Rules and Regulations. Notice of intent

34,042 words·~155 min read·/register/2007/04/09/07-1738

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

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: Clackamas County, Oregon AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration, Oregon Department of Transportation, and Clackamas County, Oregon. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)is issuing this notice of intent to advise agencies and the public that an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)will be prepared to assess the impacts of a proposed transportation project on Harmony Road in Clackamas County, Oregon. DATES: A public scoping meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 9, 2007 at the Sunnybrook Service Center Auditorium, 9101 SE., Sunnybrook Blvd., Clackamas, OR 97015. The public scoping meeting will include an open house from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. and informational presentations at 4:30, 5, 5:30, 6, and 6:30 p.m. The informational presentation will be followed by a question and answer period. An agency scoping meeting will be held on May 10, 2007 at the Oregon Department of Transportation, 123 NW Flanders, Room 344, Portland, OR 97209. The agency scoping meeting will be from 2:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Graham, P.E., Operations Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 530 Center Street NE., Suite 100, Salem, OR 97301, Telephone:

(503)587-4727 or Ron Weinman, Principal Transportation Planner, Clackamas County, 9101 SE., Sunnybrook Blvd., Clackamas, OR 97015, Telephone:

(503)353-4533. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FHWA, in cooperation with the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), and Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Development, will prepare an EIS on a proposal to improve the transportation system in the SE Harmony Road corridor, from SE 82th Avenue to State Highway 224 (approximately 1.5 miles). The project will consider alignment and improvement options on SE Harmony Road and intersections at SE Railroad Avenue/SE Linwood Avenue and SE Lake Road/SE International Way. In addition, the project study will consider alignment options for the extension of SE Sunnybrook Boulevard west of SE 82nd Avenue and its western terminus. A significant project consideration is grade separation of the road and the Union Pacific rail line at the Harmony Road/Linwood Avenue/Railroad Avenue intersection. Improvements to the corridor are considered necessary to enhance safety and to reduce congestion associated with existing and projected traffic demand. Levels of service at intersections in the area are currently failing and are anticipated to worsen without improvements. By 2030, the number of households in the study area is expected to increase by 24 percent and the number of jobs by 43 percent. Growth is anticipated in association with planned development in and around the extension of regional light-rail service to the Clackamas Regional Center, which encompasses the Harmony Road corridor and is adopted in the Metro 2040 Growth Concept. The at-grade railroad mainline that crosses on the southwest side of the Harmony Road/Linwood Avenue/Railroad Avenue intersection is part of the future high-speed rail corridor between Eugene, OR and Vancouver, BC. Operation of high-speed passenger trains along this corridor mandates grade separation of the rail line and the roadway for safety and operational purposes. Currently, there are approximately 6 passenger trains and 24 freight trains crossing at this location each day, resulting in an average daily gate activation time of 150 minutes. These train crossings further burden the Harmony Road corridor with traffic delay. The EIS will identify transportation needs and deficiencies in the project study area, including mobility, access, system linkages and continuity, and safety. The range of evaluated transportation alternatives in the EIS will be developed to meet the identified project purpose and need. Potential alternatives and combinations thereof may include but are not limited to:

(1)Taking no action;

(2)adding capacity to existing roadways;

(3)extending Sunnybrook Boulevard to the west of SE 82nd Avenue and determining its alignment and terminus;

(4)redesigning intersections along Harmony Road at Linwood Avenue/Railroad Avenue and Lake Road/International Way;

(5)grade separating the road from the railroad crossing at the Harmony Road/Linwood Avenue/Railroad Avenue intersection; and

(6)improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Design variations of potential alternatives will also be studied, as appropriate. The EIS will be initiated with a scoping process. The scoping process will include a program of public outreach and agency coordination conducted over the next several months in order to elicit input on project purpose and need, potential alternatives, significant and insignificant issues, and collaborative methods of analyzing transportation alternatives and environmental impacts. In total, the public outreach program will include multiple public meetings conducted by Clackamas County as well as coordination with two stakeholder committees—one committee comprised of community and technical representatives and the other committee comprised of policy level representatives. A public hearing will be held in connection with the release of the draft EIS. Public notice will be given regarding the time and place of the public meetings and hearing. An Internet Web site ( *http://www.harmonyroadea.org* ) and other communication media will be utilized throughout the process to provide public information and to receive comments. All comments and input received during the EIS process will be considered and documented. The FHWA, ODOT, and Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Development will evaluate significant transportation, environmental, social, and economic impacts of the project alternatives. Potential areas of impact include: Neighborhoods, Section 4(f) resources, environmental justice, and natural resources. All impacts will be evaluated for both the construction period and long-term period of operation. Measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate any significant adverse impacts will be developed. Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties, to ensure that the full range of issues related to this project are addressed and all significant issues are identified. Comments or questions regarding the proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA or Clackamas County at the address provided above. (Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315) Dated: April 2, 2007. Jeff Graham, Operations Engineer, FHWA Oregon Division. [FR Doc. E7-6580 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration [FHWA Docket No. FHWA-05-22706] Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensed Driver Information AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: On January 6, 2006, the FHWA published a notice in the **Federal Register** at 71 FR 969 to solicit public comments on the quality, timeliness, comprehensiveness, and other characteristics of data collected on motor vehicle registration and licensed driver information. Based on public comments received, the FHWA has determined to make a change to the driver's license data definition for teenage drivers, to eliminate the collection of information on disqualified commercial drivers licenses, and to develop enhanced software to receive and process motor vehicle registration and licensed driver data more efficiently. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ralph Erickson, Office of Highway Policy Information,

(202)366-9235, or Mr. Wilbert Baccus, Office of Chief Counsel,

(202)366-1396, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Electronic Access and Filing:* Internet users may access this document, the initial notice, and all comments received by the U.S. DOT Docket Facility by using the Universal Resource Locator

(URL)*http://dms.dot.gov* . It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. Electronic submission and retrieval help and guidelines are available under the help section of the Web site. An electronic copy of this document may also be downloaded by accessing the Office of the Federal Register's home page at *http://www.archives.gov* and from the Government Printing Office's Web page at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara.* *Background:* The FHWA collects and publishes motor vehicle registration and licensed driver information obtained from the States and the District of Columbia. This information is collected from State departments of transportation pursuant to 23 CFR 420.105 and is published in *Highway Statistics* . 1 1 *Highway Statistics* is an annual report containing analyzed data on motor fuel, motor vehicles, driver licensing, highway user taxation, State and local highway finance, highway mileage, and other selected data. This report has been published each year since 1945. It is available at the following URL: *http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohpi/hss.* The information in *Highway Statistics* plays a key role in the development of Federal highway legislation. The information is used in preparing legislatively required reports to Congress, in evaluating highway safety programs, and, in general, as an aid to highway planning, programming, budgeting, forecasting, and fiscal management. This information is also used extensively in the evaluation of Federal, State, and local highway programs. In recent years, FHWA has implemented several reassessment efforts to assure that *Highway Statistics* data remains up-to-date and relevant for current purposes. On January 6, 2006, the FHWA published a notice in the **Federal Register** at 71 FR 969 to solicit public comments on the quality, timeliness, comprehensiveness, and other characteristics of the driver license data. Based on the public comments received, the FHWA has determined to make a change to the data definition of teenage driver to reflect more accurately the actual number of teens driving, to eliminate the collection of information on disqualified commercial drivers licenses, and to update the software used to collect the motor vehicle registration and licensed driver information from the States. Actions Taken to Date Teenage Drivers In the past, FHWA's definition of a licensed driver has been “[a] person that can drive inclusively between the hours of 5 a.m. and Midnight without another licensed driver in the vehicle.” However, State drivers license laws have changed significantly in recent years, especially in the area of teenage drivers. Now, all 50 States and the District of Columbia have some form of graduated licensing for teenage drivers. Some States prohibit teens from driving unless accompanied by a supervisory driver. Other States prohibit teens from driving during certain hours of the day. And still other States may allow nighttime teenage driving, but only with adult supervision. A full definition of Graduated Driver's License can be found in Section 1313.5(d) in the following National Highway Traffic Safety Administration URL: *http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/GrantMan/HTML/24b_Sec410T21Reg_23CFR1313.html* . As such, the past FHWA data definition is very narrow in view of recent State law changes on teen-age drivers. The Office of Highway Policy Information disseminated a memorandum to FHWA Division Offices on September 6, 2006, revising its instructions for Form-562 State Driver License and Fees, with instructions to forward the material to the State data providers. The revised instructions will also be incorporated into Chapter 4 of A Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics (Guide). Since this change does not create an additional burden for data collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act requirements, the Office of Highway Policy Information will revise the Guide within 3 months of publication of this notice. This revised definition is intended to be more detailed in the types of licenses teen-aged drivers obtain. The new definition reads: Teenage Graduated Drivers Licenses: Graduated licenses are defined as driver licenses that have some restriction placed on the driver to provide basic driving experience under optimal conditions or under the supervision of more experienced drivers, but restrict driving in certain less than optimal conditions, such as driving at night. The new definition is effective for Highway Statistics—2006. Thus, when preparing Form FHWA-562 (State Drivers Licenses and Fees), data providers should use the new definition for the State's 2006 data, either fiscal year or calendar year. The revised data definition is not a new data requirement; it is a re-definition of already required data. Disqualified Commercial Drivers Licenses In addition, FHWA has determined that the data collected on page four of the FHWA Form 562—data concerning the number of Commercial Driver's Licenses disqualified—is no longer necessary. FHWA collected this data for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, but now that organization collects this data in its business procedures. Hence, it is redundant for FHWA to also collect the data. Data Quality The FHWA received many comments regarding overall data quality. FHWA is addressing this concern through improved software to significantly reduce reporting inconsistencies. Under the mandates of E-Government initiatives, the FHWA is developing enhanced software to receive and process motor vehicle registration and licensed driver data more efficiently. The questions asked will remain the same, but the software used to collect the information will ease data submittal and will result in more accurate reporting. This enhanced software, once developed, will enable State data providers to take advantage of more advanced submittal and editing features that can significantly reduce reporting time and errors. With respect to enhanced software, FHWA is in the process of making software improvements to the features in the following form templates: • FHWA Form 561—State Motor Vehicle Registrations, Registration Fees and Miscellaneous Receipts; • FHWA Form 562—State Driver Licenses and Fees; • FHWA Form 566—State Motor Vehicle Registration and Other Receipts; • FHWA Form 571—Receipts from State Taxation of Motor Vehicles Operated for Hire and Other Motor Carriers. The FHWA anticipates that the enhanced software containing these revised form templates will be released and distributed to the States mid-2007, allowing sufficient time for the FHWA to train States in preparation for the 2008 release of Highway Statistics—2007. The FHWA notes that any revisions to the software will result in template and format changes only, and with the exception of the elimination of page four of the FHWA Form 562, will not change the type or quantity of data collected. Revision of the forms will involve some additional paperwork burden on the data providers in transition to the new forms and learning how the new forms function, but will also reduce the paperwork burden over time as the automated forms will take less time to complete. A discussion of the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act follows. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA)(44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq.* ), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The FHWA has determined that this proposal contains collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA. In March 2006, The Office of Management and Budget approved FHWA's Paperwork Reduction Act Submission (OMB Control Number 2125-0032), extending FHWA's authority to collect this data for an additional 3 years (until March 2009). The overall annual burden of collecting driver's license and motor vehicle registration data from the States is estimated to be 4,182 hours. See below for the breakout of the estimated burden hours by Form: FHWA form Collection period Total hours Assumptions FHWA-561 Annual 1,632 32 Hours/50StatesDC/Year. FHWA-562 Annual 714 14.0 Hours/50StatesDC/Year. FHWA-566 Annual 1,224 24 Hours/50StatesDC/Year. FHWA-571 Annual 612 12 Hours/50StatesDC/Year. Total 4,182 The FHWA is required to periodically submit this proposed collection of information to OMB for review and approval and, accordingly, seeks public comments. Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of these information collection requirements, including, but not limited to:

(1)Whether the collection of information is necessary for the performance of the functions of the FHWA, including whether the information has practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of the estimated burden;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collection of information; and

(4)ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the information collected. Issued on: March 30, 2007. J. Richard Capka, Federal Highway Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-6531 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket No. MARAD-2007-27794] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel JO. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2007-27794 at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before May 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2007-27794. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/.* All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel JO is: *Intended Use:* “fewer than 6 passengers for hire”. *Geographic Region:* Washington State. Privacy Act 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, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Dated: April 3, 2007. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Daron T. Threet, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E7-6547 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket No. MARAD-2007-27796] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel GENESIS. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2007-27796 at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before May 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2007-27796. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/* . All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel GENESIS is: Intended Use: “Passenger transport, Scuba diving charter.” Geographic Region: Coastal and Inland waters of FL, GA, SC, NC, VA, MD, NJ, DE, NY, MA, CT, RI, ME, AL, MS, LA, TX. Privacy Act 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, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov* . Dated: April 3, 2007. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Daron T. Threet, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E7-6546 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket No. MARAD-2007-27795] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel PROSIT. SUMMARY: As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383 and Pub. L. 107-295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD-2007-27795 at *http://dms.dot.gov.* Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before May 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2007-27795. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at *http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/.* All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at *http://dms.dot.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel PROSIT is: *Intended Use:* “sailing school, charter”. *Geographic Region:* Washington and Alaska (excluding Southeast Alaska). Privacy Act 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, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit *http://dms.dot.gov.* Dated: April 3, 2007. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Daron T. Threet, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E7-6548 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-81-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-27802] Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation (NHTSA). ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of information. SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This document proposes to consolidate four existing collections of information into two collections, and seeks comments accordingly. The first information collection proposes consolidatation of OMB control numbers 2127-0511, “49 CFR 571.213, Child Restraint Systems,” and 2127-0576, “Child Safety Seat Registration,” into a new one. Thus, all child restraint labeling and registration requirements would be included in one information collection entitled “Consolidated Child Restraint System Registration, Labeling and Defect Notifications” (OMB Control Number: 2127-0576). The second information collection proposes to merge the existing OMB control number 2127-0038, “49 CFR 571.205, Glazing Materials,” into 2127-0512, “Consolidated Labeling Requirements for Motor Vehicles (except the VIN).” DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that Docket Management receives them no later than June 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments [identified by DOT DMS Docket Number NHTSA-2007-27802] by any of the following methods: • *Web site:http://dms.dot.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0003. • *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. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the agency name and docket number for this collection. It is requested, but not required, that two copies of the comments be provided. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading under Regulatory Notices. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://dms.dot.gov* at any time or to 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complete copies of each request for collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Mr. Maurice Hicks, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5320, NVS-113, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Hicks' telephone number is

(202)366-6345. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB Control Number. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a document in the **Federal Register** providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:

(i)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(ii)The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(iii)How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

(iv)How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of responses. In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments on the following proposed collections of information: (1.) *Title:* Consolidated Child Restraint System Registration, Labeling and Defect Notifications.” *OMB Control Number:* 2127-0576. *Requested Expiration Date of Approval:* Three years from the approval date. *Type of Request:* Consolidation of OMB control numbers 2127-0511, “49 CFR 571.213, Child Restraint Systems,” and 2127-0576, “Child Safety Seat Registration.” *Affected Public:* Business, Individuals and Households. *Summary of the Collection of Information:* This action consolidates two existing collections of information. In the previous collections of information:

(1)A collection was established to require manufacturers to provide owner registration cards and to label each child restraint system

(CRS)with a message informing users of the importance of registering the device with the manufacturer, and

(2)another collection was issued to allow NHTSA to implement a registration program to send CRS owners a substitute registration form if owners had lost the registration card. Furthermore, in the second collection, it was also required that if either NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a CRS contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety or fails to comply with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, pursuant to Chapter 301 of title 49 of the United States, the manufacturer must notify owners and purchasers of the defect or noncompliance and must provide a remedy without charge. The proposed revised collection will consolidate these provisions. Child restraint manufacturers are required to provide an owner's registration card for purchasers of child safety seats in accordance with title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), part 571-section 213, “Child Restraint Systems.” The registration card is perforated into two-parts (see Figures 1 and 2). The top part contains a message and suitable instructions to be retained by the purchaser. The bottom part is to be returned to the manufacturer by the purchaser. The bottom part includes prepaid return postage, the pre-printed name/address of the manufacturer, the pre-printed model and date of manufacture, and spaces for the purchaser to fill in his/her name and address. Optionally, child restraint manufacturers are permitted to add to the registration form:

(a)Specified statements informing CRS owners that they may register online;

(b)the Internet address for registering with the company;

(c)revisions to statements reflecting use of the Internet to register; and

(d)a space for the consumer's e-mail address. For those CRS owners with access to the Internet, online registration may be a preferred method of registering a CRS. In addition to the registration card supplied by the manufacturer, NHTSA has implemented a CRS registration system to assist those individuals who have either lost the registration card that came with the CRS or purchased a previously owned CRS. Upon the owner's request, NHTSA provides a substitute registration form that can be obtained either by mail or from the Internet 1 (see Figure 3). When the completed registration is returned to the agency, it is then submitted to the CRS manufacturers. In the absence of a substitute registration system, many owners of child passenger safety seats, especially any second-hand owners, might not be notified of safety defects and noncompliances, and would not have the defects and noncompliances remedied. 1 *http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Articles/Associated%20Files/csregfrm.pdf.* Child seat owner registration information is retained in the event that owners need to be contacted for defect recalls or replacement campaigns. Chapter 301 of title 49 of the United States Code specifies that if either NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment contain a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety or fail to comply with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, the manufacturer must notify owners and purchasers of the defect or noncompliance and must provide a remedy without charge. In title 49 of the CFR, part 577, defect and noncompliance notification for equipment items, including child restraint systems, must be sent by first class mail to the most recent purchaser known to the manufacturer. Child restraint manufacturers are also required to provide a printed instructions brochure with step-by-step information on how the restraint is to be used. Without proper use, the effectiveness of these systems is greatly diminished. Each child restraint system must also have a permanent label. A permanently attached label gives “quicklook” information on whether the restraint meets the safety requirements, recommended installation and use, and warnings against misuse. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 265,500 hours. *Number of Respondents:* 15. The total burden hours for this collection consist of:

(1)The administrative hours spent to produce registration cards and labels,

(2)the hours spent collecting registration information, and

(3)the hours spent by CRS manufacturers to create and keep records. Currently, approximately 15 CRS manufacturers produce,[ras1] on average, a total of approximately 4,500,000 child restraints each year. [ras2] NHTSA has determined that approximately 1,575,000 owners or purchasers register (i.e., either by registration card, NHTSA registration form or by the Internet) their child seats with the CRS manufacturers each year (an estimated 35 percent return rate x 4,500,000 restraints). For each child restraint system, a CRS manufactures must spend 0.025 hours to cut/print, label and to attach a registration card. A manufacturer must also spend 0.04 hours to collect the information for each returned registration and then spend a total of 0.02 hours to create and keep a record on each child restraint system. Given these estimates, the estimated total annual burden hours for this collection of information are 265,500 hours. This number reflects the combination of 112,500 hours to produce materials (0.025 hours per seat × 4,500,000 child restraints), 63,000 hours to collect registrations (0.04 hours per seat × 1,575,000 registrations) and 90,000 hours to create and keep records (0.02 hours per seat × 4,500,000 child restraints) each year.

(2)*Title:* Consolidated Labeling Requirements for Motor Vehicles (Except the VIN). *OMB Control Number:* 2127-0512. *Requested Expiration Date of Approval:* Three years from the approval date. *Type of Request:* Consolidation of OMB control numbers 2127-0038, “49 CFR 571.205, Glazing Materials,” and 2127-0512, “Consolidated Labeling Requirements for Motor Vehicles (except the VIN).” *Affected Public:* Business. *Summary of the Collection of Information:* Because of the similarities in the collections of information, NHTSA seeks to combine the provisions of the existing collection for glazing materials labeling into a collection for labeling information for five other Federal motor vehicle safety standards. 49 U.S.C. 30111 authorizes the issuance of Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and regulations. The agency, in prescribing a FMVSS or regulation, considers available relevant motor vehicle safety data, and consults with other agencies, as it deems appropriate. Further, the statute mandates that in issuing any FMVSS or regulation, the agency considers whether the standard or regulation is ”reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed,” and whether such a standard will contribute to carrying out the purpose of the Act. The Secretary is authorized to invoke such rules and regulations as deemed necessary to carry out these requirements. Using this authority, the agency issued the following FMVSS and regulations, specifying labeling requirements to aid the agency in achieving many of its safety goals: FMVSS No. 105, “Hydraulic and electric brake systems,” FMVSS No. 135, “Passenger car brake systems,” FMVSS No. 205, “Glazing materials,” FMVSS No. 209, “Seat belt assemblies,” Part 567, “Certification.” This notice requests comments on the labeling requirements of these FMVSS and regulations. *Description of the need for the information and proposed use of the information:* In order to ensure that manufacturers are complying with the FMVSS and regulations, NHTSA requires a number of specific labeling requirements in FMVSS Nos. 105, 135, 205, 209 and part 567. FMVSS No. 105, ”Hydraulic and electric brake systems” and FMVSS No. 135, ”Passenger car brake systems,” require that each vehicle shall have a brake fluid warning statement in letters at least one-eighth of a inch high on the master cylinder reservoirs and located so as to be visible by direct view. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, ”Glazing materials,” provides labeling requirements for glazing and motor vehicle manufacturers. In accordance with the standard, NHTSA requires each new motor vehicle glazing manufacturer to request and be assigned a unique mark or number. This number is then used by the manufacturer as their unique company identification on their self-certification label on each piece of motor vehicle glazing. As part of that certification label, the company must identify itself with the simple two or three digit number assigned by the agency. FMVSS No. 205 requires that manufacturers mark their automotive glazing with certain label information including: Manufacturer's distinctive trademark; Manufacturer's ”DOT” code number; Model of glazing (there are currently 21 items of glazing ranging from plastic windows to bullet resistant windshields). In addition to these requirements, which apply to all glazings, certain specialty items such as standee windows in buses, roof openings, and interior partitions made of plastic require that the manufacturer affix a removable label to each item. The label specifies cleaning instructions to minimize the loss of transparency. Other information may be provided by the manufacturer but is not required. FMVSS No. 209, ”Seat belt assemblies,” requires safety belts to be labeled with the year of manufacture, the model, and the name or trademark of the manufacturer (S4.1(j)). Additionally, replacement safety belts that are for use only in specifically stated motor vehicles must have labels or accompanying instruction sheets to specify the applicable vehicle models and seating positions (S4.1(k)). All other replacement belts are required to be accompanied by an installation instruction sheet (S4.1(k)). Seat belt assemblies installed as original equipment in new motor vehicles need not be labeled with position/model information. Part 567, “Certification,” responds to 49 U.S.C. 30111 that requires each manufacturer or distributor of motor vehicles to furnish to the dealer or distributor of the vehicle a certification that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS. This certification is required by that provision to be in the form of a label permanently affixed to the vehicle. Under 49 U.S.C. 32504, vehicle manufacturers are directed to make a similar certification with regard to bumper standards. To implement this requirement, NHTSA issued 49 CFR part 567. The agency's regulations establish form and content requirements for the certification labels. *Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information):* NHTSA anticipates that approximately 21 new prime glazing manufacturers per year will contact the agency and request a manufacturer identification number. These new glazing manufacturers must submit one letter, one time, identifying their company. In turn, the agency responds by assigning them a unique manufacturer number. For other collections in this notice, no response is necessary from manufacturers. These labels are only required to be placed on each master cylinder reservoir, each safety belt and every motor vehicle intended for retail sale in the United States. Therefore, the number of respondents is not applicable. *Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Resulting from the Collection of Information:* Based upon previous notice and comments for those information collections, NHTSA estimates that all manufacturers will need a total of 73,071 hours to comply with these requirements, at a total annual cost of $1,096,065. *Comments are invited on:* Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c); delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Issued in Washington, DC, on April 2, 2007. Roger A. Saul, Director, Crashworthiness Standards. BILLING CODE 4910-59-P EN09AP07.008 EN09AP07.009 EN09AP07.010 [FR Doc. E7-6523 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-C DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation. SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a petition (DP06-004) submitted by Mr. Eric Moening. In his petition, dated August 23, 2006, the petitioner requests the agency to remedy a failure of his model year

(MY)1999 Ford Contour to “comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 Occupant Crash Protection.” He describes the failure on his vehicle as instrument panel warping, and he believes that the warping may adversely affect performance of the air bag system or create loose instrument panel components (such as the defrost bezel) that could “become projectiles during air bag deployments.” After a review of the petition and other information, including the results of NHTSA's own testing, NHTSA has concluded that further expenditure of the agency's resources on the issue raised by the petition is not warranted. The agency accordingly denies the petition. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Cynthia Glass, Vehicle Integrity Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:

(202)366-2920. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 23, 2006, NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation

(ODI)received a petition submitted by Mr. Eric Moening (hereinafter identified as the petitioner), requesting that NHTSA “remedy a failure” of the instrument panel of his MY 1999 Ford Contour so that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208. The petitioner alleges that his instrument panel has warped and the defrost bezel rattles. He contends that “improperly retained instrument panel components can be detrimental to the desired performance of front air bag deployments as well as become projectiles during air bag deployments.” Federal law prohibits manufacturers from selling motor vehicles and equipment that do not comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)(1). However, this prohibition does not apply after the first purchase of the vehicle or equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1). The petitioner alleges that the problem with his vehicle first began to develop at least three years after its first purchase. Accordingly, the alleged facts provide no basis for a compliance investigation. NHTSA has no authority to intervene in disputes between an individual and a manufacturer with regard to repairs unrelated to safety recalls. However, because the petitioner has characterized his letter as a “petition”, we are construing his letter as a request for a defect investigation into warping of the leading edge of the dashboard in MY 1999-2000 Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 30162. Under 49 U.S.C. 30166, NHTSA has the authority to conduct an investigation to consider whether a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect. In addition, any interested person may file a petition under 49 U.S.C. 30162 requesting that NHTSA begin a proceeding to decide whether to issue an order under § 30118. NHTSA is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30118(b) to make a determination that a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. If NHTSA makes such a determination, NHTSA issues an order directing the manufacturer of the vehicle or equipment to notify the owners, purchasers and dealers of the defect and to remedy the defect under § 30120. As a practical matter, NHTSA's grant of a petition under § 30162 begins an investigation that may or may not result in a recall. In determining whether to grant or deny a petition under § 30162, NHTSA conducts a technical review of the petition. 49 CFR 552.6. This review may consist of an analysis of the material submitted, together with the information already in possession of the agency or acquired in the course of the review. NHTSA has discretion to decide which matters are worthy of investigation and a possible recall order. In addition to the technical merits of the petition, NHTSA may consider additional factors, such as the allocation of agency resources, agency priorities, and the likelihood of success of litigation that might arise from the order sought by the petitioner. 49 CFR 552.8. As noted above, if NHTSA grants the petition, an investigation is commenced to determine the existence of the defect. 49 CFR 552.9. In August 2001, the petitioner received a letter from Ford Motor Company describing Ford's Customer Satisfaction Program Number 01B78 (01B78). Ford initiated this program in August 2001, and it was in effect through August 31, 2002. Ford offered free repair of any 1999 and 2000 Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique vehicle experiencing panel warping at the front edge of the instrument panel cover near the windshield. Initially, Ford offered customers a dealer inspection of the instrument panel and a free repair as required. Ford instructed dealers to repair all vehicles with a panel repair kit unless the warping was greater than 2 inches at the defroster grill opening. For vehicles with greater than 2 inches warping, Ford instructed dealers to replace the instrument panel. Ford issued to Ford and Lincoln Mercury dealers two supplements to the original 01B78 program that superseded each preceding program. In December 2001, Ford issued Supplement #1 (01B78S1), which provided a revision of the original repair procedure to “address some dealer-identified issues.” 01B78S1 did not affect Ford's policy of replacing the instrument panel only when the panel warping is greater than 2 inches and repairing other vehicles with a panel repair kit. In May 2002, Ford issued Supplement #2 (01B78S2), which provided a revised repair procedure that “requires the use of a new repair kit that includes a new defroster grille cover that is placed on top of the defroster grille.” 01B78S2 also provided that “[i]nstrument panel replacement is no longer covered under this program.” And, 01B78S2 states that, “All vehicles that have not had 01B78 or 01B78S1 completed, regardless of whether the warpage is visible or not, should be serviced as soon as possible before expiration of this program.” Neither 01B78S1 nor 01B78S2 changed the program's August 31, 2002, expiration date. In February 2003, after Customer Satisfaction Program Number 01B78 expired, Ford issued technical service bulletin “TSB 03-4-6, Trim—Instrument Panel Warpage Repair.” This TSB described Ford's most current repair procedure for a warped instrument panel, which was identical to the procedure provided in 01B78S2. The TSB did not extend the expiration date of the offer for free repair that had now expired. The petitioner indicates that when he took his car into his Lincoln-Mercury dealership in 2001 in response to 01B78, the dealership advised him that his vehicle “was not in need of repair.” He reports that, by late 2002, his vehicle began to show signs of the instrument panel warping and that by spring 2006, “the defrost bezel began to rattle.” In July 2006, he contacted the same dealership and “was told that this $400 repair would not be covered [under the TSB]” because his vehicle was past warranty coverage (36,000 miles/3 years). Determining an appropriate response to Mr. Moening's petition requires assessment of the potential safety consequences of the alleged defect. A review of NHTSA's consumer complaint database for the MY 1999 and 2000 Ford Contour and Mercury Mystique vehicles in February 2007 revealed 302 complaints regarding instrument panel warping. Most of the complaints report that the warping of the instrument panel reduces forward visibility or degrades the performance of the defroster. Other complaints indicate that the repair performed by the dealer was only a temporary fix and the problem returned. A considerable number of complaints express concern that the instrument panel warping may affect the performance of the air bag system, either by causing the air bag to deploy prematurely or by hindering proper inflation of the air bag. However, as of November 2006 there were no reports of actual improper deployments, nor were there reports of injuries, crashes or loss of control because of instrument panel warping while driving the subject vehicle. NHTSA evaluated forward visibility from the driver's seating position in a subject vehicle, a 1999 Ford Contour, with a warped instrument panel (more than 3 inches of vertical warping at the centerline of the vehicle) and compared this to the forward visibility in the vehicle with the warped portion of the instrument panel held down in its proper position. Also, NHTSA used for comparison two other vehicles: a 2000 Ford Contour with an unwarped instrument panel and a peer vehicle, a 2005 Saturn Ion with an unwarped instrument panel. NHTSA evaluated the visibility using both a 12-inch and a 28-inch tall traffic cone placed at various positions in front of the subject and peer vehicles. NHTSA selected three subject drivers; two were short females (4′9″ and 5′3″ tall) and the other a tall male (6′1″). NHTSA recorded the minimum distance from the front of the vehicle to the cone that allowed the driver to see the top of the cone. When conducting the test using the 28-inch cone, there were negligible visibility differences between the subject and peer vehicles for all three drivers. Similarly, when conducting the test using the 12-inch cone, there were negligible visibility differences when each driver viewed the cone through the portion of the windshield directly in front of the driver. However, in order for each short female to see the top of the 12-inch cone through the right side of the windshield of the 1999 Contour with the warped instrument panel, the cone needed to be moved two feet further from the vehicle than was necessary for the same driver to see the same cone through the same portion of the windshield for either the 1999 Contour with the instrument panel held down or the 2000 Contour with the unwarped instrument panel. The practical effect of this difference is minimal: the smallest drivers still have a clear view as they approach such a small object (12 inches or less), but could lose sight of such an object if it is off to the right of their forward field of vision just two feet sooner than a taller driver would. We believe that the observed slight reduction in one portion of the field of view that might be experienced by the smallest of drivers fails to demonstrate any material effect on safety. This conclusion is supported by the absence of any report in the agency's complaint database of alleged loss of control or crash attributed to this problem for these vehicles, which have now acquired nearly 8 years of field experience. NHTSA also evaluated the ability of the defroster in a 1999 Ford Contour with a warped instrument panel to clear the windshield of heavy early morning frost. NHTSA compared these results with the performance of the defrosters in three other vehicles with unwarped instrument panels: a 2000 Ford Contour, a 2005 Saturn Ion and a 1999 Volvo S80. The comparison demonstrated that the defroster in the subject vehicle with the warped instrument panel, though functional, required approximately three to four minutes longer to clear most of the frost from the windshield compared with the other vehicles. However we do not find this reduction in the speed of the defroster's performance to be a likely safety hazard. The defroster is still capable of performing its intended function. The principal concern expressed by the petitioner was the potential for warping of the instrument panel to degrade the performance of the air bag system. As of November 2006, NHTSA's consumer complaint database contained no allegations that instrument panel warping affected the actual deployment of the passenger air bag, nor are there reports of instrument panel components becoming projectiles during air bag deployments. Through examination of the construction of the instrument panel on a subject vehicle, NHTSA determined that warping of the instrument panel is confined to the surface materials of the instrument panel, and does not extend to the supporting structure of the air bag system. Based on a review of the agency's complaint database and examination of subject vehicles, we find no evidence that the warping of the instrument panel could cause either inappropriate deployment of the passenger air bag, impede proper deployment of the passenger air bag, or block the air bag deployment path. Based on a review of the petitioner's request and the information provided above, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an order for the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect at the conclusion of an investigation. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, the petition is denied. This action does not constitute a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The agency will take further action if warranted by future circumstances. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. E7-6545 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P 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 Impreza 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. In a letter dated November 27, 2006, the agency granted the petitioner's request for confidential treatment of the indicated areas of its petition. DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with model year

(MY)2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is

(202)366-0846. Her fax number is

(202)493-2290. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated October 31, 2006, FUSA requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Subaru Impreza vehicle line, beginning with the 2008 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 § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for one line 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 Impreza vehicle line. FUSA stated that all Impreza vehicles will be equipped with a passive, transponder-based electronic immobilizer device as standard equipment beginning with MY 2008. Features of the antitheft device will include an electronic key, a passive immobilizer system which includes a key ring antenna and an engine control unit (ECU). The 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 (key not removed). The device will also have a visible and audible alarm feature. The alarm system will monitor the door status and key identification. Unauthorized opening of a door will activate the alarm system horn and 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. In a letter dated November 27, 2006, NHTSA granted FUSA confidential treatment for the test information. FUSA provided a list of the tests it conducted. FUSA based its belief that the device is reliable and durable on the fact that the device complied with the specific requirements for each test. FUSA stated that theft rates for its Subaru vehicles have typically been low and that based on the most recent National Insurance Crime Bureau's

(NICB)state-by-state theft results, only in 2 out 48 states, including the District of Columbia have any Subaru vehicle appeared in the top ten list of stolen vehicles. Review of the theft rates published by the agency through MY/CY 2004 also revealed that, while there is some variation, the theft rates for Subaru vehicles has on average, remained below the median theft rate of 3.5826. On December 21, 2006, by email, FUSA provided a list of similar devices for which NHTSA has already granted parts marking exemptions. FUSA believes that this comparison supports its claim that its MY 2008 immobilizer device will be at least as effective in reducing theft as similar devices for which the agency has already granted exemptions. Additionally, FUSA referred to the most recent Highway Loss Data Institute's

(HLDI)reports that support the effectiveness of immobilizing antitheft devices and believes that the enhancement of electronic immobilization will further help to reduce its lower theft rates. 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 § 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 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 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, § 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: April 3, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-6527 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2007-27437; Notice 1] Grote Industries, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Grote Industries, LLC (Grote) has determined that the amber reflex reflectors on certain trucks manufactured between 2004 through 2007 do not comply with S5.1.5 of 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.” Grote has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, “Defect and Noncompliance Reports.” Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Grote has petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. This notice of receipt of Grote's petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition. Affected are approximately 137,050 reflex reflectors that have been sold for installation as original equipment on trucks and were manufactured between December 28, 2004 and January 22, 2007. S5.1.5 of FMVSS No. 108 requires: The color in all lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment to which this standard applies shall comply with SAE Standard J578c, Color Specification for Electric Signal Lighting Devices, February 1977. The reflex reflectors do not contain the correct reflective material required to meet the requirements of S5.1.5. Grote has corrected the problem that caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future production. Grote believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Grote first became aware of the noncompliance of these reflex reflectors when a report was received from one of its customers who noticed a shipment of reflex reflectors it had received from Grote were a different color than previous shipments. The customer was supposed to receive amber reflex reflectors that met the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 for use as front side-mounted and intermediate side-mounted reflex reflectors. This noncompliance pertains solely to the failure of these reflectors to meet the applicable color requirements. The subject reflex reflectors were manufactured for Grote by a third-party supplier. The third-party supplier incorporated reflective tape that it purchased from a reflective material supplier. Based on the results of tests conducted for Grote, Grote believes the intermediate supplier had been using retroreflective tape that was manufactured to the specification for “selective yellow,” instead of the correct specification for “amber,” as set forth in the SAE J578c requirement. The intermediate supplier was operating under a certification letter from the reflective material supplier, which erroneously listed the material as compliant. Grote believes the failure of these reflex reflectors to meet the color specification does not reduce their effectiveness in providing proper visibility to allow identification of the front and (where applicable) intermediate side points of a vehicle. Grote believes the difference between compliant amber reflex reflectors and the subject noncompliant selective yellow colored reflex reflectors is barely discernible to the naked eye when reflected with “Illuminant A” light under conditions of ambient darkness. Such conditions are intended to imitate nighttime driving conditions when reflex reflectors serve their primary purpose. Grote states that it knows of no accidents or other issues associated with this noncompliance. The noncompliant reflex reflectors continue to perform their intended function without any identifiable reduction in safety. Therefore, Grote believes that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that all other requirements under FMVSS No. 108 are met. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by any of the following methods. *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It is requested, but not required, that two copies of the comments be provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except Federal Holidays. Comments may be submitted electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at *http://dms.dot.gov* . Click on “Help” to obtain instructions for filing the document electronically. Comments may be faxed to 1-202-493-2251, or may be submitted to the *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the **Federal Register** pursuant to the authority indicated below. *Comment closing date:* May 9, 2007. (Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8) Issued on: April 3, 2007. Claude H. Harris, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. [FR Doc. E7-6462 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25546, Notice 2] Koenigsegg Automotive AB; Response to Application for a Temporary Exemption From the Headlamp Requirements of FMVSS No. 108; Advanced Air Bag Requirements of FMVSS No. 208 AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Grant of application for temporary exemption from certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* , and from certain provisions of FMVSS No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* . SUMMARY: This document grants the Koenigsegg Automotive AB (“Koenigsegg”) application 1 for temporary exemption from certain advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* , and from the headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108 through December 31, 2009. These exemptions apply to the Koenigsegg CCX. In accordance with 49 CFR Part 555, the basis for the grant is that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard, and the exemption would have a negligible impact on motor vehicle safety. 1 While Koenigsegg also petitioned for an exemption from the 49 CFR Part 581 Bumper Standard, it subsequently withdrew that portion of its petition ( *see* Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25546-4). In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2), we published a notice of receipt of the application 2 in the **Federal Register** and asked for public comments. 3 We received no comments on the application. 2 To view the application, go to: *http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm* and enter Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25546. 3 *See* 71 FR 50974 (August 28, 2006) (Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25546-1). DATES: The exemption from the specified provisions of FMVSS No. 208 and FMVSS No. 108 is effective immediately and remains in effect through December 31, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ed Glancy or Mr. Eric Stas, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5219, Washington, DC 20590. *Telephone:*

(202)366-2992; *Fax:*

(202)366-3820. I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements and Small Volume Manufacturers In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the requirements for air bags in passenger cars and light trucks, requiring what are commonly known as “advanced air bags.” 4 The upgrade was designed to meet the goals of improving protection for occupants of all sizes, belted and unbelted, in moderate-to-high-speed crashes, and of minimizing the risks posed by air bags to infants, children, and other occupants, especially in low-speed crashes. 4 *See* 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000) (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-7013). The advanced air bag requirements were a culmination of a comprehensive plan that the agency announced in 1996 to address the adverse effects of air bags. This plan also included an extensive consumer education program to encourage the placement of children in rear seats. The new requirements were phased in beginning with the 2004 model year. Small volume manufacturers (i.e., original vehicle manufacturers producing or assembling fewer than 5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the United States) were not subject to the advanced air bag requirements until September 1, 2006, but their efforts to bring their respective vehicles into compliance with these requirements began several years ago. However, because the new requirements were challenging, major air bag suppliers concentrated their efforts on working with large volume manufacturers, and thus, until recently, small volume manufacturers had limited access to advanced air bag technology. Because of the nature of the requirements for protecting out-of-position occupants, “off-the-shelf” systems could not be readily adopted. Further complicating matters, because small volume manufacturers build so few vehicles, the costs of developing custom advanced air bag systems compared to potential profits discouraged some air bag suppliers from working with small volume manufacturers. The agency has carefully tracked occupant fatalities resulting from air bag deployment. Our data indicate that the agency's efforts in the area of consumer education and manufacturers' providing depowered air bags were successful in reducing air bag fatalities even before advanced air bag requirements were implemented. As always, we are concerned about the potential safety implication of any temporary exemptions granted by this agency. In the present case, we are addressing a petition that seeks, in part, a temporary exemption from the advanced air bag requirements. As part of the same document, we are addressing the petitioner's request for temporary exemptions from the agency's headlamp requirements. The petitioner is a manufacturer of low volume, exotic sports cars. II. Overview of Petition for Economic Hardship Exemption In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, Koenigsegg petitioned the agency for a temporary exemption from certain headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108 (S7), advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 (S14), and bumper requirements of 49 CFR Part 581. However, in a letter dated December 12, 2006, Koenigsegg advised the agency that recently completed testing had indicated that its modified bumper system complied with the Part 581 bumper standard and that it was withdrawing the portion of its petition requesting an exemption from that standard ( *See* Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25546-4). Accordingly, we need not further discuss that portion of the Koenigsegg petition dealing with the now-superseded request concerning the bumper standard. The basis for each portion of the application is that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship 5 to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with these standards. A copy of the petition 6 is available for review and has been placed in the docket for this notice. The agency closely examines and considers the information provided by manufacturers in support of these factors, and, in addition, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(A), determines whether exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the Safety Act. 7 5 When considering financial matters involving companies based in the European Union (EU), it is important to recognize that EU and U.S. accounting principles have certain differences in their treatment of revenue, expenses, and profits. Public statements by EU manufacturers relating to financial results should be understood in this context. This agency analyzes claims of financial hardship carefully and in accordance with U.S. accounting principles. 6 The company requested confidential treatment under 49 CFR Part 512 for certain business and financial information submitted as part of its petition for temporary exemption. Accordingly, the information placed in the docket does not contain such information that the agency has determined to be confidential. 7 The Safety Act is codified as Title 49, United States Code, Chapter 301. A manufacturer is eligible to apply for a hardship exemption if its total motor vehicle production in its most recent year of production did not exceed 10,000 vehicles, as determined by the NHTSA Administrator (49 U.S.C. 30113). In determining whether a manufacturer of a vehicle meets that criterion, NHTSA considers whether a second vehicle manufacturer also might be deemed the manufacturer of that vehicle. The statutory provisions governing motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) do not include any provision indicating that a manufacturer might have substantial responsibility as manufacturer of a vehicle simply because it owns or controls a second manufacturer that assembled that vehicle. However, the agency considers the statutory definition of “manufacturer” (49 U.S.C. 30102) to be sufficiently broad to include sponsors, depending on the circumstances. Thus, NHTSA has stated that a manufacturer may be deemed to be a sponsor and thus a manufacturer of a vehicle assembled by a second manufacturer if the first manufacturer had a substantial role in the development and manufacturing process of that vehicle. Finally, while 49 U.S.C. 30113(b) states that exemptions from a Safety Act standard are to be granted on a “temporary basis,” 8 the statute also expressly provides for renewal of an exemption on reapplication. Manufacturers are nevertheless cautioned that the agency's decision to grant an initial petition in no way predetermines that the agency will repeatedly grant renewal petitions, thereby imparting semi-permanent exemption from a safety standard. Exempted manufacturers seeking renewal must bear in mind that the agency is directed to consider financial hardship as but one factor, along with the manufacturer's on-going good faith efforts to comply with the regulation, the public interest, consistency with the Safety Act, generally, as well as other such matters provided in the statute. 8 49 U.S.C 30113(b)(1). III. Petition of Koenigsegg *Background* . Koenigsegg Automotive is a Swedish corporation formed in 1999 to produce high-performance sports cars. This application concerns the Koenigsegg CCX which was developed as the next generation of Koenigsegg vehicles after production of the CCR model ended on December 30, 2005. The CCX model (the company's only model at this point) is scheduled to go into production in 2006 and to continue at least through the end of 2009. Originally, Koenigsegg planned to sell vehicles only in the European, Mid-East, and Far-East markets, but the company decided in late 2005 to seek entry to the U.S. market for reasons related to ongoing financial viability. The retail price for the CCX is reported to be over $700,000 per vehicle. As discussed in further detail below, the petitioner argued that it tried in good faith, but could not bring the vehicle into compliance with the headlamp and advanced air bag requirements, and would incur substantial economic hardship if it cannot sell vehicles in the U.S. after January 1, 2007. *Eligibility* . Koenigsegg is a small, privately-owned company with 30 full-time staff members and several part-time employees. The company is a small volume manufacturer whose total production is less than 50 cars per year, having produced between four and eight vehicles per year for the past four years. According to the company, its sales revenues have averaged approximately $3.7 million per year. Koenigsegg is not affiliated with any other automobile manufacturer. According to its current forecasts, Koenigsegg anticipates the following number of CCX vehicles would be imported into the United States, if its requested exemptions were to be granted: 25 in calendar year

(CY)2007; 30 in CY 2008, and 30 in CY 2009. *Requested exemptions* . Koenigsegg stated that it intends to certify the CCX as complying with the rigid barrier belted test requirement using the 50th percentile adult male test dummy set forth in S14.5.1 of FMVSS No. 208. The petitioner stated that it previously determined the CCX's compliance with rigid barrier unbelted test requirements using the 50th percentile adult male test dummy through the S13 sled test using a generic pulse rather than a full vehicle test. Koenigsegg stated that it, therefore, cannot at present say with certainty that the CCX will comply with the unbelted test requirement under S14.5.2, which is a 20-25 mph rigid barrier test. As for the CCX's compliance with the other advanced air bag requirements, Koenigsegg stated that it does not know whether the CCX will be compliant because to date it has not had the financial ability to conduct the necessary testing. As such, Koenigsegg is requesting an exemption for the CCX from the rigid barrier unbelted test requirement with the 50th percentile adult male test dummy (S14.5.2), the rigid barrier test requirement using the 5th percentile adult female test dummy (belted and unbelted, S15), the offset deformable barrier test requirement using the 5th percentile adult female test dummy (S17), the requirements to provide protection for infants and children (S19, S21, and S23) and the requirement using an out-of-position 5th percentile adult female test dummy at the driver position (S25). Koenigsegg further requested exemption from the headlamp requirements set forth in S7 of FMVSS No. 108. Koenigsegg stated its intention to produce a second generation of the CCX model by late 2009, which would be certified as complying with all applicable U.S. standards, including ones for head lamps (FMVSS No. 108, S7) and advanced air bags (FMVSS No. 208, S14). Accordingly, the company is requesting exemption from the enumerated requirements for the period from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2009. *Economic hardship* . Publicly available information and also the financial documents submitted to NHTSA by the petitioner indicate that the CCX project will result in financial losses unless Koenigsegg obtains a temporary exemption. 9 9 During the course of the agency's consideration of Koenigsegg's petition, certain minor discrepancies were discovered between the company's Part 555 application and its supporting financial statements. These discrepancies were ultimately determined to be the result of the company's inadvertent error in failing to convert Swedish kronas to U.S. dollars. Koenigsegg subsequently submitted two errata sheets to correct these errors ( *see* Docket No. NHTSA-2006-25546-3); we note that these corrections did not substantively change the company's underlying financial position as would affect the agency's determination of economic hardship under 49 CFR Part 555. This document utilizes the company's updated figures denominated in U.S. dollars. In the past three years (2003 to 2005), the company has had losses totaling $1,637,398, and during this time period, the company's factory burned to the ground and had to be rebuilt. Koenigsegg did make a profit of $58,341 in 2003 and $722,406 in 2004, but it incurred a substantial loss of $2,418,145 in 2005. As of the time of the application, Koenigsegg has invested over $3.2 million in the CCX project in order to have the vehicle meet U.S. standards—not including the provisions which are the subject of the present petition for temporary exemption. The company has stated that it cannot hope to attain profitability if it incurs additional research and development expenses at this time. Koenigsegg stated that costs for external assistance with developing an advanced air bag system would cost over $3 million (over $9 million if internal costs are included for interior redesign, testing, and tooling), and meeting the headlamp requirements would entail an additional expenditure of at least $500,000. In its petition, Koenigsegg reasoned that worldwide sales (including the U.S. market) of the current CCX in higher volumes over the next three years is necessary to reduce production costs and to make available funding for development of the next generation of the CCX, which would be compliant with all U.S. air bag and headlamp requirements. In essence, Koenigsegg argued that the exemption is necessary to allow the company to “bridge the gap” until fully compliant vehicles can be funded, developed, tooled, and introduced. If the exemption is denied, Koenigsegg projects a net loss of over $10.5 million over the period from 2006-2009. However, if the petition is granted, the company anticipates a profit of nearly $3.5 million during that same period. The petitioner argued that a denial of this petition could preclude entry into the U.S. market until 2010 or later, a development which would have a highly adverse impact on the company. According to the petitioner, if the exemption request is not granted, the company would face a “virtually insurmountable problem” in terms of funding and introducing a vehicle that meets all applicable U.S. requirements, and it might ultimately drive the company out of business because the rest of the world export market would be inadequate to ensure profitability. *Good faith efforts to comply* . As stated above, Koenigsegg initially planned to produce vehicles for the European, Mid-East, and Far-East markets, but once it was determined in 2005 that entry into the U.S. market was a necessary part of its business plan, the company invested over $3.2 million in research and development and tooling for its U.S. CCX program. In 18 months, the company was able to bring the vehicle into compliance with all applicable NHTSA regulations other than those which are the subject of the present exemption petition, as well as the emissions regulations administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In light of limited resources, the petitioner stated that it was necessary to first develop the vehicle with a standard U.S. air bag system (i.e., one meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 208, other than the advanced air bag requirements). The company reengineered the CCX with an Audi TT driver air bag system and developed a new passenger air bag system, a $641,000 project. According to its petition, Koenigsegg anticipates that two years will be needed to install an advanced air bag system on the CCX. Modifications would involve development of new components, such as changes to the instrument panel design and incorporation of advanced air bag installation components such as mountings and brackets. Vehicle testing would also be conducted during that time. Furthermore, because the vehicle was not originally designed for the U.S. market, it likewise did not have headlamps that comply with U.S. requirements. According to Koenigsegg, achieving compliance with those requirements will necessitate a redesign of the headlamps. Koenigsegg explained that it has undertaken significant efforts in pursuit of CCX compliance with the headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108, but problems have stemmed from the company's inability to find a supplier. The petitioner stated that given the unique shape of the CCX, there is no available “off-the-shelf” headlamp system available, and efforts to find a supplier willing to undertake the project to produce a FMVSS No. 108-compliant headlamp for the CCX have been unavailing, presumably due to the ultra-low quantity of vehicles involved. 10 10 In an August 10, 2006 supplement to its application (included in this docket, following the Koenigsegg petition), Koenigsegg stated that it may have now identified a large lighting manufacturer interested in developing a FMVSS No. 108-compliant headlighting system for the CCX, but it would be “at a price higher than the $500,000 thus far estimated.” Instead, Koenigsegg decided to produce a headlamp for the CCX in-house (homologated to European Union requirements), utilizing a lighting source from a major lighting manufacturer (Hella). The petitioner stated that the plexiglass lens of the headlamp box is an integral part of the vehicle body and design. The company explained that despite its good faith efforts, the headlamps for the CCX as yet do not fully comply with the headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, while the CCX headlamps have been designed to pass the geometry requirements of FMVSS No. 108, the required aerodynamic lens will not pass environmental testing and must be re-engineered. According to Koenigsegg, the company did explore the possibility of developing an “interim U.S. headlamp” without a polycarbonate cover. However, that alternative was determined to be unworkable for the following reasons. First, there were concerns that the absence of the polycarbonate lens “ruins the design of the body,” a result which customers were deemed unlikely to accept and which was expected to result in decreased sales. 11 Second, the petitioner determined that an interim headlamp without a polycarbonate lens would have unacceptable aerodynamic effects which would negatively impact vehicle performance. Third, there were concerns that by engineering an interim headlamp exclusively for the U.S. market, the company would lose the advantages associated with producing a “world car” which can be introduced into any market, something of great importance for an ultra-low-volume manufacturer. In addition, Koenigsegg determined that the cost of developing the interim headlamp could not be justified when amortized over the small number of units involved. 11 The petitioner asserted that such considerations were a factor in the agency's earlier decision to grant a “waiver” for the headlamp of the Lotus Elise ( *see* 69 FR 5658 (Feb. 5, 2005)(Docket No. NHTSA-2003-16341-5)). In light of the above, the company again stated that because of the cost and length of this project, such headlighting efforts must await the second generation of the U.S. CCX. In short, Koenigsegg argued that, despite good faith efforts, limited resources prevent it from bringing the vehicle into compliance with all applicable requirements, and it is beyond the company's current capabilities to bring the vehicle into full compliance until such time as additional resources become available as a result of U.S. sales. With funding from sale of the current generation of U.S. CCX, the company expects that additional development efforts could start in 2007, thereby allowing production of a fully compliant vehicle in late 2009. *Koenigsegg argues that an exemption would be in the public interest* . The petitioner put forth several arguments in favor of a finding that the requested exemption is consistent with the public interest. Specifically, Koenigsegg argued that the vehicle would be equipped with a fully-compliant standard U.S. air bag system. As to headlamps, Koenigsegg stated that the CCX's current headlamps (designed to European specifications) are very close to meeting the photometric requirements of FMVSS No. 108, and consequently, they do not pose a safety risk. In all other areas, Koenigsegg emphasized that the CCX will comply with applicable FMVSSs. As additional bases for showing that its requested exemption would be in the public interest, Koenigsegg offered the following. The company asserted that there is consumer demand in the U.S. for the CCX, and granting this application will allow the demand to be met, thereby expanding consumer choice. The company also suggested another reason why granting the exemption would not be expected to have a significant impact on safety, specifically because the vehicle is unlikely to be used extensively by owners, due to its “sporty (second car) nature.” Koenigsegg reasoned that given its very low production volume and customer base, the possibility of any child being in the vehicle is extremely small. Finally, Koenigsegg indicated that the CCX incorporates advanced engineering and certain advanced safety features that are not required by the FMVSSs, including racing brakes with anti-lock capability and traction control. In addition, the company argued that the CCX has enhanced fuel efficiency due to its highly aerodynamic design. IV. Agency Decision on Koenigsegg Petition The following discussion provides our decision regarding Koenigsegg's temporary exemption requests pertaining to the advanced air bag requirement of FMVSS No. 208 and the headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108. These exemption requests will be discussed separately, in order to examine the engineering challenges and the good faith efforts that the manufacturer has made to meet the applicable requirements. However, because the agency's analyses related to economic hardship and the public interest are essentially the same for these requested exemptions, a single discussion of those matters is provided at the end of our decision. *Advanced Air Bag Requirements* . We are granting the Koenigsegg petition to be exempted from portions of the advanced air bag regulation required by S14.2 (specifically S14.5.2, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25). The exemption does not extend to the provision requiring a belted 50th percentile male barrier impact test (S14.5.1(a)). In addition to certifying compliance with S14.5.1(a), Koenigsegg must continue to certify to the unbelted 50th percentile barrier impact test in force prior to September 1, 2006 (S5.1.2(a)). We note that the unbelted sled test in S13 is an acceptable option for that requirement. The agency's rationale for this decision is as follows. The advanced air bag requirements present a unique challenge because they would require Koenigsegg to undertake a major redesign of its vehicles, in order to overcome the engineering limitations of the CCX. Specifically, Koenigsegg would be required to undertake significant interior redesign in order to upgrade the vehicle's standard air bag system to an advanced air bag system. While the petitioner was aware of the new requirements for some time, its business plans did not initially involve sales in the U.S. However, Koenigsegg subsequently determined that it would be necessary to introduce the CCX into the U.S., thereby raising the problem of compliance with the advanced air bag requirements. Once the determination was made to seek entry into the U.S. market in late 2005, Koenigsegg undertook significant homologation efforts in order to meet applicable U.S. requirements, but compliance with the advanced air bag provisions of FMVSS No. 208 are beyond the company's capabilities at the present time. Koenigsegg plans to utilize proceeds from sales of the current generation of CCX vehicles to finance the development of a fully compliant successor vehicle. Koenigsegg explained the main engineering challenges precluding incorporation of advanced air bag into the CCX at this time, as follows. The company must undertake redesign work to the vehicle's instrument panel and must incorporate a number of advanced air bag installation components. Furthermore, the petitioner stated that it would need an additional two years time to work with an advanced air bag supplier (because very low volume manufacturers have had to wait for technology to “trickle down” from larger manufacturers and suppliers), to make the necessary changes, and to conduct testing. Koenigsegg has made clear that such a prospect would pose a unique challenge to the company, due to the high cost of development and its extremely small sales volumes. Based upon the information provided by the petitioner, we understand that Koenigsegg made good faith efforts to bring the CCX into compliance with the applicable requirements until such time as it became apparent that there was no practicable way to do so. As a small specialty manufacturer, the company had a difficult time in gaining access to advanced air bag systems and components (which presumably reflects restraint system suppliers' initial focus on meeting the needs of large volume manufacturers), so alternative means of compliance were not available as a practical matter. Small manufacturers such as Koenigsegg are dependent upon air bag suppliers for the engineering expertise and technology transfer necessary for compliance with FMVSS No. 208. This further reduced the lead time available for development. Furthermore, because Koenigsegg is an independent automobile manufacturer, there was no possibility of technology transfer from a larger parent company that also manufactures motor vehicles. Consequently, no viable alternatives remain. The petitioner is unable to redesign its vehicle in time to meet the new advanced air bag requirements that became effective on September 1, 2006 for small volume manufacturers. *Headlamp Requirements* . We are granting the Koenigsegg petition to be exempted from the headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108 (S7). We understand that vehicle design involves numerous complex design, engineering, and production challenges. To some extent, small volume manufacturers may face difficulties in situations where they must wait for advanced technologies to “trickle-down” from major suppliers (e.g., advanced air bag systems), but we do not expect that every vehicle component or system would fall in that category. Accordingly, the agency will carefully consider the modifications to the vehicle necessary to achieve compliance with the relevant safety standard(s), as well as the good faith efforts made by the manufacturer to meet those requirements. In the present case, we agree that it may be desirable for Koenigsegg to incorporate a specialized headlamp for a variety of reasons, including aesthetics and aerodynamics. While we acknowledge that the company undertook good faith effort to comply with the headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and that current financial and production limitations would make compliance impractical in the near term, we expect that it would be possible to achieve compliance with all applicable headlamp requirements by the conclusion of the exemption period requested by Koenigsegg. We do not believe that the required modifications would be as complex as those associated with advanced air bags. Our reasoning is explained in further detail below. To start, we would note that passenger vehicles generally are not designed to accommodate “off the shelf” headlamp systems, but instead incorporate specialized headlamp designs dedicated to the specific vehicle. Thus, developing a specialized headlamp for the CCX may be necessary, but it is not an unusual event. Furthermore, as discussed below, we believe that it would be possible to make modifications to the headlamp independent of changes to the bumper system. As noted above, there are several reasons why we believe that Koenigsegg should install FMVSS No. 108-compliant headlamps on the CCX as rapidly as possible, even for the small numbers involved here. First, one should not lose sight of the fact that headlamps are safety devices intended to illuminate the roadway and overhead signs for the driver and to also make the vehicle visible to other drivers and pedestrians. Accordingly, styling characteristics of the headlamp are a secondary consideration. We further note that the petitioner did not provide any basis for its speculative arguments regarding decreased sales that would be expected to result from installation of an interim headlamp without a polycarbonate lens, but which would comply with FMVSS No. 108. The petitioner also provided no details as to the negative impact on vehicle performance that would be expected from incorporation of an FMVSS No. 108-compliant interim headlamp design or support for its contention that such a headlamp would “ruin the design of the body.” Likewise, we disagree with the petitioner's contention that construction of an FMVSS No. 108-compliant headlamp would deprive the manufacturer of the advantages associated with building a “world car.” On the contrary, developing a headlamp for the CCX that meets the requirements of the Economic Commission for Europe

(ECE)regulations, as well as FMVSS No. 108, provides the opportunity to build the CCX as a world car. As the Koenigsegg petition suggests, these two sets of regulations are quite similar, with a primary difference being the requirement in FMVSS No. 108 for photometric test points intended to ensure illumination of overhead signs. However, it is possible to manipulate the headlamp's beam pattern to achieve compliance with the photometric requirements for both sets of regulations. In support of its request for a temporary exemption from the headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108, Koenigsegg argued that the agency granted a similar exemption to Group Lotus Plc (Lotus) ( *see* 69 FR 5658 (Feb. 5, 2004) (Docket No. NHTSA-2003-16341-5)). As discussed in that notice, Lotus made many of the same arguments that Koenigsegg is currently making regarding engineering challenges, aesthetic concerns, loss of performance, and decreased sales. However, as compared to the Koenigsegg headlamp, there were significant differences in the headlamp for the Lotus Elise, which supported the agency's decision to grant a temporary exemption for nearly three years. Specifically, Lotus stated that not only were its headlamp's photometrics very close to the requirements of FMVSS No. 108, but the lamp also had been subjected to relevant environmental testing and exhibited a strong warranty record for this aspect of the vehicle. In contrast, Koenigsegg stated that the CCX's current headlamps are designed to pass the geometry requirements of FMVSS No. 108, but they would not pass the environmental requirements of the standard. 12 Thus, even if the CCX headlamps were to meet all the photometric requirements of the standard at the time of vehicle certification, performance could deteriorate if the lenses on those headlamps could not meet the applicable weathering, vibration, or abrasion requirements. Such degraded performance (resulting from the lamp's failure to meet relevant photometric test points) could negatively impact the vehicle's forward illumination and increase glare for oncoming drivers. Choosing to grant Koenigsegg's requested exemption from FMVSS No. 108's headlamp requirement required considerable deliberation within the agency, and it was only after careful balancing of the manufacturer's good faith efforts, the small number of vehicles involved, and the potential safety consequences that we decided to do so. Because we are hesitant to set a precedent in terms of granting temporary exemptions for vehicles whose headlamps do not meet the environmental requirements of the standard, we would state that the agency will carefully examine and decide such petitions on a case-by-case basis. 12 It is unclear from the petition whether the CCX headlamps would meet all applicable geometric and photometric requirements in Standard No. 108. In further support of expediently achieving compliance with the headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108, we understand from the petition that Koenigsegg now has identified a large lighting manufacturer willing to develop a FMVSS No. 108-compliant headlighting system for the CCX. Having identified such a supplier, we would expect this arrangement to accelerate Koenigsegg's efforts to develop a FMVSS No. 108-compliant headlamp. In sum, the information supplied by the petitioner demonstrates that the company to date has made good faith efforts to achieve compliance with the headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and that it would not be economically or technically feasible to meet these requirements until late 2009. We are also cognizant of the very small number of vehicles at issue here, many of which will probably have limited road use. For these reasons, we have decided to grant Koenigsegg a temporary exemption from the headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108 through December 31, 2009. However, we urge the company to achieve full compliance with FMVSS No. 108 earlier, to the maximum extent possible. For the reasons discussed above, we believe that this period should provide sufficient time to engage with the identified lighting manufacturer and to conduct any necessary retooling of components related to the headlamps. We also believe that it would be possible to modify the CCX's headlamps in a manner that would not change the shape of the outer lens; accordingly, it should be possible to undertake headlamp and bumper modifications independently. In addition, we note that achieving compliance with FMVSS No. 108 would benefit the company by allowing the CCX to attain “world car” status sooner. Finally, in terms of economic feasibility, the petitioner's financial submissions demonstrated that if its requested temporary exemptions are granted, it anticipates profits of nearly $3.5 million over the period from 2006-2009, so a portion of the profits expected to be generated during the first year of the exemption period (nearly $2.5 million in 2007) could be channeled into headlamp development. *Economic Hardship.* We now turn to our analysis more broadly to the issues of the economic hardship facing the petitioner and the impact on motor vehicle safety surrounding the requested temporary exemptions from the advanced air bag and headlamp requirements discussed above. After review of the income statements provided by the petitioner, the agency notes that the company has faced ongoing financial difficulties, experiencing net operating losses of about $1.6 million over the past three years (2003-2005). The company did turn a small profit in 2003 (about $58,000) and a larger profit in 2004 (about $722,000), but these were overwhelmed by an over $2.4 million loss in 2005. These figures suggest that the company's current profitability situation is somewhat precarious. If the petitioner's request for a temporary exemption is denied, the company will be precluded from selling any vehicles in the U.S. market at this time. The resulting loss of sales would cause substantial economic hardship within the meaning of the statute, potentially amounting to the difference between a profit of nearly $3.5 million (if an exemption is granted) and a loss of over $10.5 million (if an exemption is denied) over the period from 2006-2009. Ultimately, denial of the exemption request could preclude development of a U.S.-compliant vehicle and jeopardize the continued existence of Koenigsegg. According to Koenigsegg, absent the exemption, the company anticipates being unable to enter the U.S. market until 2010 or later. However, Koenigsegg's problems would be compounded without its requested temporary exemption, because it needs the revenue from sales of the CCX over the next two years to finance development of a fully compliant vehicle for delivery to the U.S. market. Granting the exemption will allow Koenigsegg to earn the resources necessary to bridge the gap in terms of development of a successor vehicle for the current generation of the CCX that meets all U.S. requirements. While some of the information submitted by Koenigsegg has been granted confidential treatment and is not detailed in this document, the petitioner made a comprehensive showing of its good faith efforts to comply with the requirements of S14.2 of FMVSS No. 208 and S7 of FMVSS No. 108 and detailed engineering and financial information demonstrating that failure to obtain the exemption would cause substantial economic hardship. Specifically, the petitioner provided the following: 1. Chronological analysis of Koenigsegg's efforts to comply, showing the relationship to the rulemaking history of the advanced air bag requirements. 2. Itemized costs of each component that would have to be modified in order to achieve compliance. 3. Discussion of alternative means of compliance and reasons for rejecting these alternatives. 4. A detailed OEM price-volume quotation from an advanced air bag supplier, including detailed costs for the necessary components for each stage of the development program. 5. Explanations as to why components from newer, compliant vehicle lines could not be borrowed. 6. Corporate income statements and balance sheets for the period from 2002-2005, and projected income statements for the period from 2006-2009 (analyzing alternative scenarios in which the petition is granted and denied). We believe that this exemption will have negligible impact on motor vehicle safety because of the limited number of vehicles affected (approximately 85 to be imported for the duration of the requested three-year exemption). Furthermore, as discussed in previous decisions on temporary exemption applications, the agency believes that the public interest is served by affording consumers a wider variety of motor vehicle choices. We also note that the CCX features several advanced “active” safety features. These features are listed in the petitioner's application. 13 While the availability of these features is not critical to our decision, it is a factor in considering whether the exemption is in the public interest. 13 *See* page 16 of Koenigsegg's petition. We note that, as explained below, prospective purchasers will be notified that the vehicle is exempted from the specified advanced air bag requirements of Standard No. 208 and the headlamp requirements of Standard No. 108. Under § 555.9(b), a manufacturer of an exempted passenger car must affix securely to the windshield or side window of each exempted vehicle a label containing a statement that the vehicle conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture “except for Standard Nos. [listing the standards by number and title for which an exemption has been granted] exempted pursuant to NHTSA Exemption No. ____.” This label notifies prospective purchasers about the exemption and its subject. Under § 555.9(c), this information must also be included on the vehicle's certification label. We note that the text of § 555.9 does not expressly indicate how the required statement on the two labels should read in situations where an exemption covers part but not all of a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Specifically in the case of FMVSS No. 208, we believe that a statement that the vehicle has been exempted from Standard No. 208 generally, without an indication that the exemption is limited to the specified advanced air bag provisions, could be misleading. A consumer might incorrectly believe that the vehicle has been exempted from all of Standard No. 208's requirements. Moreover, we believe that the addition of a reference to such provisions by number without an indication of its subject matter would be of little use to consumers, since they would not know the subject of those specific provisions. For these reasons, we believe the two labels should read in relevant part, “except for S14.5.2, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 (Advanced Air Bag Requirements) of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, exempted pursuant to * * *”. We note that the phrase “Advanced Air Bag Requirements” is an abbreviated form of the title of S14 of Standard No. 208. Similarly, regarding the temporary exemption for the CCX's headlamps, we believe that the two labels should read in relevant part, “except for S7 of Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, exempted pursuant to * * *.” We believe it is reasonable to interpret § 555.9 as requiring this language. In sum, the agency concludes that Koenigsegg has demonstrated good faith effort to bring the CCX into compliance with the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 and the headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and has also demonstrated the requisite financial hardship. Further, we find these exemptions to be in the public interest. In consideration of the foregoing, we conclude that compliance with the advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection* , and the headlamp requirements of FMVSS No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* , would cause substantial economic hardship to a manufacturer that has tried in good faith to comply with the standard. We further conclude that granting of an exemption from these provisions would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(3)(B)(i), the Koenigsegg CCX is granted NHTSA Temporary Exemption No. EX 06-10, from S14.5.2, S15, S17, S19, S21, S23, and S25 of 49 CFR 571.208 and from S7 of 49 CFR 571.108. The exemption is effective immediately and continues in effect through December 31, 2009. Issued on: March 29, 2007. Nicole R. Nason, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-6549 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Petition to Modify an Exemption of a Previously Approved Antitheft Device; General Motors Corporation AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Grant of a petition to modify an exemption from the Parts Marking Requirements of a previously approved antitheft device. SUMMARY: On August 15, 1989, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) granted in part General Motors Corporation's

(GM)petition for an exemption in accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543, *Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard* for the Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line. The exemption was granted because the agency determined that the antitheft device proposed to be placed on the line as standard equipment was likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. On November 10, 2006, GM petitioned the agency to amend the exemption previously granted for the Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line. NHTSA is granting in full GM's petition to modify the exemption because it has determined that the modified antitheft device to be placed on the Chevrolet Camaro line as standard equipment will also likely be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with model year

(MY)2010. 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 phone number is

(202)366-0846. Her fax number is

(202)493-2290. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 15, 1989, NHTSA published in the **Federal Register** a notice granting in part a petition from GM for an exemption from the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541) for the 1990 Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line. The Chevrolet Camaro was equipped with the PASS-Key antitheft device (See 54 FR 33655). For MY 1993, the device was changed to the PASS-Key II device. GM did not submit a petition for modification at that time because, in a February 7, 1992, letter to GM, the agency determined that changes in the “PASS-Key II” constituted a *de minimis* change in the PASS-Key device. GM suspended production of the Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line at the end of the 2003 MY. In a petition dated November 10, 2006, GM requested a modification of the previously granted exemption for the Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line. GM stated that “(F) or the 2010 Model Year, General Motors will be reinstating production of the Chevrolet Camaro and upgrading the standard theft deterrent system.” GM's November 10, 2006, submission is a complete petition, as required by 49 CFR Part 543.9(d), in that it meets the general requirements contained in 49 CFR Part 543.5 and the specific content requirements of 49 CFR Part 543.6. GM's petition provides a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device proposed for installation beginning with the 2010 model year. The 1990 antitheft device (PASS-Key) installed on the Chevrolet Camaro was a passively activated, transponder-based, electronic immobilizer system. The PASS-Key system used a standard ignition key to rotate a specially coded ignition switch. Before the vehicle could be operated, the electrical resistance of a pellet embedded in the shank of the key had to be sensed by elements in the ignition lock cylinder and recognized by the decoder. If a key with the incorrect electrical resistance was inserted, the PASS-Key decoder module would shut down, disabling the start and fuel delivery systems. The 1993 antitheft device (PASS-Key II) was a modification of the PASS-Key device. GM stated that the key resistance read by discrete electrical components in the PASS-Key circuitry was replaced in the PASS-Key II device with the key resistance being determined by a microprocessor. Additionally, a security indicator would illuminate continuously directing the operator to have the vehicle serviced if “fail enabled” conditions (i.e., vehicle does not start with the proper key because of a dirty or contaminated resistor pellet) arose. If a fault was detected, future ignition cycles would not be allowed regardless of key authorization. In its second modification, GM stated that it proposes to install its Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line with its PASS-Key III+ antitheft device for MY 2010. The PASS-Key III+ is also a transponder based, electronic immobilizer system. It is designed to be active at all times without direct intervention by the vehicle operator. The antitheft device is fully armed immediately after the ignition has been turned off and the key removed. The device will continue to provide protection against unauthorized use (i.e., starting and engine fueling), but will not provide any visible or audible indication of unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e., flashing lights or horn alarm). Components of the modified antitheft device include an electronically-coded ignition key, a PASS-Key III+ controller module and an engine control module. Unlike the ignition key used with the PASS-Key and PASS-Key II devices, the PASS-Key III+ ignition key contains electronics embedded within the head of the key. These electronics receive energy and data from the control module. Upon receipt of the data, the key will calculate a response to the data using secret information and an internal encryption algorithm, and transmit the response back to the vehicle. The controller module translates the radio frequency signal received from the key into a digital signal and compares the received response to an internally calculated value. If the values match, the key is recognized as valid and the vehicle can be operated. The PASS-Key III+ device has the potential for over four billion unique electrical key codes which varies with every ignition cycle, while the PASS-Key and PASS-Key II has a possibility of 15 code combinations that never varies at each ignition cycle. In the PASS-Key III+, each key is uniquely coded and the vehicle can be programmed to operate with up to ten different codes, compared to the PASS-Key and PASS-Key II devices that only allow a vehicle to recognize a single unique code. GM indicated that the theft rates, as reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), are lower for GM models equipped with the “PASS-Key”-like systems which have exemptions from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, than the theft rates for earlier, similarly-constructed models which were parts-marked. Based on the performance of the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key III systems on other GM models, and the advanced technology utilized by the modification, GM believes that the MY 2010 antitheft device will be more effective in deterring theft than the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. GM stated that the theft rates for the 2003 and 2004 Cadillac CTS and the MY 2004 Cadillac SRX currently installed with the PASS-Key III+ antitheft device exhibit theft rates that are lower than the median theft rate (3.5826) established by the agency. The Cadillac CTS introduced as a MY 2003 vehicle line has been equipped with the PASS-Key III+ device since the start of production. The theft rates for the MY 2003 and 2004 Cadillac CTS is 1.0108 and 0.7681 respectively. Similarly, the Cadillac SRX introduced as a MY 2004 vehicle has been equipped with the PASS-Key III+ device since production. The theft rate for MY 2004 Cadillac SRX is 0.7789. GM stated that the theft rates experienced by these lines with installation of the PASS-Key III+ device demonstrate the effectiveness of the device. The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices for which the agency has previously approved exemptions. GM's proposed device, as well as other comparable devices that have received full exemptions from the parts-marking requirements, lack an audible or visible alarm. Therefore, these devices cannot perform one of the functions listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to unauthorized attempts to enter or move the vehicle. Based on comparison of the reduction in the theft rates of GM vehicles using a passive theft deterrent device with an audible/visible alarm system to the reduction in theft rates for GM vehicle models equipped with a passive antitheft device without an alarm, GM finds that the lack of an alarm or attention attracting device does not compromise the theft deterrent performance of a system such as PASS-Key III+. In past petitions, 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. On the basis of this comparison, GM believes that the antitheft device (PASS-Key III+) for model years 2010 and later will provide essentially the same functions and features as found on its MY 1990-2002 PASS-Key device and therefore, its modified device will provide at least the same level of theft prevention as parts-marking. GM believes that the antitheft device proposed for installation on its MY 2010 Chevrolet Camaro is likely to be as effective in reducing thefts as compliance with the parts marking requirements of Part 541. In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, GM provided information on the reliability and durability of the proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, GM conducted tests based on its own specified standards. GM provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is reliable and durable since it complied with the specified requirements for each test. GM also stated that since the authorization code is not handled or contacted by the vehicle operator, the reliability of the PASS-Key III+ is significantly improved over the PASS-Key and PASS-Key II devices. This reliability allows the system to return to the “Go/No Go” based system, eliminating the “fail enabled” mode of operation. The agency has evaluated GM's MY 2010 petition to modify the exemption for the Chevrolet Camaro vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, and has decided to grant it. It has determined that the PASS-Key III+ system is likely to be as effective as parts-marking in preventing and deterring theft of these vehicles, and therefore qualifies for an exemption under 49 CFR Part 543. The agency believes that the proposed device will continue to 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. If GM 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 Parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts). 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. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-6525 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft Prevention Standard; General Motors Corporation AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of General Motors Corporation

