[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 117 (Monday, June 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 36273]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14786]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9688-6]

Public Meeting on Draft Permitting Guidance for Oil and Gas
Hydraulic Fracturing Activities Using Diesel Fuels

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or agency) is
announcing a public meeting to discuss draft permitting guidance the
agency has developed on the use of diesel fuels in oil and gas
hydraulic fracturing and to solicit input during the public comment
period. The meeting is open to all interested parties. The agency
requests input on the following technical aspects of the draft
permitting guidance: Diesel fuels description; diesel fuels usage
information; permit duration and well closure; area of review;
information submitted with the permit application; and monitoring.

DATES: The meeting will take place on Monday, June 29, 2012, in Room
1153 EPA East, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. Participants
may choose from two sessions, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. or from 1:30
p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Seating is limited. Registration will be filled on a
first-come, first-served basis. To allow for maximum public
participation, registrants are asked to select one session only. Pre-
registration will open on Wednesday, June 20, 2012, and close on
Thursday, June 28, 2012, at noon. Registration may also be available at
the door as space permits. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
registration details.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherri Comerford, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Mailcode 4606M, Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is hosting a public informational
meeting to discuss ``Permitting Guidance for Oil and Gas Hydraulic
Fracturing Activities Using Diesel Fuels--Draft: Underground Injection
Control Program Guidance 84.'' The draft guidance, available
at this Web site, http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/hydraulic-fracturing.cfm, is intended to provide
information for EPA permit writers issuing permits under the Safe
Drinking Water Act to ensure protection of underground sources of
drinking water. The draft guidance is open for public comment from May
10, 2012, to July 9, 2012, to allow stakeholders to provide input and
feedback before it is finalized. The meeting is open to the public, and
all interested stakeholders are invited to attend.
    Registration details: Registration is scheduled to open on
Wednesday, June 20, 2012, and close on Thursday, June 28, 2012, at
noon. Participants are requested to pre-register for either the 8:30
a.m. to 12:00 p.m. session or the 1:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. session, using
an online form that will be accessible from the following Web site:
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroout.cfm. Registration may also be available at the door as
space permits. Please check the Web site for availability.
    Meeting information: Both morning and afternoon sessions will begin
with a brief presentation by the EPA Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water on the basics of the guidance. Copies of EPA's
presentation will be available at the meeting and posted on the Web at
http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroout.cfm the day of the meeting. An oral comment session
will follow the presentation. Oral comments will be limited to two (2)
minutes each, and it is preferred that only one person present the
statement on behalf of a group or organization to accommodate as many
participants as possible. Registered attendees requesting to make an
oral presentation will be placed on the commenting schedule. Time slots
are limited and will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis. EPA
may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but will
not respond to the presentations.
    You may present oral comments during the meeting; and/or submit
written comments and supporting information directly to EPA.
Instructions for submitting comments, the draft guidance, and a Federal
Register notice providing detail on topics on which the agency invites
comment, are available on the Web site, http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/hydraulic-fracturing.cfm.
Written statements and supporting information submitted during the
comment period will be considered in the same manner as any oral
comments and supporting information presented at the public meeting.
The agency requests input on the following technical aspects of the
draft permitting guidance: diesel fuels description; diesel fuels usage
information; permit duration and well closure; area of review;
information submitted with the permit application; and monitoring.
    All attendees must go through a metal detector, sign in with the
security desk, and show government-issued photo identification to enter
the building.
    Special Accommodations: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities and to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Sherri Comerford at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>preferably at least 5 days prior to the
meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: June 11, 2012.
Pamela S. Barr,
Acting Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 2012-14786 Filed 6-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3423-3425]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01255]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31409; Amdt. No. 3991]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective January 24, 2022. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of January 24, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures
and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight
Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address:
FAA, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace
Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Registry Bldg. 29, Room 104,
Oklahoma City, OK 73169. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums
and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its
associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed
on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this
amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20.
The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B,
when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.

    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the typed of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their
applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport
and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore-(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 7, 2022.
Thomas J. Nichols,
Aviation Safety, Flight Standards Service, Manager, Standards Section,
Flight Procedures & Airspace Group, Flight Technologies & Procedures
Division.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CRF part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 24 March 2022

Dothan, AL, KDHN, ILS OR LOC RWY 14, Amdt 2
Dothan, AL, KDHN, ILS OR LOC RWY 32, Amdt 10
Dothan, AL, KDHN, RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, Amdt 3
Dothan, AL, KDHN, VOR OR TACAN RWY 14, Amdt 5
Dothan, AL, KDHN, VOR OR TACAN-A, Amdt 14
Rogers, AR, KROG, ILS OR LOC RWY 20, Amdt 5
Rogers, AR, KROG, RNAV (GPS) RWY 2, Amdt 1A
Rogers, AR, KROG, RNAV (GPS) RWY 20, Amdt 1C
Show Low, AZ, KSOW, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 3A
Tucson, AZ, KTUS, LOC BC RWY 29R, Amdt 8C, CANCELLED
Santa Ynez, CA, KIZA, RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, Amdt 1
Santa Ynez, CA, KIZA, RNAV (GPS)-A, Amdt 1
Santa Ynez, CA, KIZA, VOR RWY 8, Orig
Santa Ynez, CA, KIZA, VOR OR GPS-B, Amdt 7F, CANCELLED
Nucla, CO, Hopkins Field, NUCLA TWO, Graphic DP
Nucla, CO, Hopkins Field, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig-A
Belle Plaine, IA, KTZT, VOR-A, Amdt 1B, CANCELLED
Vinton, IA, Vinton Veterans Meml Airpark, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Lewiston, ID, KLWS, RNAV (RNP) RWY 30, Amdt 1
Covington, KY, KCVG, ILS OR LOC RWY 9, Amdt 18C
Covington, KY, KCVG, ILS OR LOC RWY 18L, Amdt 7D
Covington, KY, KCVG, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 36R, Orig-D
Fulton, KY, 1M7, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Orig
Fulton, KY, Fulton, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Old Town, ME, Dewitt Fld/Old Town Muni, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 1
Detroit, MI, Willow Run, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 11
Sidney, MT, KSDY, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt 3
Salem, OH, 38D, RNAV (GPS)-A, Orig
Salem, OH, 38D, VOR OR GPS-A, Amdt 1A, CANCELLED
Alva, OK, Alva Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 3
Columbia, SC, KCAE, ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 2
Columbia, SC, KCAE, ILS OR LOC RWY 11, ILS RWY 11 (CAT II), ILS RWY
11 (CAT III), Amdt 16
Columbia, SC, KCAE, ILS OR LOC RWY 29, Amdt 4
Columbia, SC, KCAE, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 2
Yankton, SD, KYKN, RNAV (GPS) RWY 13, Amdt 1A
Yankton, SD, KYKN, VOR RWY 13, Amdt 4A
Terrell, TX, Terrell Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 1A
Moses Lake, WA, KMWH, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 4, Amdt 1D
Moses Lake, WA, KMWH, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 32R, Amdt 3D
Moses Lake, WA, KMWH, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 4, Orig-B
Moses Lake, WA, KMWH, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 22, Orig-B
Moses Lake, WA, KMWH, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 32R, Orig-B

    Rescinded: On December 28, 2021 (86 FR 73675), the FAA published
an Amendment

in Docket No. 31404 Amdt No. 3987, to Part 97 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations under section 97.37. The following entry for
Jackson, OH, effective January 27, 2022, is hereby rescinded in its
entirety:

Jackson, OH, James A Rhodes, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
4A

[FR Doc. 2022-01255 Filed 1-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


TO: 316( b) Phase II Docket.

FROM: Timothy Connor SUBJECT: Discussion of Technology Efficacy for Regulatory Options DATE: 11/ 29/ 04 The Agency compared the results of its NODA analysis of the waterbody capacity based option to that of the preferred option. The waterbody capacity based option, which would have required flow reduction commensurate with recirculating wet cooling at 54 existing facilities, showed national annual costs of $ 797 million ( post tax, 2002 $). The preferred option, which was based on requirements very similar to those of the final rule, showed national annual costs at the NODA of $ 269 million ( post tax, 2002 $). The costs for the waterbody capacity based option were 3 times those of the preferred option in the NODA analysis. However, the incremental reduction in entrainment efficacy from the waterbody capacity based option was only 1.33 times, in the widest margin, those of the preferred option. At the national level the waterbody capacity based option would achieve an entrainment efficacy improvement of 37 percent in the typical scenario ( ie, a 90 to 92 percent entrainment reduction efficacy per tower, which is an expected performance of the tower regardless of waterbody type). The preferred option would achieve a 28 percent national entrainment efficacy improvement at the low end of the performance range ( ie, assuming a worst case 60 percent entrainment reduction efficacy per facility with entrainment requirements). Therefore, for every percentage point in entrainment improvement with the waterbody capacity based, cooling tower option, the national cost would be approximately $ 100 million ( pre tax, 2002 $) annually. The Agency further notes that in the situation where facilities would comply with the lower end of the performance ranges of either option that the national cost per percentage improvement in entrainment efficacy would be $ 133 milllion ( pre tax, 2002 $) annuallly. In the case where facilities would comply with the highest expected bound to the performance ranges of either option that the national cost per percentage improvement in entrainment efficacy would be $ 752 million ( pre tax, 2002 $) annually.

The following table presents the data for the comparison of the regulatory alternatives.

NODA Preferred Option NODA Waterbody Cap. Based Option Ratio  WBC to Preferred Annual National Costs $ 269,000,000 $ 797,000,000 3.0 Min Entrainment Red. 28% 32% 1.1 Max Entrainment Red. 42% 42% 1.0 Min Impimgement Red. 74% 75% 1.0 Max Impingement Red. 87% 88% 1.0 The cost efficacy percentages presented in the table above are for national extrapolations of expected minimum and maximum entrainment reductions. This accounts for the technologies to be installed and those already in place. It is flow weighted, based on the actual flow of the facility ( annually). The underlying calculations supporting this analysis are presented in DCN 6 3590 ( in the confidential business information portion of the docket).


[Federal Register: November 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 72110-72111]
[DOCID:fr26no08-124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., 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 Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A.,
Inc.'s (FUSA) petition for exemption of the Subaru Outback 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). FUSA requested
confidential treatment for the information and attachments it submitted
in support of its petition. The agency will address FUSA's request for
confidential treatment by separate letter.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
model year (MY) 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's phone number is (202)
366-0846. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated July 31, 2008, FUSA
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Subaru Outback vehicle
line, beginning with the 2010 model year. 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 an entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
exemptions for one of its vehicle lines per model year. In its
petition, FUSA provided a detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device for the Outback vehicle line. FUSA stated that all Subaru
Outback vehicles will be equipped with a passive, transponder-based
electronic immobilizer device as standard equipment. FUSA stated that
the antitheft system and the immobilization features are designed and
constructed within the vehicle's Controller Area Network electrical
architecture. Major components of the antitheft device will include an
electronic key, a passive immobilizer system, a key ring antenna and an
engine control unit. System immobilization is automatically activated
when the key is removed from the vehicle's ignition switch, or after 30
seconds if the ignition is simply moved to the off position and the key
is not removed. The device will also have a visible and audible alarm,
and panic mode feature. The alarm system will monitor door status and
key identification. Unauthorized opening of a door will activate the
alarm system causing sounding of the horn and flashing of the hazard
lamps. FUSA'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.
    FUSA also provided information on the reliability and durability of
its proposed device, conducting tests based on its own specified
standards. FUSA provided a list of the tests it conducted. FUSA
believes that its device is reliable and durable because the device
complied with its own specific requirements for each test.
Additionally, FUSA stated that the immobilization features are designed
and constructed within the vehicle's overall Controller Area Network
Electrical Architecture. Therefore, the antitheft system cannot be
separated and controlled.
    FUSA stated that it believes that historically, NHTSA has seen a
decreasing theft rate trend when electronic immobilization has been
added to alarm systems. FUSA stated that it presently has immobilizer
systems on all of its product lines (Forester, Tribeca, Impreza,
Legacy, and Outback models) and it believes the data shows
immobilization has had a demonstrable effect in lowering its theft
rates. FUSA also noted that recent state-by-state theft results from
the National Insurance Crime Bureau reported that in only 3 of the 48
states listed in its results, did any Subaru vehicle appear in the top
10 list of stolen cars. Review of the theft rates published by the
agency through MY/CY also revealed that, while there is some variation,
the theft rates for Subaru vehicles have on average, remained below the
median theft rate of 3.5826.
    FUSA also provided a comparative table showing how its device is
similar to other manufacturer's devices that have already been granted
an exemption by NHTSA. In its comparison, FUSA makes note of Federal
Notices published by NHTSA in which manufacturers have stated that they
have seen reductions in theft due to the immobilization systems being
used. Specifically, FUSA notes claims by Ford Motor Company that its
1997 Mustangs with immobilizers saw a 70% reduction in theft compared
to its 1995 Mustangs without immobilizers. FUSA also noted its reliance
on theft rates published by the agency which showed that theft rates
were lower for Jeep Grand Cherokee immobilizer-equipped vehicles (model
year 1995 through 1998) compared to older parts-marked Jeep Grand
Cherokee vehicles (model year 1990 and 1991). FUSA stated that it
believes that these comparisons show that its device is no less
effective than those installed on lines for which the agency has
already granted full exemption from the parts-marking requirements. The
agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices in
other vehicles lines for which the agency has already granted
exemptions.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for an 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. The agency
finds that FUSA has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based
on the information FUSA provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of
performance listed in Sec.  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.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full FUSA's
petition for exemption for the 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 part 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 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 FUSA decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, the line must be fully
marked as required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major
component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if FUSA 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. Part 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 anti-theft 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 Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend 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 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: November 20, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-28084 Filed 11-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: December 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 232)]
[Notices]
[Page 68229-68230]
[DOCID:fr04de07-120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Fuel Flowmeters Technical Standard Order TSO-C44d Revision

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The TSO tells manufacturers seeking TSO authorization or
letter of design approval (LODA) what minimum performance standards
(MPS) their Fuel Flowmeter must first meet for approval and
identification with the applicable TSO markings. This notice announces
the cancellation of TSO-C44c, and request public comments on the
proposed revision (TSO-C44d) to the cancelled TSO-C44c.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send all comments on the proposed revision TSO-44d to:
Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service,
Aircraft Engineering Division, Room 815, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591. ATTN: Jim Kabbara, AIR-120. You may deliver
comments to: Federal Aviation Administration, Room 815, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20591, or electronically
submit comments to the following Internet address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Include in the subject line of your electronic message the following:
Comments FAA TSO-44d, Fuel Flowmeter Technical Standard Order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Kabbara, Aerospace Engineer,
Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service,
Aircraft Engineering Division, Technical Programs and Continued
Airworthiness Branch, AIR-120, Room 815, 800 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20591. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    You are invited to comment on the draft order listed in this notice
by sending such written data, views, or arguments to the above listed
address. Please identify ``FAA TSO-44d, Fuel Flowmeter Technical
Standard Order'' as the subject of your comments. You may also examine
comments received on the proposed TSO-C44d before and after the comment
closing date at the FAA Headquarters Building, Room 815, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, weekdays except Federal
holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. The Director of the Aircraft
Certification Service will consider all communications received on or
before the closing date before implementing the revision.

Background

    The failure condition specified in TSO-C44c, Paragraph 3.b., was
incorrectly identified as ``hazardous.'' The proposed revision offered
by this Federal Register Notice revises Paragraph 3.b. to state the
following: ``Develop each fuel Flowmeter to at least the design
assurance level equal to the failure condition classification of the
system on which the Flowmeter is to be installed.'' The proposed draft
changes no other MPS requirement of TSO-C44.

How To Obtain Copies

    You may get an electronic copy via the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/certification/aircraft/DraftDoc/Comments.htm
 or request a

hard copy by contacting the person named in the paragraph FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 27, 2007.
Carol Martineau,
Acting Assistant Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 07-5915 Filed 12-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M