[Federal Register: May 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 101)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30009-30014]
[DOCID:fr23my08-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25390; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-224-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposed airworthiness
directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 767 airplanes. The original
NPRM would have required repetitive inspections for cracking of the
wing skin, and related investigative/corrective actions if necessary.
The original NPRM resulted from reports of cracks found in the lower
wing skin originating at the forward tension bolt holes of the aft
pitch load fitting. This action revises the original NPRM by revising
certain compliance times. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to
detect and correct cracking in the lower wing skin for the forward
tension bolt holes at the aft pitch load fitting, which could result in
a fuel leak and reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by June 17,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamara Anderson, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425)
917-6421; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this supplemental NPRM. Send your comments to an
address listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number
``Docket No. FAA-2006-25390; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-224-AD'' at
the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite

comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We will consider all comments
received by the closing date and may amend this supplemental NPRM in
light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD (the ``original NPRM'') for certain Boeing
Model 767 airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on July 19, 2006 (71 FR 40948). The original NPRM proposed to
require repetitive inspections for cracking of the wing skin, and
related investigative/corrective actions if necessary.

Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the original NPRM, Boeing has issued Service
Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007. The
procedures in Revision 1 are essentially the same as those in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, dated September 29, 2005, which we
referred to as the appropriate source of service information for
accomplishing the actions proposed in the original NPRM. However,
Revision 1 clarifies the compliance times to add a flight-hour
component. The flight-hour times were inadvertently omitted from the
original release of the service bulletin. Flight-hour compliance times
take into account those airplanes that have long flights. We have
revised this supplemental NPRM to include the clarified compliance
times.
    We have also added paragraph (n) to the supplemental NPRM to give
credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, dated
September 29, 2005.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in the
development of this AD. We have considered the comments received.

Requests To Clarify Thresholds for Internal Inspections of the Wing
Skin in Paragraph (g) of the Original NPRM

    UPS and Japan Airlines (JAL) request that we clarify the thresholds
for the internal inspections of the wing skin in paragraph (g) of the
original NPRM. UPS asks that the statement ``prior to [as of] the
effective date of this AD'' be removed from paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of the original NPRM. UPS states that the current phrases,
``prior to the effective date of this AD,'' and ``as of the effective
date of this AD'' would require operators of airplanes on which one of
the strut improvement program (SIP) service bulletins (Boeing Service
Bulletins 767-54-0080, Revision 1, dated May 9, 2002; 767-54-0081,
dated July 29, 1999, Revision 1, dated February 7, 2002; and 767-54-
0082, dated October 28, 1999, Revision 1, dated November 4, 2004, or
Revision 3, dated September 20, 2007) is accomplished after the
effective date of the proposed AD to be inspected at 20,000 total
aircraft cycles rather than 16,500 cycles from the accomplishment of
the SIP service bulletin. UPS concludes that this is not the intent of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0097. Furthermore, UPS does not
see any relevant reason for use of this statement in paragraph (g)(1)
or (g)(2) of the original NPRM. JAL states that doing the SIP service
bulletins is equivalent to performing the bolt open hole inspection in
Part 2 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0097.
    We agree with the commenters that the wording in the original NPRM
does not give credit for work done in accordance with the SIP service
bulletins after the effective date of the proposed AD. We have revised
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this supplemental NPRM to clarify this
point.

Request To Change Inspection Threshold in Paragraph (h) of the Original
NPRM

    UPS requests that we change the inspection threshold in paragraph
(h) of the original NPRM so that it is based on the preceding open-hole
high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection method used. In that
case, the threshold for the paragraph (h) inspections would be 16,500
flight cycles, rather than 3,000 flight cycles, from the last
accomplishment of paragraph (g) of the NPRM. UPS agrees with the
repetitive interval of 3,000 flight cycles as currently stated in
paragraph (h) of the original NPRM.
    We do not agree with the commenter that the threshold should be
based on the preceding open-hole HFEC inspection method. The external
inspection specified in Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2007, will miss cracks that are hidden by the fitting until the crack
grows beyond the fitting. In particular, the Part 1 inspection will not
detect large cracks growing aft that are hidden by the fitting. Also,
there is a preload in the skin due to ``clamp-up stress'' from the
bolts. These clamp-up stresses add to uncertainty in the analysis. The
3,000-flight-cycle threshold will allow for additional opportunities to
detect possible cracks once they grow beyond the fitting. In addition,
this rationale is the intent of the manufacturer, and this intent has
been clarified in Revision 1 of the service bulletin. We have not
changed this supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Clarify the Airplane Effectivity in Paragraph (h) of the
Original NPRM

    UPS requests that we revise the following statement from paragraph
(h) of the original NPRM: ``For all airplanes, regardless of whether
Boeing Service Bulletins 767-54-0080, Revision 1, dated May 9, 2002;
767-54-0081, dated July 29, 1999; or 767-54-0082, dated October 28,
1999, have been accomplished * * *''. UPS says that this statement is
both confusing and unnecessary and recommends that we introduce the
paragraph by simply saying, ``For all airplanes: * * *''.
    We agree that the cited text, beginning with the word
``regardless,'' is unnecessary, and that revising the paragraph
effectivity to state, ``For all airplanes: * * *'' is more clear. We
have revised paragraph (h) of this supplemental NPRM accordingly.

Requests To Clarify Intent of Repair Specified in Paragraph (i) of the
Original NPRM

    Boeing and JAL request that we change paragraph (i) of the original
NPRM to make it more clear that:
     A freeze plug repair is not feasible to meet the
requirements of paragraph (i) of the original NPRM. Boeing explains
that although cracks found during the inspections required by paragraph
(g) of the original NPRM can be repaired using a freeze plug as
specified in paragraph (i) of the original NPRM, cracks found during
the inspections required by paragraphs (f) and (h) of the original NPRM
are too large to be repaired using freeze plugs.
     A freeze plug is not eventually required. Boeing explains,
however, that the wording in paragraph (i) of the original NPRM implies
it in the phrase, ``* * * until the freeze plug repair specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD has been accomplished on both wings.''
     Only cracking that cannot be repaired by over-sizing the
fastener hole to the limit provided in the service

bulletin must be repaired using the freeze plug method. JAL requests
that we add specific wording to paragraph (i) of the original NPRM to
make this clear.
    We agree with the commenters' requests. Freeze plug repairs might
not be necessary on both wings. It might be possible to remove small
crack indications in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated
October 18, 2007. We have revised paragraph (i) of this supplemental
NPRM and added a new paragraph (j) to this supplemental NPRM to clarify
the specified points, and we have re-identified the subsequent
paragraphs.

Request to Revise ``Differences * * *'' Section

    Boeing requests that we revise the fourth paragraph of the
``Differences between the Proposed AD and the ASB'' (alert service
bulletin) section. Boeing specifically requests that we revise the
sentence ``This proposed AD would require that any cracking found
outside the limits of Part 1 of the ASB'' to instead refer to cracking
outside the limits of Part 2 of the ASB. Boeing states that the NPRM
incorrectly refers to Part 1.
    We agree with Boeing that the reference is incorrect. However
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2007, clarifies the repair actions that should be taken. In addition,
we have not retained in the supplemental NPRM the fourth paragraph in
the section titled ``Differences between the Proposed AD and the ASB''
from the original NPRM, and therefore, we have not revised this
supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Requests Regarding Service Information

    The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) requests
that the service documents deemed essential to accomplishing the
proposed action be: (1) Incorporated by reference into the regulatory
instrument (the Federal Register), and (2) published in the docket
management system (DMS). MARPA justifies the first request by stating
that it is concerned that failure to incorporate essential service
information could result in a court decision invalidating the AD. MARPA
justifies the second request by stating that publishing the service
information in the DMS would make those documents available to a new
class of individuals that has emerged since the majority of aircraft
maintenance is now performed by specialty shops instead of aircraft
owners and operators. Owners and operators are provided with service
information by the manufacturer, but specialty shops are not. MARPA
adds that publishing electronically makes archaic the reason for
incorporating by reference--to keep from expanding the Federal Register
needlessly by publishing documents already in the hands of the affected
individuals.
    In regard to the commenter's request that service documents be made
available to the public by publication in the Federal Register, we
agree that incorporation by reference was authorized to reduce the
volume of material published in the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations. However, as specified in the Federal Register
Document Drafting Handbook, the Director of the Office of the Federal
Register (OFR) decides when an agency may incorporate material by
reference. As the commenter is aware, the OFR files documents for
public inspection on the workday before the date of publication of the
rule at its office in Washington, D.C. As stated in the Federal
Register Document Drafting Handbook, when documents are filed for
public inspection, anyone may inspect filed documents during the OFR's
hours of business. Further questions regarding publication of documents
in the Federal Register or incorporation by reference should be
directed to the OFR.
    In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on
the Department of Transportation's (DOT's) DMS, effective September 30,
2007, DOT's DMS was replaced by the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS). We are currently in the process of reviewing issues surrounding
the posting of service bulletins on the FDMS as part of an AD docket.
Once we have thoroughly examined all aspects of this issue and have
made a final determination, we will consider whether our current
practice needs to be revised.
    No change to this supplemental NPRM is necessary in response to
this comment.

Explanation of Change to Paragraph (h) of the Original NPRM

    Paragraph (h) of the original NPRM was one sentence. We have
retained the same information, but divided it into paragraph (h),
paragraph (h)(1), and paragraph (h)(2) to make the information more
clear.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    The change discussed above, in the section titled ``Actions Since
Original NPRM was Issued,'' expands the scope of the original NPRM;
therefore, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to provide additional opportunity for public comment on
this supplemental NPRM.

Differences Between This Supplemental NPRM and Boeing Service Bulletin
767-57A0097, Revision 1

    The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     Using a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative
for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization
Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.
    Operators should also note that, although the Accomplishment
Instructions of the service bulletin describe procedures for submitting
a report of damage found, this proposed AD would not require that
action.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 918 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet, and about 387 airplanes on the U.S. Registry. The
following table provides the estimated costs, at an average labor rate
of $80 per hour, for U.S. operators to comply with this supplemental
NPRM.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Work
              Action                 hours           Parts            Cost per airplane          Fleet cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive inspections, per               8  None.................  $640, per inspection   $247,680.
 inspection cycle (Part 1).                                          cycle.
Inspection, rework, and bolt              8  Between $303 and       Between $943 and       Between $364,941, and
 installation (Part 2).                       $12,716.               $13,356.               $5,168,772.
Repetitive inspections for certain        4  None.................  $320, per inspection   $123,840, per
 airplanes (Part 4).                                                 cycle.                 inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See
the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory
evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2006-25390; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-
224-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 17,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 767-200, -300, -300F, and -
400ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; as identified
in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October
18, 2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of cracks found in the lower
wing skin originating at the forward tension bolt holes of the aft
pitch load fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
cracking in the lower wing skin for the forward tension bolt holes
at the aft pitch load fitting, which could result in a fuel leak and
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

External Inspections of the Wing Skin

    (f) For airplanes specified as Group 1, Configuration 1, 2, 3,
or 6; Group 2, Configuration 1, 2, 3, or 6; and Group 3,
Configuration 1 or 3, as specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007: At the later of the
times specified in paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, perform
the detailed inspection and the external high frequency eddy current
(HFEC) or dye penetrant inspections for cracking as specified in
Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin
767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007. Repeat at intervals
not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles or 12,000 flight hours, whichever
occurs first, until the actions required by paragraph (g) or (j) of
this AD are accomplished.
    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 10,000 total flight cycles or
30,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (2) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 12,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

Internal Inspections of the Wing Skin

    (g) For airplanes specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of
this AD: Perform the bolt open-hole inspections for cracking in
accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007, at
the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as
applicable, until the requirement of paragraphs (h) or (j)(1) of
this AD are accomplished. Doing the actions in this paragraph
terminates the requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.
    (1) For airplanes on which the modifications of the nacelle
strut and wing structure specified in any service bulletin listed in
Table 1 of this AD have been done: Do the inspection at the later
time specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) and (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
Repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 16,500 flight
cycles or 65,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (i) Within 16,500 flight cycles or 65,000 flight hours,
whichever occurs earlier, after accomplishment of a service bulletin
identified in Table 1 of this AD.
    (ii) Within 3,000 flight cycles or 12,000 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

                                      Table 1.--Threshold Service Bulletins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Boeing Service Bulletin                     Revision                             Dated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
767-54-0080..............................  Original....................  October 7, 1999.
767-54-0080..............................  1...........................  May 9, 2002.
767-54-0081..............................  Original....................  July 29, 1999.
767-54-0081..............................  1...........................  February 7, 2002.
767-54-0082..............................  Original....................  October 28, 1999.
767-54-0082..............................  1...........................  November 4, 2004.
767-54-0082..............................  3...........................  September 20, 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) For airplanes on which the modifications of the nacelle
strut and wing structure specified in any service bulletin listed in
Table 1 of this AD have not been done: Do the inspection at the
later of the times specified in paragraph (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii)
of this AD. Repeat the inspections at intervals not to exceed 16,500
flight cycles or 65,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.
    (i) Before the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles or
60,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs earlier.
    (ii) Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD.

Acceptable Method of Compliance With Paragraph (g) of this AD

    (h) For all airplanes: Doing the actions in both paragraphs
(h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD is an acceptable method of compliance
for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (g) of this
AD after the initial paragraph (g) inspection is accomplished.
    (1) Accomplishing the inspections specified in Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097,
Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007, within 3,000 flight cycles or
12,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the
accomplishment of the most recent inspection done in accordance with
paragraph (g) of this AD (Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions
of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October
18, 2007).
    (2) Repeating the inspections specified in Part 1 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097,
Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007, at intervals not to exceed 3,000
flight cycles or 12,000 flight hours, whichever occurs first.

Repair of Cracking

    (i) If cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (f) or (h) of this AD: Before further flight, repair in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this
AD.
    (j) If cracking is found during any inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Before further flight, oversize the
fastener hole in accordance with Part 2, of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2007, except as provided by paragraphs (j)(1) and
(j)(2) of this AD.
    (1) If any cracking cannot be removed by oversizing the fastener
hole in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2007, before further flight, accomplish the freeze plug repair in
accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007,
except as provided by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Accomplishing the
freeze plug repair ends the repetitive inspections required by
paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD for the repaired wing only.
    (2) If any cracking is outside the limits specified for the
freeze plug repair in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2007, before further flight, repair in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD.

Repetitive Inspections Required After Freeze Plug Repair

    (k) For airplanes on which of the requirements of paragraph
(j)(1) of this AD have been accomplished, perform the repetitive
inspections specified in paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2) of this AD at
the times specified.
    (1) At the later time in paragraph (k)(1)(i) or (k)(1)(ii) of
this AD: Accomplish the external inspections specified in Part 1 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 767-
57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007. If any cracking is
found during any inspection required by this paragraph, before
further flight, repair in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (o) of this AD. Repeat the external inspections at
intervals not to exceed 3,000 flight cycles or 12,000 flight hours,
whichever occurs earlier.
    (i) Prior to the accumulation of 37,500 total flight cycles or
90,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs earlier.
    (ii) Within 18 months after accomplishment of the freeze plug
repair specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2007.
    (2) At the later of the times specified in paragraph (k)(2)(i)
or (k)(2)(ii) of this AD: Perform an internal HFEC for cracking, in
accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18, 2007. If
any cracking is found during any inspection required by this
paragraph, before further flight, repair in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (o) of this AD. Repeat the
inspections at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight cycles or
48,000 flight hours, whichever occurs earlier.
    (i) Prior to the accumulation of 37,500 total flight cycles or
90,000 total flight hours, whichever occurs earlier.
    (ii) Within 72 months after accomplishment of the freeze plug
repair specified in Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated October 18,
2007.

Repair of Certain Cracking

    (l) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD, and Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1, dated
October 18, 2007, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate
action: Before further flight, repair the cracking using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(o) of this AD.

No Reporting Requirement

    (m) Although Boeing Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, Revision 1,
dated October 18, 2007, specifies to submit certain information to
the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

Credit for Actions Accomplished Previously

    (n) Actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-57A0097, dated
September 29, 2005, are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding requirements of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (o)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 16, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-11591 Filed 5-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 90)]
[Notices]
[Page 26177-26179]
[DOCID:fr08my08-138]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57753; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-036]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Fees for Members Using the Nasdaq Market Center

 May 1, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 24, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')

the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below,
which Items have been prepared substantially by Nasdaq. Pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \4\
thereunder, Nasdaq has designated this proposal as establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge, which renders the proposed
rule change effective immediately upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.

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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify pricing for Nasdaq members using the
Nasdaq Market Center. Nasdaq will implement this proposed rule change
on May 1, 2008. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
http://nasdaq.complinet.com, Nasdaq, and the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq is adopting a more unified pricing schedule for fees charged
for order execution and routing of orders that check the Nasdaq Market
Center book prior to routing.\5\ The new fees apply to (i) Execution
and routing of orders for securities listed on Nasdaq (``Nasdaq
Trades''); (ii) execution of securities listed on the New York Stock
Exchange (``NYSE''), routing of NYSE-listed securities to venues other
than the NYSE, and routing of NYSE-listed exchange-traded funds to the
NYSE (collectively, ``Covered NYSE Trades''); and (iii) execution and
routing of orders for securities listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq
and NYSE (``Regional Trades''). The changes are designed to promote
Nasdaq as a liquid and transparent venue for executing all exchange-
listed securities by, in general, increasing the credit provided to
members providing displayed liquidity through Nasdaq and decreasing the
credit provided to members providing non-displayed liquidity. Nasdaq is
also increasing the fees to access and/or route liquidity using orders
that check the Nasdaq book prior to routing. Fees for routing orders
that do not check the Nasdaq book prior to routing will remain
unchanged, as will the fees for routing orders other than exchange-
traded funds to the NYSE. Similarly, fees for securities priced at less
than $1, fees for routing odd-lots, and fees for routing orders that
are charged a fee by exchange specialists are not changing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposed rule change also corrects typographical errors
in Rule 7018(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the revised pricing schedule, a member with an average daily
volume through the Nasdaq Market Center in all securities during the
month of (i) more than 35 million shares of liquidity provided, and
(ii) more than 55 million shares of liquidity accessed and/or routed
will pay $0.0029 per share executed,\6\ and other members will pay
$0.003. However, a member that would otherwise pay $0.003 to execute
trades in the Nasdaq Market Center will instead pay $0.00295 if it
accesses a daily average of more than 55 million shares of liquidity
through the Nasdaq Market Center in the month.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Currently, members with an average daily volume of (i) more
than 20 million shares of liquidity provided and (ii) more than 35
million shares of liquidity accessed and/or routed, pay $0.0028 per
share executed for Nasdaq Trades, $0.0029 per share executed for
Covered NYSE Trades, $0.0028 per share executed for Regional Trades
executed at Nasdaq, and $0.0029 for routing Regional Trades. Members
with an average daily volume of more than 35 million shares of
liquidity provided and (ii) more than 55 million shares of liquidity
accessed and/or routed; or with an average daily volume of (i) more
than 25 million shares of liquidity provided, and (ii) more than 65
million shares of liquidity accessed and/or routed currently pay
$0.0026 per share executed for Nasdaq Trades, $0.0028 per share
executed for Covered NYSE Trades, $0.0026 for Regional Trades
executed at Nasdaq, and $0.0028 per share executed for routing
Regional Trades. Other members currently pay $0.003 per share
executed.
    \7\ Currently, a member that accesses an average of 55 million
shares of liquidity or more through the Nasdaq Market Center in a
month pays $0.00265 for Nasdaq Trades and Regional Trades executed
in the Nasdaq Market Center and $0.00285 for NYSE Covered Trades
executed in the Nasdaq Market Center unless the member qualifies for
a better rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Members that provide an average daily volume through the Nasdaq
Market Center in all securities during the month of more than 35
million shares of liquidity provided will receive a credit of $0.0028
per share for executions against displayed liquidity and $0.0015 per
share for executions against non-displayed liquidity.\8\ Members with
an average daily volume through the Nasdaq Market Center in all
securities during the month of more than 20 million shares of liquidity
provided (but that do not qualify for the higher credit described in
the preceding sentence) will receive a credit of $0.0025 per share for
executions against displayed liquidity and $0.001 per share for
executions against non-displayed liquidity.\9\ Other members will
receive a credit of $0.002 per share for executions against displayed
liquidity and $0.001 per share for executions against non-displayed
liquidity.\10\ Nasdaq is also eliminating a program under which certain
``low-volume securities'' listed on exchanges other than Nasdaq or NYSE
qualified for an enhanced liquidity provider credit of $0.004 for
displayed liquidity and $0.0039 for non-displayed liquidity. When
Nasdaq introduced this program, it also amended Rule 7013 to eliminate
market data revenue sharing for these low-volume securities.
Accordingly, Nasdaq is against amending this rule to reinstate revenue
sharing for transactions in these securities executed through the
Nasdaq Market Center, at the same 50% level previously in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Currently, members at these volume levels receive $0.0025
for displayed Nasdaq Trades and Regional Trades, $0.024 for non-
displayed Nasdaq Trades and Regional Trades, $0.0027 for displayed
Covered NYSE Trades, and $0.0026 for non-displayed Covered NYSE
Trades.
    \9\ Currently, members at these volume levels receive $0.0023
for displayed Covered NYSE Trades, $0.0022 for non-displayed Covered
NYSE Trades, $0.0022 for displayed Nasdaq Trades and Regional
Trades, and $0.0021 for non-displayed Nasdaq Trades and Regional
Trades.
    \10\ Currently, members at these volume levels receive $0.002
for displayed trades in all securities and $0.0019 for non-displayed
trades in all securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which Nasdaq operates or controls. The impact of the changes
upon the net fees paid by a particular market participant will depend
upon a number of variables, including its monthly volume, the order
types it uses, and the prices of its quotes and orders (i.e., its
propensity to add or remove liquidity). Nasdaq notes that it

operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee
levels at a particular venue to be excessive. Although the proposed
rule change increases order execution and routing fees and decreases
liquidity provider credits for non-displayed liquidity, it also
increases credits for displayed liquidity. Nasdaq believes that its
fees remain competitive with those charged by other venues and
therefore continue to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those
members that opt to direct orders to Nasdaq rather than competing
venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon filing
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \13\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\14\ in that the proposed rule change
establishes or changes a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by
the self-regulatory organization. At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-036 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-036. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Nasdaq. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-036 and should be submitted on or before May
29, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-10211 Filed 5-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66352-66353]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26460]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-2350-000]

RS Colgen, LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of RS Colgen, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is November 18, 2013.

    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
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 28, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-26460 Filed 11-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 80 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19367-19368]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08475]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2323-216]

TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Request to Amend License Articles 401, 402,
403 and 406 to lower Somerset Reservoir elevation target for loon
nesting.
    b. Project No: P-2323-216.
    c. Date Filed: April 10, 2017.
    d. Applicant: TransCanada Hydro Northeast Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Deerfield River Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Deerfield River, in
Windham and

Bennington counties, Vermont, and Franklin and Berkshire counties,
Massachusetts.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: John Ragonese, TransCanada Hydro Northeast
Inc., 4 Park Street, Suite 402, Concord, NH 03301-6373,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Zeena Aljibury,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: May 5, 2017.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the
Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-2323-216.
    k. Description of Request: TransCanada Hydro Northeast, Inc.
requests approval to amend license Articles 401, 402, 403, and 406 as
well as the approved Vermont Flow Monitoring and Reservoir Operations
Plan to adjust the target elevation of Somerset Reservoir during the
common loon nesting period from 2,128.58 feet mean sea level (msl) to
2,128.23 feet msl, as requested by the Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources and the Vermont Division of Fish and Wildlife to protect
observed loon nests. The licensee also requests, with agency support,
to change the target elevation period from May 1 to May 15 to align
with the end of the minimum flow constraint at the Searsburg
development and avoid conflicting resource requirements. Finally, the
licensee proposes, with agency support, to adjust the start of
operations data collection for reporting to the resources agencies from
April 1 to April 15.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits (P-2323) in the docket number field to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-
208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call (202) 502-
8659. A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the
address in item (h) above. Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works that are the subject of the license amendment.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: April 20, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08475 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19690-19692]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07570]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petitions for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

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

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc.'s (Volkswagen) petition for exemption from the Federal Motor
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (theft prevention standard) for its
Taos vehicle line beginning in model year (MY) 2022.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2022 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, NRM-310, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is
(202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331, the Secretary
of Transportation (and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) by delegation) is required to promulgate a theft
prevention standard to provide for the identification of certain motor
vehicles and their major replacement parts to impede motor vehicle
theft. NHTSA promulgated regulations at part 541 (theft prevention
standard) to require parts-marking for specified passenger motor
vehicles and light trucks. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106, manufacturers
that are subject to the parts-marking requirements may petition the
Secretary of Transportation for an exemption for a line of passenger
motor vehicles equipped as standard equipment with an antitheft device
that the Secretary decides is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements. In accordance with this statute, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR
part 543, which establishes the process through which manufacturers may
seek an exemption from the theft prevention standard.
    49 CFR 543.5 provides general submission requirements for petitions
and states that each manufacturer may petition NHTSA for an exemption
of one vehicle line per model year. Among other requirements,
manufacturers must identify whether the exemption is sought under
section 543.6 or section 543.7. Under section 543.6, a manufacturer may
request an exemption by providing specific information about the
antitheft device, its capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner
believes the device to be as effective at reducing and deterring theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements. Section 543.7
permits a manufacturer to request an exemption under a more streamlined
process if the vehicle line is equipped with an antitheft device (an
``immobilizer'') as standard equipment that complies with one of the
standards specified in that section.
    Section 543.8 establishes requirements for processing petitions for
exemption from the theft prevention standard. As stated in section
543.8(a), NHTSA processes any complete exemption petition. If NHTSA
receives an incomplete petition, NHTSA will notify the petitioner of
the deficiencies. Once NHTSA receives a complete petition it will
process it and, in accordance with section 543.8(b), will grant the
petition if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence, the
standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of part 541.
    Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to issue its decision either to
grant or to deny an exemption petition not later than 120 days after
the date on which a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA does not make
a decision within the 120-day period, the petition shall be deemed to
be approved and the manufacturer shall be exempt from the standard for
the line covered by the petition for the subsequent model year.\1\
Exemptions granted under part 543 apply only to the vehicle line or
lines that are subject to the grant and that are equipped with the
antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based, and are
effective for the model year beginning after the model year in which
NHTSA issues the notice of exemption, unless the notice of exemption
specifies a later year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 543.8(f) and (g) apply to the manner in which NHTSA's
decisions on petitions are to be made known. Under section 543.8(f), if
the petition is sought under section 543.6, NHTSA publishes a notice of
its decision to grant or deny the exemption petition in the Federal
Register and notifies the petitioner in writing. Under section
543.8(g), if the petition is sought under section 543.7, NHTSA notifies
the petitioner in writing

of the agency's decision to grant or deny the exemption petition.
    This grant of petition for exemption considers Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc.'s (Volkswagen) petition for its Taos vehicle line
beginning in MY 2022. Volkswagen's petition is granted under 49 U.S.C.
33106 and 49 CFR 543.8(c), which state that if the Secretary of
Transportation (NHTSA, by delegation) does not make a decision about a
petition within 120 days of the petition submission, the petition shall
be deemed to be approved and the manufacturer shall be exempt from the
standard for the line covered by the petition for the subsequent model
year. Separately, based on the information provided in Volkswagen's
petition, NHTSA has determined that the antitheft device to be placed
on its vehicle line as standard equipment is likely to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard.

I. Specific Petition Content Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6

    Pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention, Volkswagen petitioned for an exemption for its specified
vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard, beginning in MY 2022. Volkswagen petitioned under
49 CFR 543.6, Petition: Specific content requirements, which, as
described above, requires manufacturers to provide specific information
about the antitheft device installed as standard equipment on all
vehicles in the line for which an exemption is sought, the antitheft
device's capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner believes the
device to be as effective at reducing and deterring theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements.
    More specifically, section 543.6(a)(1) requires petitions to
include a statement that an antitheft device will be installed as
standard equipment on all vehicles in the line for which the exemption
is sought. Under section 543.6(a)(2), each petition must list each
component in the antitheft system, and a diagram showing the location
of each of those components within the vehicle. As required by section
543.6(a)(3), each petition must include an explanation of the means and
process by which the device is activated and functions, including any
aspect of the device designed to: (1) Facilitate or encourage its
activation by motorists; (2) attract attention to the efforts of an
unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means other than a
key; (3) prevent defeating or circumventing the device by an
unauthorized person attempting to enter a vehicle by means other than a
key; (4) prevent the operation of a vehicle which an unauthorized
person has entered using means other than a key; and (5) ensure the
reliability and durability of the device.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to providing information about the antitheft device and
its functionality, petitioners must also submit the reasons for the
petitioner's belief that the antitheft device will be effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft, including any theft data
and other data that are available to the petitioner and form a basis
for that belief,\3\ and the reasons for the petitioner's belief that
the agency should determine that the antitheft device is likely to be
as effective as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part
541 in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft, including any
statistical data that are available to the petitioner and form the
basis for the petitioner's belief that a line of passenger motor
vehicles equipped with the antitheft device is likely to have a theft
rate equal to or less than that of passenger motor vehicles of the
same, or a similar, line which have parts marked in compliance with
part 541.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4).
    \4\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sections describe Volkswagen's petition information
provided pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention. To the extent that specific information in Volkswagen's
petition is subject to a properly filed confidentiality request, that
information was not disclosed as part of this notice. See 49 CFR
512.20(a).
    In a petition dated May 29, 2020, Volkswagen requested an exemption
from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard
for its Taos vehicle line beginning with MY 2022. Pursuant to section
543.6(a)(1), Volkswagen stated that the antitheft device described in
its petition will be installed as standard equipment its Taos vehicles
starting with MY 2022.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Volkswagen also stated that it will offer an audible and
visible alarm as optional equipment on its Taos vehicle line. Per 49
U.S.C. 33106 (b), manufacturers may petition NHTSA for an exemption
``for a line of passenger motor vehicles equipped as standard
equipment with an antitheft device that [NHTSA] decides is likely to
be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with'' the theft prevention standard (emphasis added).
Per 49 U.S.C. 33106(a)(2), ``standard equipment'' means equipment
already installed in a motor vehicle when it is delivered from the
manufacturer and not an accessory or other item that the first
purchaser customarily has the option to have installed. Therefore,
for purposes of Volkswagen's petition, NHTSA is only considering the
device equipped on the vehicle as standard equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 543.6(a)(2), Volkswagen provided a
detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location
of the components of the antitheft device for its Taos vehicle line.
Volkswagen stated that its fifth generation transponder-based
electronic engine immobilizer antitheft device will be installed as
standard equipment on the entire MY 2022 Taos vehicle line. Key
components of the antitheft device will include an adapted ignition key
(ID-transmitter or ``key fob''), instrument cluster, gateway (cluster
to CAN bus, only routing function) and an engine control unit.
    Volkswagen provided information on the reliability and durability
of its proposed device as required by section 543.6(a)(3)(v). To ensure
reliability and durability of the device, Volkswagen stated that the
antitheft device has been tested for compliance with its corporate
requirements, including those for electrical and electronic assemblies
in motor vehicles related to performance requirements including
electrical system temperature stability, mechanical integrity,
electrical performance, electromagnetic compatibility (EMC),
environmental compatibility and service life.
    Volkswagen stated that its immobilizer device actively incorporates
the power control unit into the evaluation and monitoring process.
Volkswagen also stated that activation of its immobilizer device occurs
automatically after the engine is switched off. Deactivation of the
immobilizer device occurs when the ignition is turned on or the key fob
is recognized by the immobilizer control unit. Specifically, when
turning on the ignition on/off switch, the key transponder sends a
fixed code to the immobilizer control unit. If this is identified as
the correct code, a variable code is generated in the immobilizer
control unit and sent to the transponder. Volkswagen stated that a
secret arithmetic process is then started according to a set of
specific equations and that a new variable code is generated every time
the immobilizer goes through the secret computing process. The results
of the computing process are evaluated in the control unit and if
verified, the vehicle key is acknowledged as correct. The engine
control unit then sends a variable code to the immobilizer control unit
for

