company (NBRC), the parent company of 

both EMR and MNRC, has filed a petition for 

exemption to continue in control of EMR and 

MNRC once MNRC becomes a Class III carrier upon 

filing the modified certificate. MNRC and NBRC 

have asked that the Board make all these 

exemptions effective on June 15, 2011. The Board 

will address their request in its decision in Docket 

No. FD 35520. 

aircraft passengers. Any such 

submission must specify whether such 

request is to block the aircraft 

identification number prior to the FAA’s 

release of the data-feed, or to block the 

aircraft identification number from 

release by the Direct Subscribers. 

Should a specific request not be made, 

the FAA will block the identification 

number prior to its release of the datafeed. 

The FAA will contact each Direct 

Subscriber to execute a revised MOA, 

incorporating the modified section nine, 

within 60 days of this Notice. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 27, 

2011. 

Marc L. Warren, 

Acting Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13757 Filed 6–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Executive Committee of the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee; 

Meeting 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice 

to advise the public of a meeting of the 

Executive Committee of the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 

29, 2011, at 10 a.m. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place 

at the Federal Aviation Administration, 

800 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, 20591, 10th floor, 

MacCracken Room. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Renee Butner, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20591, 

telephone (202) 267–5093; fax (202) 

267–5075; e-mail Renee.Butner@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are 

giving notice of a meeting of the 

Executive Committee of the Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee taking 

place on June 29, 2011, at the Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591. The Agenda 

includes: 

1. Discussion of Potential Restructuring 

of ARAC 

2. Discussion of ARAC EXCOM Role in 

Implementing Future of Aviation 

Advisory Committee (FAAC) 

Recommendation #22 

3. Update on FAA Response to Process 

Improvement Working Group 

(PIWG) Recommendations 

4. Review of the Retrospective 

Regulatory Review Report 

5. Issue Area Status Reports From 

Assistant Chairs 

6. Remarks From Other EXCOM 

Members 

Attendance is open to the interested 

public but limited to the space 

available. The FAA will arrange 

teleconference service for individuals 

wishing to join in by teleconference if 

we receive notice by June 22. 

Arrangements to participate by 

teleconference can be made by 

contacting the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Callers outside the Washington 

metropolitan area are responsible for 

paying long-distance charges. 

The public must arrange by June 22 to 

present oral statements at the meeting. 

The public may present written 

statements to the executive committee 

by providing 25 copies to the Executive 

Director, or by bringing the copies to the 

meeting. 

If you are in need of assistance or 

require a reasonable accommodation for 

this meeting, please contact the person 

listed under the heading FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 31, 

2011. 

Dennis Pratte, 

Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2011–13826 Filed 6–2–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. FD 35518] 

Maine Northern Railway Company— 

Trackage Rights Exemption—Montreal, 

Maine & Atlantic Railway, Ltd. 

Pursuant to a written trackage rights 

agreement, Montreal, Maine & Atlantic 

Railway, Ltd. (MMA) has agreed to grant 

overhead trackage rights to the Maine 

Northern Railway Company (MNRC) 

between Madawaska, Me. (at or about 

milepost 260 on MMA’s Madawaska 

Subdivision) and the connection to the 

Canadian National Railway (CN) in St. 

Leonard, N.B. (at or about milepost 

194.1 on CN’s Nappadoggin 

Subdivision), plus additional trackage 

described more completely in the 

agreement, which MNRC attaches to its 

notice.1 MNRC recognizes that, although 

the trackage rights agreement covers 

some track in Canada, Board 

jurisdiction only extends to the U.S.- 

Canada border at Van Buren, Me. 

This trackage rights transaction stems 

from MMA’s attempt to abandon a 

connecting line in Northern Maine. The 

Board granted an application to 

abandon that line, which is 

approximately 233 miles long, in a 

decision served in December 2010.2 The 

233 miles of line was then acquired by 

the State of Maine, by and through its 

Department of Transportation (State), in 

January 2011. The State has chosen a 

new operator for the 233-mile line, 

MNRC, and, as part of the State’s 

agreement to acquire the line, MMA has 

agreed to grant these trackage rights so 

that MNRC can access directly CN to the 

north once MNRC begins to operate the 

line. MNRC plans to file a modified 

certificate under 49 CFR 1150.22 for 

Board authority to operate the 233-mile 

line.3

The transaction can be consummated 

on or after June 19, 2011 (30 days after 

the exemption was filed), unless 

otherwise ordered by the Board. 

As a condition to this exemption, any 

employees affected by the trackage 

rights will be protected by the 

conditions imposed in Norfolk and 

Western Railway—Trackage Rights— 

Burlington Northern, Inc., 354 I.C.C. 605 

(1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES