[Federal Register: August 5, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 45516-45519]
[DOCID:fr05au08-108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of denials.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its denial of 381 applications from
individuals who requested exemptions from the Federal vision standard
applicable to interstate truck and bus drivers and the reasons for the
denials. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the
vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise
safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions does
not provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater
than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER>, U.S. Department of Transportation, FMCSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal vision standard for a renewable two-year period if it
finds ``such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that
is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
absent such an exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption
are set out in 49 CFR part 381.
    Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated these 381 individual exemption
requests on their merits and made the determinations that these
applicants do not satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms
and conditions of the Federal exemption program. Each applicant has,
prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition on his/her
exemption

request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial
and constitute final Agency action. The list published today summarizes
the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by
periodically publishing names and reasons for denials.
    The following 55 applicants lacked sufficient driving experience
during the three-year period prior to the date of their application:

Balsman, Stanley W.
Barr, Michael J.
Berheimer, Mark S.
Biddison, Jr., William G.
Bishop, Jr., Raymond E.
Brown, Dean N.
Burgess, James W.
Burns, Jerry A.
Campos, Basiliom
Cox, Michael L.
Crosby, Blake L.
Dunn, Darby K.
Dykes, Robert L.
Dykman, David L.
Eaton, Matthew C.
Edenfield, Christopher S.
Ellis, Jeffery K.
Freeman, Jr., George
Furcht, Thomas C.
Gaither, Larry N.
Gary, Dean A.
Goodapple, Jeanette
Hand, Terry O.
Hankins, Gerald W.
Harper, Larry
Hickman, James W.
Higgins, David N.
Ingram, George M.
Lair, Christopher
Lanuez, Richard A.
Mans, David R.
Martinez, Michael M.
McKinley, Haley E.
Morris, Richan A.
Ottens, John P.
Penner, Stuart
Phillips, Leonoth J.
Prill, Robert J.
Prouty, Norman L.
Ramirez, Blas
Rhodes, Jerry W.
Rodriguez, Juan
Ruzicka, Kent W.
Sarphie, Jeffrey E.
Schmidt, Jr., Herbert J.
Screws, John
Sharp, Richard
Shultz, Rodney A.
Sida, Jose M.
Smallman, David S.
Swann, III, George S.
Ward, Lawrence R.
Watts, Gary L.
Williamson, Jeremy D.
Zehner, Jon T.

    The following 49 applicants did not have any experience operating a
CMV.

Alvarado, Roberto
Ashford, Michael
Batteiger, Alan S.
Bodie, Jay M.
Broyles, Carl D.
Buck, Donald H.
Butry, William N.
Carter, Richard L.
Cozart, Ste'phon J.
Dempsey, John D.
DeSmith, Robert D.
Dixon, Daryl D.
Doman, Gary
Easton, James A.
Frandin, Kelvin
Hansell, Brad
Hartzell, Sean M.
Haymon, Roland L.
Hudgins, James M.
Hurst, Bryan E.
Ivery, Mathias
Jensen, John
Jones, Anleka E.
Jones, Dale A.
Kadlec, Mark J.
Knapp, Gerald W.
Lacosse, Chad
Langford, Harry D.
Main, Stacy A.
McIntosh, Thomas P.
McWilliams, Joseph B.
Moore, Arthur L.
Moreno, Salvador P.
Moultrie, Jr., Moses
Nesto, Gina M.
Paynter, Paul S.
Ratcliff, Jr., Robert
Rexhaj, Avni
Rhoads, Matthew S.
Rogers, Adam E.
Scanlon, David
Shuff, William H.
Silva, Hector
Steemblock, Pam J.
Thomas, James
Townsend, Dewayne K.
Ugarte, Salvador
Veloz, Richard S.
Weems, Timothy M.

    The following 82 applicants did not have 3 years of experience
driving a CMV on public highways with the vision deficiency.

Alford, David
Anderson, Victor A.
Arendt, Dennis
Bard, James B.
Batton, Ralph S.
Bejarano, Luis A.
Bellon, Steven W.
Bohle, Ernest E.
Borkholder, Vernon
Braswell, Jimmie E.
Brenaman, Bradley A.
Burnam, Jonathan C.
Burns, John
Carrington, Randal
Carswell, Tracy W.
Carter, Ronald
Chauhan, Satwinder S.
Clark III, Curtis
Cleveland, Travis E.
Corrales, Ramon A.
Courville, Kenneth
Dale, Lawerence E.
Davidson, John
Davis, Donald
Dotter, Kurt E.
Edwards, Cleveland
Ellis, Bruce A.
Fierro, Saul
Fleming, William D.
Garvin, Jay M.
Greenfield, Larry L.
Hare, Dwight A.
Hargrove, Raymond C.
Harrison, Timothy E.
Heaps, Isaac P.
Hendren, Dillon L.
Henifin, Mark
Hever, Jr., Frank S.
Holder, Samuel
Honeywell, Verne A.
Johnson, William C.
Jones, Paul D.
Julian, Charles
Lab, Kenneth Wade
Lampus, Jr., Richard D.
Lofthus, Barry G.
Makus, Fred A.
Messier, Charles D.
Miller, Vernie H.
Molenaar, Dale R.
Moore, Richard E.
Nevezi, John
Nickel, Jeffrey D.
Nowviock, Al V.
Parks, Willie L.
Perry, Sr., Christopher B.
Price, Dean L.
Prince, Kenneth W.
Proctor, Gilbert D.
Quarles, Chad M.
Rebhahn, Craig
Reece, Tommy R.
Rhodes, Clifford W.
Rigney, Kevin J.
Roberts, Kyle
Robertson, Billy D.
Shaw, Mark R.
Slayton, Johnny J.
Stanten, Leonard R.
Stanton, Larry E.
Stavedahl, Curtis R.
Strub, Jeremy M.
Survis, Thomas L.
Thomas, George W.
Thompson, Joe L.
Vasquez, Joel
Vickerman, Ronald E.
Von Haden, Norman L.
Warnock, Melvin
White, Jeffrey S.
Williams, Charles
Woosley, Darrell F.

    The following 32 applicants did not have 3 years of recent
experience

driving a CMV with the vision deficiency.

Boersma, Michael L.
Brock, Jim
Dahleen, Larry A.
Foster, Kelly L.
Frank, Bradley D.
Frazier, Jr., Willie
Furgerson, Danny F.
Garza, Jr., Gabino
Gelats, Miguel E.
Gillespie, Larry D.
Gowens, Eddie L.
Hettinger, Edward
Hill, Jr., Albert J.
Jerkovich, Frank
Kennedy, John E.
Leonard, Richard B.
Lococo, Anthony
McDaniel, Bobby G.
McGrew, Charles E.
McLaughlin, James F.
Olson, Harold J.
Pate, Ronald L.
Paulson, Michael A.
Perryman, Duane R.
Rush, Jr., Kenneth L.
Schafer, Justin M.
Seagroves, Larry K.
Serrano, Manuel A.
Smiley, Richard
Smith, Matthew
Steckmyer, Mark A.
Tisdale, Raphis L.

    The following 51 applicants did not have sufficient driving
experience over the past 3 years under normal highway operating
conditions.

Bennett, Stephen T.
Bierschbach, James B.
Brawley, Lawrence
Clem, Michael G.
Cliffe, Terry L.
Conner, Harvey D.
Cumbee, Eddie L.
Dewey, Scott H.
Dixon, David J.
Espinoza, Miguel H.
Fossum, Jr., Kyle K.
Games, George J.
Goetze, Horst W.
Greenwood, James
Greil, Bruce J.
Hammond, Latashia L.
Handy, Kenneth L.
Hartigan, Patrick T.
Hilmer, Steven H.
Isadore, James
Johnson, Charles
Keeling, Alton A.
Kleen, Keith D.
Kniesly, Nickolas L.
Kushak, Joseph K.
Lewis, Christopher W.
Maxwell, Brian A.
McGinley, Patrick M.
Mishler, Manford C.
Mozee, Phillip H.
Nordrum, Joseph H.
Ontiiveros, Joe E.
Pagan, Pedro L.
Parker, Milton
Perry, Suzanne M.
Peterson, David A.
Popp, Francis
Prewett, Paul
Prince, Kenneth N.
Robbins, Thomas G.
Serfass, Eugene A.
Simmons, Rodger S.
Taylor, Wade D.
Terry, Charles A.
Toews, Delton D.
Varga, Paul G.
Walker, Ronald L.
West, Andrew F.
Whitehead, Hilliard
Wilburn, Wesley L.
Yeilding, Robert A.
    One applicant, Larry D. Neely, had more than 2 commercial motor
vehicle violations during a 3-year period and/or application process.
Each applicant is only allowed 2 moving citations.
    One applicant, Sean C. Beland, did not have sufficient peripheral
vision in the better eye to qualify for an exemption.
    One applicant, Donald M. Neil, had other medical conditions making
applicant otherwise unqualified under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. All applicants must meet all other physical qualifications
standards in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1-13).
    One applicant, Danny F. Ahlgren, had more than 2 serious CMV
violations within a three-year period. Each applicant is allowed a
total of 2 moving violations, one of which can be serious.
    The following 11 applicants had commercial driver's licenses
suspensions during the three-year review period in relation to a moving
violation. Applicants do not qualify for an exemption with a suspension
during the three-year period.

Carman, Mitchell L.
Couch, John L.
Day, Richard R.
MacInnis, Robert J.
Pellom, Jr., Evert
Potthast, Michael D.
Skinner, Shane
Turley, Douglas M.
Turner, Emerson J.
Vidal, Moises L.
Witzel, Michaell

    The following 7 applicants did not have verifiable proof of
commercial driving experience over the past 3 years under normal
highway operating conditions that would serve as an adequate predictor
of future safe performance.

Farrow, Harold J.
Harris, Dave N.
Hough, Norman
Ochse, Raymond K.
Raley, Johnnie
Staley, Ronald W.
Wood, Wayne

    The following 11 applicants did not hold a license which allowed
operation of vehicles over 10,000 pounds for all or part of the three-
year period.

Barnes, Matthew D.
Harris, Richard J.
Howell, David
Lins, James P.
Loebrick, Elvin E.
Lopez, Daniel L.
Rounsley, Michael W.
Routin, Kevin L.
Sancho, Mark
Updegrove, Greggory
Young, Walter H.

    Two applicants, James W. Harris and Gene Schipper, were denied
because their optometrist/ophthalmologist was not willing to state that
Mr. Harris and Mr. Schipper are able to operate a CMV from a vision
standpoint.
    The following 27 applicants were denied for miscellaneous reasons.

Austin, David
Bottorff, Robert M.
Brown, Charlene
Bryan, Elvis J.
Campbell, Richard
Eakin, Bobby D.
Engle, Denice M.
Gardner, Eric W.
Gardner, James
Grant, Paul
Hilliard, James
Houle, Douglas F.
Jones, Dennis W.
Koceja, Douglas
Lake, Joseph
Lambert, Kevin R.
Livingston, Jr. Donald R.
Lowe, Jerry
Lowery, Eric R.
Moser, Gary P.
Oestmann, Ronald L.
Reed, Jr., James C.
Reid, Robert C.
Schreifels, Eldred
Sherman IV, Charles A.
Vazquez, Santos
Williams, Roy G.

    One applicant, Thomas Williams, has not had stable vision for a 3-
year period.
    Two applicants, Plynie A. Deen and Leonard L. LaChance, never
submitted required documents.
    One applicant, Taylor B. Villeneuve, was a Canadian applicant.
    Two applicants, Gene R. Foss and Earnest M. Meeks, did not meet the
vision standard in the better eye.
    Finally, the following 44 applicants met the current federal vision
standards.

Exemptions are not required for applicants that meet the current
regulations for vision.

Abadie, Ronald G.
Ashe, Harry R.
Barr, Frank H.
Beier, Roger H.
Benton, Thomas F.
Bickers, Larry M.
Biggs, Dwayne A.
Brooks, Sherry L.
Brown, Bruce S.
Butler, Steven
Caldwell, Kenneth
Caluen, Robert G.
Costlow, James K.
Crachy, Mark S.
Czarneski, Franklyn J.
Downey, Michael
Duby, James C.
Ericson, Matthew A.
Farr, Thomas W.
Gallardo, Julio
Hambrick, Gary J.
Hoffman, Daryl A.
Jackson, Eddie, L.
Johnson, Donald
Johnson, Nicholas
Krill, Harold J.
Leary, Kevin C.
Ledford, David L.
Leriche, Samson
Majewski, Mariusz
Mann, Jonathan D.
McGaffey, Wesley L.
Myers, Michael
Nyman, Timothy C.
Oldacker, Edward
Peterson, Donald T.
Porter, Larry H.
Pringle, Juanita F.
Savely, Danny W.
Schwab, Charles F.
Stokes, Jr., Linwood L.
Tibbetts, Norman
Tousignant, Daniel
Whall, David

    Issued on: July 30, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8-17858 Filed 8-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: September 25, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 55783-55784]
[DOCID:fr25se06-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0441; FRL-8222-6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Perchloroethylene Dry
Cleaning Facilities, EPA ICR Number 1415.07, OMB Control Number 2060-
0234

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 25,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2006-0441, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA

Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement
and Compliance Docket and Information Center, Mail Code 2201T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to make hand deliveries or visit the
Public Reading Room to view documents. Consult EPA's Federal
Register notice at 71 FR 38147 (July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at
http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm for current information on

docket operations, locations and telephone numbers. The Docket
Center's mailing address for U.S. mail and the procedure for
submitting comments to http://www.regulations.gov are not affected by the

flooding and will remain the same.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia Williams, Compliance Assessment
and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2223A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0441, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Enforcement and

Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket Center is
(202) 566-1927.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
http://www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives

them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure is
restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: NESHAP for Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Facilities
(Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1415.07; OMB control No. 2060-0234.
    ICR Status: The ICR is scheduled to expire on October 31, 2006.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of

information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR,
after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40
CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register
or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: These standards apply to owners or operators of dry
cleaning facilities that use perchloroethylene (PCE). Owners or
operators of such facilities must provide EPA, or the delegated state
regulatory authority, with the one-time notifications and reports. The
owners or operators must also perform weekly monitoring (or biweekly
for the smaller facilities), and must keep records for five years. The
notification and reports enable EPA or the delegated state regulatory
authority to determine whether the appropriate control technology is
installed and properly operated and maintained, and to schedule
inspections and/or compliance assistance activities. The responses to
this information collection are mandatory under Clean Air Act Section
112 and 40 CFR part 63, subpart M. The responses are not anticipated to
be kept confidential due to the nature of the information collected;
however, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15, and are
identified on the form and/or instrument, if applicable.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 42
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning
Facilities.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 34,240.
    Frequency of Response: Annually and Initially.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1,537,784 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs: $53,340, includes no annualized
capital/startup costs and $53,340 annualized O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR
Burdens.

    Dated: August 16, 2006.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 06-8172 Filed 9-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 128 (Thursday, July 6, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43055-43058]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14321]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1395; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00720-R;
Amendment 39-22485; AD 2023-12-26]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Textron Canada Limited Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-24-
04, which applied to certain Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
(type certificate previously held by Bell Helicopter Textron Canada
Limited) Model 505 helicopters. AD 2021-24-04 required revising the
existing Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) for your helicopter. Since the
FAA issued AD 2021-24-04, Bell Textron Canada Limited revised the RFM
to incorporate more restrictive operating limitations. This AD is
prompted by the determination that the existing altitude limitations
were not valid for certain fuel types and that revising the existing
RFM for your helicopter to align with the limitations of the Safran
Helicopter Engines, S.A. Model ARRIUS 2R engine is necessary. This AD
requires revising the existing RFM for your helicopter, as specified in
a Transport Canada AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 21, 2023.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 21,
2023.
    The FAA must receive any comments on this AD by August 21, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1395; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this final rule, any comments received, and other
information. The address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For Transport Canada material that is incorporated by
reference in this final rule, contact Transport Canada, Transport
Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean,
Ontario, K1A 0N5, CANADA; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected];
internet tc.canada.ca/en/aviation. You may find the Transport Canada
material on the Transport Canada website at tc.canada.ca/en/aviation.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1395.
    Other Related Service Information: For Bell service information
identified in this final rule, contact Bell Textron Canada Limited,
12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J 1R4, Canada; phone 1-450-
437-2862 or 1-800-363-8023; fax 1-450-433-0272; email
[email protected]; or at bellflight.com/support/contact-support. You may also view this service information at the FAA contact
information under Material Incorporated by Reference above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Hughlett, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1395; Project Identifier MCAI-
2023-00720-R'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private,

that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive
to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Michael
Hughlett, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2021-24-04, Amendment 39-21825 (86 FR 69998,
December 9, 2021) (AD 2021-24-04), for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada
Limited (type certificate previously held by Bell Helicopter Textron
Canada Limited) Model 505 helicopters having serial number 65011 and
subsequent. AD 2021-24-04 was prompted by Transport Canada AD CF-2019-
08, dated March 5, 2019 (Transport Canada AD CF-2019-08), issued by
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada. Transport
Canada advised of the need to reduce the pressure altitude limitations
for Jet B and JP-4 wide-cut fuels following unsatisfactory performance
of the engine at the original higher altitude limitations with those
wide-cut fuels. AD 2021-24-04 required revising the Limitations Section
of the existing RFM for your helicopter. The FAA issued AD 2021-24-04
to prevent low fuel pressure, engine flame-out, or engine power
interruption (a change in any engine performance parameter--including,
but not limited to, gas generator speed, power turbine speed, main gas
temperature, or output torque--outside its normal limits for the
prevailing operating conditions).

Actions Since AD 2021-24-04 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2021-24-04, Transport Canada has issued
Transport Canada AD CF-2023-16, dated March 6, 2023 (Transport Canada
AD CF-2023-16), to supersede Transport Canada AD CF-2019-08.
    Transport Canada AD CF-2023-16 states that Bell Textron Canada
Limited determined that the altitude limitations in the existing RFM,
as they pertain to certain fuel types, were not valid. Accordingly,
Transport Canada AD CF-2023-16 requires updating the RFM to align with
the limitations of the ARRIUS 2R engine, which include more stringent
fuel operating envelope limitations for starting at certain altitudes,
ambient temperatures, and fuel specifications. Transport Canada AD CF-
2023-16 states that failure to comply with the correct operating
limitations could result in low fuel pressure, engine flame-out, or
engine power interruption. You may examine Transport Canada AD CF-2023-
16 in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1395.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to require limitations that align with
the ARRIUS 2R engine. This unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in low fuel pressure, engine flame-out, or engine power
interruption.
    This AD also corrects the Applicability paragraph to identify the
current type certificate holder as ``Bell Textron Canada Limited''
instead of ``Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited'' and removes the
type certificate previously held by information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2023-16, which specifies to
update the RFM BHT-505-FM-1 to Revision 5, or to later revisions, as
approved by Transport Canada.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA also reviewed Figure 1-6. Fuel Operating Envelope (Sheet 1
of 1) of Bell 505 Rotorcraft Flight Manual BHT-505-FM-1, Revision 5,
dated October 30, 2019, which specifies corrected fuel operating
envelope limitations for various fuels.

FAA's Determination

    These products have been approved by the aviation authority of
another country and are approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design
Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in
Transport Canada AD CF-2023-16 described above. The FAA is issuing this
AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in Transport
Canada AD CF-2023-16, described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.
    The owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot
certificate may revise the existing RFM for your helicopter and must
enter compliance with this AD into the aircraft records in accordance
with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained
as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439. This is an exception
to the FAA's standard maintenance regulations.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies foregoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because this model helicopter cannot safely fly at altitudes currently
authorized by the existing RFM for your helicopter. The unsafe
condition may result in low fuel pressure, engine flame-out, or engine
power interruption; and this model helicopter does not have an
auxiliary power unit onboard making it difficult to restart during
flight. Additionally, these are high usage helicopters, which increases
the likeliness of occurrence of exceeding the corrected operating
limitations. In light of this, revising the existing RFM for your
helicopter must be accomplished within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD. Therefore, the compliance time for this required action is
shorter than the time necessary for the public to comment and for
publication of the final rule.
    Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are
impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B). In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this

amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA
found good cause to forgo notice and comment.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result,
Transport Canada AD CF-2023-16 is incorporated by reference in this FAA
final rule. This AD, therefore, requires compliance with Transport
Canada AD CF-2023-16 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a
particular section in the Transport Canada AD does not mean that
operators need to comply only with that section. For example, where the
AD requirement refers to ``Compliance,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Corrective Actions''
in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-16. Service information referenced in
Transport Canada AD CF-2023-16 for compliance will be available at
regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1395 after this final rule is
published.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not
apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt
a rule without prior notice and comment. Because the FAA has determined
that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and
comment, RFA analysis is not required.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 141 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Revising the existing RFM for your helicopter takes about 0.5 work-
hour for an estimated cost of $43 per helicopter and $6,063 for the
U.S. fleet.

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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2021-24-04, Amendment 39-21825 (86
FR 69998, December 9, 2021); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2023-12-26 Bell Textron Canada Limited: Amendment 39-22485; Docket
No. FAA-2023-1395; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00720-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective July 21, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2021-24-04, Amendment 39-21825 (86 FR 69998,
December 9, 2021).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 505
helicopters having a serial number 65011 and subsequent,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 7300, Engine fuel
and control.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the determination that the altitude
limitations for certain fuel types were not valid. The FAA is
issuing this AD to require limitations that align with the Safran
Helicopter Engines, S.A. Model ARRIUS 2R engine, which include more
stringent fuel operating envelope limitations for starting at
certain altitudes, ambient temperatures, and fuel specifications.
The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in low fuel
pressure, engine flame-out, or engine power interruption.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2023-16, dated March 6, 2023
(Transport Canada AD CF-2023-16). The owner/operator (pilot) holding
at least a private pilot certificate may revise the existing
Rotorcraft Flight Manual for your helicopter and must enter
compliance with this AD into the aircraft records in accordance with
14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as
required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.

(h) Exceptions to Transport Canada AD CF-2023-16

    Where Transport Canada AD CF-2023-16 refers to its effective
date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Michael Hughlett,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Transport Canada AD CF-2023-16, dated March 6, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Transport Canada AD CF-2023-16, contact Transport
Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159
Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario, K1A 0N5, CANADA; phone 888-663-
3639; email [email protected]; internet tc.canada.ca/en/
aviation. You may find the Transport Canada material on the
Transport Canada website at tc.canada.ca/en/aviation.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 20, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-14321 Filed 7-3-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4396-4398]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1836]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft
Prevention Standard; Toyota

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

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of Toyota Motor
North America, Inc's., (Toyota) petition for an exemption of the Prius
vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the
Theft Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency
has determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the 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 (49 CFR part 541).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
model year (MY) 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, W43-
443, 1200

