Notices. Grant of petition for exemption

5,939 words·~27 min read·/register/2007/01/04/06-9959

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-54990; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-108] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend CBOE Rules in Connection With CBOE's Determination To Trade Certain Option Classes on Hybrid December 21, 2006. 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 December 15, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“Exchange” or “CBOE”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.

The Exchange filed the proposal as a “non-controversial” proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. 4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change CBOE proposes amend its rules relating to CBOE's determination to trade certain option classes on Hybrid.

The text of the proposed rule change is available on CBOE's Web site ( *http://www.cboe.com* ), at the CBOE's Office of the Secretary, and at 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, the Exchange 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. The Exchange 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 The purpose of this rule change is to amend CBOE Rules 8.3 and 8.4 in connection with CBOE's determination to trade options on the Russell 2000 Index

(RUT)on the Hybrid 2.0 Platform. Additionally, CBOE proposes to amend Rule 8.3 in connection with CBOE's determination to trade options on the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund

(IWM)on the Hybrid Trading System, and options on the NASDAQ 100 Index

(NDX)on the Hybrid Trading System. 5 5 CBOE Rule 1.1(aaa) defines Hybrid Trading System and Hybrid 2.0 Platform. RUT options currently has an appointment cost of .25, and CBOE intends to maintain that appointment cost when RUT options trade on the Hybrid 2.0 Platform. As a result, RUT options would be classified as an A+ Tier option class. CBOE intends to trade RUT options on the Hybrid 2.0 Platform beginning on December 19, 2006. CBOE proposes to amend Rule 8.3(c)(ii) to specifically reference IWM options and NDX options as option classes trading on the Hybrid Trading System. IWM options would have an appointment cost of .50, and NDX options would have an appointment cost of 1.0. 6 CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.3(c)(iv) to delete reference to IWM options and NDX options in the table listing the non-Hybrid option classes and their related appointment costs. CBOE notes that the new appointment cost for IWM is lower than its current non-Hybrid appointment cost of .85. CBOE intends to trade IWM options on the Hybrid Trading System beginning on December 19, 2006, and NDX options on the Hybrid Trading System beginning on January 9, 2007. 6 Because not all option classes traded on the Hybrid Trading System have an appointment cost of .01, CBOE proposes to modify Rule 8.85(e)(ii) to state that the appointment cost for option classes traded on the Hybrid Trading System is as set forth in Rule 8.3(c)(ii). Currently, Rule 8.85(e)(ii) states that the appointment cost of Hybrid option classes is .01. Finally, CBOE proposes to amend Rule 8.3A to expressly include a reference to the “AA” tier in Interpretation and Policy .01. Currently, Interpretation .01 references the “A+” tier, but not the “AA” tier. Products designated as “A+” tier products have a class quoting limit (“CQL”) of 40 as provided in Interpretation .01 of Rule 8.3A. By including reference to the “AA” tier option in Interpretation.01, products designated as “AA” tier products (presently options on the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX)), would have a CQL of 40, which is consistent with the current CQL for VIX options. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act. 7 Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 which requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 9 and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 10 thereunder because it does not:

(i)Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;

(ii)impose any significant burden on competition;

(iii)become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate; and the Exchange has given the Commission written notice of its intention to file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to filing. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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. 9 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii). 10 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). Under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) of the Act, 11 the proposal does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative date, so that the proposal may take effect on December 19, 2006 with respect to IWM options and RUT options, and January 9, 2007, with respect to NDX options. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not raise any new regulatory issues. The Commission agrees and, consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, has determined to waive the 30-day operative date, which renders the proposal effective on December 19, 2006 with respect to IWM options and RUT options, and January 9, 2007, with respect to NDX options. 12 11 *Id.* 12 For purposes only of accelerating the operative date of this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). 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 *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2006-108 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-CBOE-2006-108. 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 Section, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2006-108 and should be submitted on or before January 25, 2007. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 13 13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). Jill M. Peterson, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-22544 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment Request. The Social Security Administration

(SSA)publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)in compliance with Pub. L. 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. The information collection packages that may be included in this notice are for new information collections, approval of existing information collections, revisions to OMB-approved information collections, and extensions (no change) of OMB-approved information collections. SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed and/or faxed to the individuals at the addresses and fax numbers listed below:

(OMB)Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974.

(SSA)Social Security Administration, DCFAM, Attn: Reports Clearance Officer, 1333 Annex Building, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-965-6400. I. The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454 or by writing to the address listed above. 1. Information Collections Conducted by State Disability Determination Services

(DDSs)on Behalf of SSA—20 CFR 404.1503a, 404.1512, 404.1513404.1512, 404.1513, 404.1514 404.1517, 404.1519; 20 CFR subpart Q, 404.1613, 404.1614, 404.1624; 20 CFR subpart I, 416.903a, 416.912, 416.913, 416.914, 416.917, 416.919 and 20 CFR subpart J, 416.1013, 416.1024, 416.1014—0960-0555. The State Disability Determination Services

(DDSs)collect certain information that SSA needs to correctly administer its disability program. This information is divided into the Consultative Examination

(CE)and Medical Evidence of Record

(MER)categories. There are three types of CE evidence:

(a)medical evidence from CE providers, in which DDSs use CE medical evidence to make disability determinations when the claimant's own medical sources cannot or will not provide the required information,

(b)CE claimant completion of a response form where claimants indicate if they intend to keep their CE appointment, and

(c)CE claimant completion of a form indicating whether they want the CE report to be sent to their doctor. In the MER category, the DDSs use MER information to determine a person's physical and/or mental status prior to making a disability determination. Please note that for the first time, some of the information included in this collection can be submitted electronically through the new Electronic Records Express

(ERE)systems. The respondents are medical providers, other sources of MER, and disability claimants. *Type of Collection:* Revision to an existing OMB-approved collection. *CE:* a. Medical Evidence from CE Providers Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) Paper Submissions 1,215,000 1 30 607,500 ERE Submissions 285,000 1 15 71,250 Totals 1,500,000 678,750 b. Claimants re Appointment Letter: *Number of Respondents:* 750,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 62,500 hours. c. Claimants re Report to Medical Provider: *Number of Respondents:* 1,500,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 125,000 hours. MER Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minutes) Estimated annual burden (hours) Paper Submissions 2,480,800 1 15 620,200 C/D (Connect Direct, commercially available software used for electronically transferring medical records) 218,400 1 15 54,600 ERE 100,800 7 11,760 Totals 2,800,000 686,560 2. Response to Notice of Revised Determination—20 CFR 404.913-.914 and 992(b), 416.1413-.1414 and 1492—0960-0347. Form SSA-765 is used by claimants to request a disability hearing and/or to submit additional evidence before a revised reconsideration determination is issued. The respondents are claimants who file for a disability hearing in response to a notice of revised determination for disability insurance and/or Supplemental Security Income

(SSI)under titles II (Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) and XVI (SSI). *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 1,925. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 963 hours. 3. Questionnaire for Children Claiming SSI Benefits—0960-0499. The information collected on form SSA-3881-BK is used by SSA to evaluate disability in children who are appealing an unfavorable disability decision or whose continuing disability is being reviewed. The form requests the names and addresses of non-medical sources such as schools, counselors, agencies, organizations or therapists who would have information about a child's functioning. The respondents are children or their representatives who are appealing an unfavorable decision on their claim or whose continuing disability is being reviewed. *Type of Request:* Extension of OMB-approved collection. *Number of Respondents:* 253,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 126,500 hours. 4. Claimant Statement about Loan of Food or Shelter; Statement about Food or Shelter Provided to Another—20 CFR 416.1130-416.1148—0960-0529. Forms SSA-5062 and SSA-L5063 are used to obtain statements about food and/or shelter provided to an SSI claimant or recipient. SSA uses this information to determine whether food and/or shelter are bona fide loans or should be counted as income for SSI purposes. This determination can affect eligibility for SSI and the amount of SSI benefits payable. The respondents are claimants/recipients for SSI benefits and individuals that provide loans of food and/or shelter to SSI claimants/recipients. Type of Request.—Revision of an OMB-approved information collection. Collections Number of respondents Frequency of response Average burden per response (minute) Estimated annual burden (hours) SSA-5062 65,540 1 10 10,923 SSA-L5063 65,540 1 10 10,923 Totals 131,080 21,846 5. Internet Direct Deposit Application—31 CFR 210—0960-0634. SSA uses Direct Deposit/Electronic Funds Transfer (DD/EFT) enrollment information received from beneficiaries to facilitate DD/EFT of their Social Security benefits with a financial institution. Respondents are Social Security beneficiaries who use the Internet to enroll in DD/EFT. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 80,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 10 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 13,333 hours. 6. Medical Permit Parking Application—41 CFR 101-20.104-2—0960-0624. SSA issues medical parking assignments at SSA-owned and -leased facilities to individuals who have a medical condition which meets the criteria for medical parking. In order to issue a medical parking permit, SSA must obtain medical evidence from the applicant's physician. Form SSA-3192-F4 is used to collect this information. SSA then uses the information to determine whether the individual qualifies for a medical parking permit and whether or not to issue the permit. The respondents are physicians of applicants for medical parking permits. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 800. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 60 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 800 hours. 7. Reporting Changes that Affect Your Social Security Payment—20 CFR 404.301-305, .310-311, .330-.333, .335-.341, .350-.352, .370-.371, .401-.402, .408(a), .421-.425, .428-.430, .434-.437, .439-.441, .446-.447, .450-.455, .468— 0960-0073. SSA uses the information collected on Form SSA-1425 to determine continuing entitlement to Title II Social Security benefits and to determine the proper benefit amount. The respondents are Social Security beneficiaries receiving SSA retirement, disability or survivor's auxiliary benefits who need to report an event that could affect payments. *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 70,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 5 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 5,833 hours. 8. Disability Hearing Officer's Decision—20 CFR 404.917 and 416.1417—0960-0441. The Social Security Act requires that SSA provide an evidentiary hearing at the reconsideration level of appeal for claimants who have received an initial or revised determination that a disability did not exist or has ceased. Based on the hearing, the disability hearing officer

(DHO)completes form SSA-1207 and all applicable supplementary forms (which vary depending on the type of claim). The DHO uses the information in documenting and preparing the disability decision. The form will aid the DHO in addressing the crucial elements of the case in a sequential and logical fashion. The respondents are DHOs in the State Disability Determination Services (DDS). *Type of Request:* Extension of an OMB-approved information collection. *Number of Respondents:* 65,000. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden Per Response:* 45 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 48,750 hours. The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above. 1. Non-Attorney Representative Demonstration Project Application—0960-0669. Section 303 of the Social Security Protection Act of 2004

(SSPA)provides for a 5-year demonstration project to be conducted by SSA under which the direct payment of SSA-approved fees is extended to certain non-attorney claimant representatives. Under the SSPA, to be eligible for direct payment of fees, a non-attorney representative must fulfill the following statutory requirements:

(1)Possess a bachelors degree or have equivalent qualifications derived from training and work experience;

(2)pass an examination that tests knowledge of the relevant provisions of the Social Security Act;

(3)secure professional liability insurance or equivalent insurance;

(4)pass a criminal background check (information on these 4 requirements will be collected during initial reporting);

(5)demonstrate completion of relevant continuing education courses (this information will be collected under the Continuing Education

(CE)reporting), and

(6)complete an annual Affirmations Worksheet to verify the participant's continued eligibility to participate in the demonstration project. SSA collects this information through the services of a private contractor and uses it to determine if a non-attorney representative has met and continues to meet the statutory requirements to be eligible for direct payment of fees for his or her claimant representation services. The respondents are non-attorney representatives who apply for direct payment of fees. *Type of Request:* Revision of an existing information collection. *Application Reporting* *Number of Respondents:* 500. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 60 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 500 hours. *CE Reporting* *Number of Respondents:* 300. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 30 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 150 hours. *Annual Reaffirmations Worksheet* *Number of Respondents:* 450. *Frequency of Response:* 1. *Average Burden per Response:* 10 minutes. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 75 hours. Total burden hours for all collection activities—725 hours. Dated: December 27, 2006. Elizabeth A. Davidson, Reports Clearance Officer, Social Security Administration. [FR Doc. E6-22528 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4191-02-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of Federal railroad safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. Bellefonte Historical Railroad Society [Docket Number FRA-2006-26460] The Bellefonte Historical Railroad Society

(BHRS)seeks a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Safety Glazing Standards, 49 CFR 223.15, requirements for two passenger cars. These two cars were built by the Budd Company. One car was built in 1953 and the other was built in 1963. The BHRS is located in Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. The BHRS states they operate a tourist railroad. Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA in writing before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request. All communications concerning this petition should identify the appropriate docket number (FRA-2006-26460) and may be submitted by one of the following methods: • Web site: *http://dms.dot.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic site; • Fax: 202-493-2251; •Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001; or • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • Communication received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA prior to final action being taken. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). The Statement may also be found at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Issued in Washington, DC on December 27, 2006. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E6-22557 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of Federal railroad safety regulations. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. The Mid-Continent Railway Historical Society, Inc. [Docket Number FRA-2006-26300] The Mid-Continent Railway Historical Society, Inc. (MCRY), seeks a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Safety Glazing Standards of 49 CFR 223.9, and Railroad Safety Appliance Standards of 49 CFR Part 231, for one locomotive: MCRY 1256. The MCRY is located in Sauk County, Wisconsin. This is a rural area in which locomotives travel at a maximum speed of 15 miles per hour through an all-rural countryside. Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA in writing before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request. All communications concerning this petition should identify the appropriate docket number (FRA-2006-26300) and may be submitted by one of the following methods: • Web site: *http://dms.dot.gov* . Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic site; • Fax: 202-493-2251; • Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001; or • Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Communication received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA prior to final action being taken. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78). The Statement may also be found at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Issued in Washington, DC on December 27, 2006. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E6-22558 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; BMW AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. SUMMARY: This document grants in full the BMW of North America, LLC

(BMW)petition for exemption of the X3 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 the 2007 model year (MY). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's telephone number is

(202)366-0846. Her fax number is

(202)493-2290. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated July 18, 2006, BMW requested exemption from the parts-making requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the MY 2007 BMW X3 vehicle line. The petition requested exemption from parts-marking 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. BMW'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. Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines per year. In its petition, BMW provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the X3 Vehicle line. BMW will install its antitheft device, the Electronically-coded Vehicle Immobilizer (EWS), as standard equipment on the BMW X3 vehicle line beginning with MY 2007. Features of the antitheft device will include a key with a transponder, loop antenna

(coil)around the steering lock cylinder, EWS control unit and passive immobilizer. BMW stated that the EWS immobilizer device prevents the vehicle from being driven away under its own engine power. The EWS control unit provides the interface to the loop antenna (coil), engine control unit and starter. It queries key data from the transponder and provides the coded release of the engine management for a valid key. The ignition and fuel supply are only released when a correct coded release signal has been sent by the EWS control unit, to allow the vehicle to start. The immobilizer device is automatically activated when the engine is shut off and the vehicle key is removed from the ignition lock cylinder. In addition to the key, the antitheft device can be activated by the use of its radio frequency remote control. The frequency for the remote control constantly changes to prevent an unauthorized person from opening the vehicle by intercepting the signals of its remote control. The vehicle is also equipped with a central-locking system that can be operated to lock and unlock all doors or to unlock only the driver's door, preventing forced entry into the vehicle through the passenger doors. In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, BMW provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, BMW conducted tests based on its own specified standards. BMW also provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is reliable and durable since the device complied with this specified requirements for each test. BMW stated that because the EWS immobilizer device is incorporated into the ignition, fuel injection, and starter circuit of the vehicle and is activated passively, reliability and durability of the system have to be ensured because the vehicle will not start if the EWS system malfunctions. BMW also stated that, if a malfunction should occur, the EWS device incorporates a microprocessor that can be accessed by using BMW diagnostic equipment to diagnose and correct the cause of the problem. BMW further stated that NHTSA's preliminary theft rate data (0.5955 thefts/thousand vehicles produced) for calendar year/model year 2004 shows the effectiveness of the antitheft system on the X3 line. The theft rate is below the rate of 1.83 thefts/thousand vehicles for the entire U.S. fleet, a ranking of 188 out of 231 lines. For clarification purposes, the agency notes that it does not collect theft data. NHTSA publishes theft rates based on data provided by the National Crime Information Center

(NCIC)of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. NHTSA uses NCIC data to calculate theft rates and publishes these rates annually in the **Federal Register.** The effectiveness of BMW's EWS is compared with devices which NHTSA has previously determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-making requirements of part 541. The antitheft device that BMW intends to install on its X3 vehicle line for MY 2007 is the same system that BMW installed on its BMW X5 line, BMW 6 line, BMW 7 line, the BMW Z4 line and the MINI vehicle line. BMW has concluded that the antitheft device proposed for its X3 line is no less effective than those devices for which NHTSA has already granted exemptions from the parts-marking requirements. BMW stated that the proposed antitheft device does not provide any visible or audible indication of unauthorized entry. Theft data have indicated a decline in theft rates, as published by NHTSA, for vehicle lines that have been equipped with antitheft devices similar to that which BMW proposes to install on the X3 line. Citing the grant of exemptions for the Oldsmobile Aurora and the Buick Riviera, BMW notes that the agency has concluded that the lack of a visual or audio alarm has not prevented these antitheft devices from being effective protection against theft. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency finds that BMW has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the X3 vehicle line will reduce and deter theft. The agency concludes that the device will provide four of the five types of performance listed in § 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. The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices for which the agency has previously approved exemptions, including the BMW X5 line, BMW 6 line, BMW 7 line, the BMW Z4 line and the MINI vehiche line. In addition, the X3 vehicle line, which has had the device as standard equipment since the 2004 model year, has a theft rate below the median theft rate. This conclusion is based on the information BMW provided about the device for the BMW X3 vehicle line. For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full BMW's petition for exemption for the X3 vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2007 model year. 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 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 BMW 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 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts). NHTSA notes that if BMW 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 anti-theft device on which the lines's exemption is based. Further, § 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 § 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: December 15, 2006. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 06-9959 Filed 1-3-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 9

Traces to 9 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

16 references not yet in our index