mutual identification. If all the data matches, the vehicle can be
started.
    In support of its belief that its antitheft device will be as
effective as or more effective than the parts-marking requirement in
reducing and deterring vehicle theft, and in accordance with 49 CFR
543.6(a)(5), Volkswagen provided data on the theft rate of similarly-
sized vehicle lines that had been granted an exemption from the parts-
marking requirement. Volkswagen also referenced the effectiveness of
immobilizer devices installed on other vehicles for which NHTSA has
granted exemptions. Specifically, Volkswagen referenced information
from the Highway Loss Data Institute which showed that BMW vehicles
experienced theft loss reductions resulting in a 73% decrease in
relative claim frequency and a 78% lower average loss payment per claim
for vehicles equipped with an immobilizer. Volkswagen also stated that
the National Crime Information Center's (NCIC) theft data showed that
there was a 70% reduction in theft experienced when comparing the MY
1987 Ford Mustang vehicle thefts (with immobilizers) to MY 1995 Ford
Mustang vehicle thefts (without immobilizers).

III. Decision To Grant the Petition

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.8(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. As
discussed above, in this case, Volkswagen's petition is granted under
49 U.S.C. 33106(d). Separately, NHTSA finds that Volkswagen has
provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for
its vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements
of the theft prevention standard. This conclusion is based on the
information the Volkswagen provided about its antitheft device. NHTSA
believes, based on the supporting evidence submitted by Volkswagen,
that the antitheft device described for its vehicle line is likely to
be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention
standard.
    The agency concludes that Volkswagen's antitheft device will
provide the five types of performance features listed in section
543.6(a)(3): promoting activation; attracting attention to the efforts
of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other
than a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by
unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of
the device.
    The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies
those lines that are exempted from the theft prevention standard for a
given model year. 49 CFR 543.8(f) contains publication requirements
incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced
listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the
beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general
description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law
enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-
marking requirements of the theft prevention standard.
    If Volkswagen decides not to use the exemption for its requested
vehicle line, the manufacturer must formally notify the agency. If such
a decision is made, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR
541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement
parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Volkswagen wishes in the future to modify the
device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.8(d) states that a part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, section 543.10(c)(2) provides for
the submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use
of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified
in the exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that
section 543.10(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and
itself. The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if
Volkswagen contemplates making any changes, the effects of which might
be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before
preparing and submitting a petition to modify.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Volkswagen's petition for exemption for the Taos vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with its MY
2022 vehicles.
    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2021-07570 Filed 4-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P