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's phone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated September 30, 2011,
Toyota requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of
the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Prius vehicle
line beginning with MY 2013. Toyota will offer both a hatchback and
wagon model (Prius v) to the Prius passenger car vehicle line. The
petition has been filed pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an
antitheft device as standard equipment for the entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an
exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Toyota
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design,
and location of the components of the antitheft device for the Prius
vehicle line. Toyota stated that the Prius vehicle line will be
equipped with a passive engine immobilizer device as standard equipment
beginning with the 2013 model year. According to Toyota, the Prius
vehicle line will offer a ``smart key system'' (keyless entry and push
button start) and a ``conventional key'' entry system. Key components
of the smart key system will include an engine immobilizer,
certification electronic control unit (ECU), power source HV ECU, door
control receiver, electrical key, power switch, transmission control
ECU, electronic control module (ECM) and security indicator. The Prius
v wagon will additionally include an ID code box component; however,
the basic antitheft functionality and immobilization features will be
the same. Toyota will also offer an audible and visual alarm as
optional equipment on the Prius vehicle line. Toyota's submission is
considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7 in that it
meets the general requirements contained in 543.5 and the specific
content requirements of 543.6.
    The vehicle is equipped with a smart key system that allows the
driver to press the ``ON'' button located on the instrument panel to
start the vehicle. The correct key has to be recognized by the ECM in
order for the vehicle to start. According to Toyota, once the driver
has pushed the ``ON'' button, the certification ECU verifies the key.
When the key is verified, the certification ECU and transmission
control ECU receive confirmation of the valid key and allows the ECM to
start the engine. On the Prius v model, the certification ECU,
transmission control ECU and ID code box receive confirmation of the
valid key and then the ID code box allows the ECM to start the engine.
    Toyota also stated that with the smart key system, the immobilizer
is activated when the power button is pushed from the ``ON'' status to
any other ignition status and the correct key is verified by the ECU.
The device's security indicator will provide the immobilizer status for
the Prius vehicle line. When the immobilizer is activated, the
indicator flashes continuously. When the immobilizer is not activated,
the indicator is turned off. The device is deactivated when the doors
are unlocked and the device recognizes the key code from the smart key
system.
    Toyota also stated that there will be position switches installed
in the vehicle to protect the hood and doors. Specifically, the
position switches in the hood will trigger the antitheft device when
they sense inappropriate opening of the hood. The position switches in
the doors will trigger the antitheft device when they sense opening of
the doors are being attempted without the use of a key, wireless switch
or smart entry system.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Toyota
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Toyota
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Toyota provided a
detailed list of the tests conducted (i.e., high and low temperature,
strength, impact, vibration, electro-magnetic interference, etc.).
Toyota stated that it believes that its device is reliable and durable
because it complied with its own specific design standards and the
device is installed in other vehicle lines for which the agency has
granted a parts-marking exemption. As an additional measure of
reliability and durability, Toyota stated that its vehicle key
cylinders are covered with casting cases to prevent the key cylinder
from easily being broken. There are so many key cylinder combinations
and key plates for its gutter keys that it would be very difficult to
unlock the doors without using a valid key.
    To provide comparison, Toyota referenced NHTSA published theft rate
data for the Prius vehicle line. Toyota stated that the average theft
rate for the Prius for MY 2009 is 0.33 thefts per thousand vehicles
produced. Toyota further stated that the Prius vehicle line has been
equipped with an immobilizer since MY 2001. Toyota compared its
proposed device with other devices NHTSA has determined to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would
compliance with the parts-marking requirements (i.e., Toyota Camry and
Corolla, Lexus LS and GS vehicle lines). The Toyota Camry and Corolla
and Lexus LS and GS vehicle lines have all been granted parts-marking
exemptions by the agency. The theft rates for the Toyota Camry, Toyota
Corolla, Lexus LS and Lexus GS vehicle lines using an average of three
model years' data, are 1.5734, 2.013, 0.9718 and 0.6780 respectively.
Therefore, Toyota has concluded that the antitheft device proposed for
its Prius vehicle line is no less effective than those devices in the
lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption from the
parts-marking requirements. Toyota believes that installing the
immobilizer as standard equipment reduces the theft rate and expects
the Prius to experience comparable effectiveness ultimately being more
effective than parts-marking labels.
    Based on the evidence submitted by Toyota, the agency believes that
the antitheft device for the Prius 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
(49 CFR 541).
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(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, based upon
substantial evidence, that 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. The
agency finds that Toyota has provided adequate reasons for its belief
that the antitheft device for the Toyota Prius 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 (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information
Toyota provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide four or five of
the types of performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): Promoting
activation; 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.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Toyota's petition for exemption for the Toyota Prius vehicle line from
the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. 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 543.7(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 are necessary in
order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted
from the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If Toyota decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and
541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Toyota 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 543.7(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, Sec.  543.9(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
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Sec.
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
In drafting part 543, the agency did not intend 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 the
manufacturer 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.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: January 23, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-1836 Filed 1-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P