(GM)for an exemption in accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543, *Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard* , for the Saturn Aura vehicle line beginning with model year

(MY)2008. 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. DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with model year

(MY)2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's phone number is

(202)366-0846. Her fax number is

(202)493-2290. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated October 6, 2006, GM requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Saturn Aura vehicle line beginning with MY 2008. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for the entire vehicle line. Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines per year. In its petition, GM provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the new vehicle line. The antitheft device is a transponder-based, electronic, immobilizer system. GM will install its passive antitheft device as standard equipment on its Saturn Aura vehicle line beginning with MY 2008. GM stated that the device will provide protection against unauthorized use (i.e., starting and engine fueling), but will not provide any visible or audible indication of unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e., flashing lights or horn alarm). GM'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 antitheft device to be installed on the MY 2008 Saturn Aura is the PASS-Key III+. The PASS-Key III+ device is designed to be active at all times without direct intervention by the vehicle operator. The system is fully armed immediately after the ignition has been turned off and the key removed. The system will provide protection against unauthorized starting and fueling of the vehicle engine. Components of the antitheft device include an electronically-coded ignition key, a PASS-Key III+ controller module and an engine control module. The ignition key contains electronics molded into the key head. These electronics receive energy and data from the control module. Upon receipt of the data, the key will calculate a response to the data using secret information and an internal encryption algorithm, and transmit the response back to the vehicle. The controller module translates the radio frequency signal received from the key into a digital signal and compares the received response to an internally calculated value. If the values match, the key is recognized as valid and the vehicle can be operated. GM indicated that the theft rates, as reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), are lower for GM models equipped with the “PASS-Key”-like systems which have exemptions from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, than the theft rates for earlier, similarly-constructed models which were parts-marked. Based on the performance of the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key III systems on other GM models, and the advanced technology utilized by the modification, GM believes that the MY 2008 antitheft device will be more effective in deterring theft than the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. For clarification purposes, the agency notes that it does not collect theft data. NHTSA publishes theft rates based on data provided by the NCIC of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. NHTSA uses NCIC data to calculate theft rates and publishes these rates annually in the **Federal Register** . In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, GM provided information on the reliability and durability of the proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, GM conducted tests based on its own specified standards. GM provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is reliable and durable since it complied with the specified requirements for each test. GM stated that the PASS-Key III+ system has been designed to enhance the functionality and theft protection provided by GM's first, second, and third generation PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key III systems. GM compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with other devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-marking requirements. GM stated that the theft rates for the 2003 and 2004 Cadillac CTS and the MY 2004 Cadillac SRX currently installed with the PASS-Key III+ antitheft device exhibit theft rates that are lower than the median theft rate (3.5826) established by the agency. The Cadillac CTS introduced as a MY 2003 vehicle line has been equipped with the PASS-Key III+ device since the start of production. The theft rates for the MY 2003 and 2004 Cadillac CTS is 1.0108 and 0.7681 respectively. Similarly, the Cadillac SRX introduced as a MY 2004 vehicle has been equipped with the PASS-Key III+ device since production. The theft rate for MY 2004 Cadillac SRX is 0.7789. GM stated that the theft rates experienced by these lines with installation of the PASS-Key III+ device demonstrate the effectiveness of the device. The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices for which the agency has previously approved exemptions. Based on comparison of the reduction in the theft rates of GM vehicles using a passive theft deterrent device with an audible/visible alarm system to the reduction in theft rates for GM vehicle models equipped with a passive antitheft device without an alarm, GM finds that the lack of an alarm or attention attracting device does not compromise the theft deterrent performance of a system such as PASS-Key III+. GM's proposed device, as well as other comparable devices that have received full exemptions from the parts-marking requirements, lack an audible or visible alarm. Therefore, these devices cannot perform one of the functions listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to unauthorized attempts to enter or move the vehicle. However, theft data have indicated a decline in theft rates for vehicle lines that have been equipped with devices similar to that which GM proposes. In these instances, 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. Based on the evidence submitted by GM, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the GM 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). 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. As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the agency finds that GM has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based on the information GM provided about its device. For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full GM's petition for exemption for the Saturn Aura 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 GM 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 GM 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 antitheft device on which the line's exemption is based. Further, Part 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 in drafting Part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be *de minimis* . Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if 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: April 3, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-6528 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA-04-17217] Insurer Reporting Requirements; Reports Under 49 U.S.C. on Section 33112(c) AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Notice of availability. SUMMARY: This notice announces publication by NHTSA of the annual insurer report on motor vehicle theft for the 2001 reporting year. Section 33112(h) of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, requires this information to be compiled periodically and published by the agency in a form that will be helpful to the public, the law enforcement community, and Congress. As required by section 33112(c), this report provides information on theft and recovery of vehicles; rating rules and plans used by motor vehicle insurers to reduce premiums due to a reduction in motor vehicle thefts; and actions taken by insurers to assist in deterring thefts. ADDRESSES: Interested persons may obtain a copy of this report and appendices by contacting the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours are from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Requests should refer to Docket No. 2004-17217. This report and appendices may also be viewed on-line at: *http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/theft.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is

(202)366-0846. Her fax number is

(202)493-2290. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 (Theft Act) was implemented to enhance detection and prosecution of motor vehicle theft (Pub. L. 98-547). The Theft Act added a new Title VI to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, which required the Secretary of Transportation to issue a theft prevention standard for identifying major parts of certain high-theft lines of passenger cars. The Act also addressed several other actions to reduce motor vehicle theft, such as increased criminal penalties for those who traffic in stolen vehicles and parts, curtailment of the exportation of stolen motor vehicles and off-highway mobile equipment, establishment of penalties for dismantling vehicles for the purpose of trafficking in stolen parts, and development of ways to encourage decreases in premiums charged to consumers for motor vehicle theft insurance. This notice announces publication by NHTSA of the annual insurer report on motor vehicle theft for the 2001 reporting year. Section 33112(h) of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, requires this information to be compiled periodically and published by the agency in a form that will be helpful to the public, the law enforcement community, and Congress. As required by section 33112(h), this report focuses on the assessment of information on theft and recovery of motor vehicles, comprehensive insurance coverage and actions taken by insurers to reduce thefts for the 2001 reporting period. Section 33112 of Title 49 requires subject insurers or designated agents to report annually to the agency on theft and recovery of vehicles, on rating rules and plans used by insurers to reduce premiums due to a reduction in motor vehicle thefts, and on actions taken by insurers to assist in deterring thefts. Rental and leasing companies also are required to provide annual theft reports to the agency. In accordance with 49 CFR Part 544.5, each insurer, rental and leasing company to which this regulation applies must submit a report annually not later than October 25, beginning with the calendar year for which they are required to report. The report would contain information for the calendar year three years previous to the year in which the report is filed. The report that was due by October 25, 2004 contains the required information for the 2001 calendar year. Interested persons may obtain a copy of individual insurer reports for CY 2001 by contacting the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours are from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Requests should refer to Docket No. 2004-17217. The annual insurer reports provided under section 33112 are intended to aid in implementing the Theft Act and fulfilling the Department's requirements to report to the public the results of the insurer reports. The first annual insurer report, referred to as the Section 612 Report on Motor Vehicle Theft, was prepared by the agency and issued in December 1987. The report included theft and recovery data by vehicle type, make, line, and model which were tabulated by insurance companies and, rental and leasing companies. Comprehensive premium information for each of the reporting insurance companies was also included. This report, the seventeenth, discloses the same subject information and follows the same reporting format. Issued on: March 30, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7-6517 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-59-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of Thrift Supervision [No. OTS-2007-0009] Savings and Loan Holding Company Rating System AGENCY: Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury (OTS). ACTION: Notice and request for comment. SUMMARY: Changes in the environment in which depository institutions and their holding companies operate have had a substantial impact on the way they are managed and necessitate changes in the way they are supervised. OTS supervises a diverse population of holding companies ranging from non-complex companies with limited activities to large, internationally active conglomerates that engage in a variety of activities. OTS has a well-established program for meeting its statutory responsibilities with respect to savings and loan holding companies (SLHCs or holding companies) and the thrift industry. Holding company supervision is an integral part of this oversight program, and OTS routinely takes steps to enhance its risk-focused supervision of holding companies. While OTS has emphasized risk management in its supervisory processes for SLHCs of all sizes and complexities, this emphasis is not readily apparent in the primary components of the current SLHC supervisory rating system, CORE (Capital, Organizational Structure, Relationship, and Earnings). Therefore, OTS is considering making changes to the component descriptions and rating scale used to evaluate the condition of SLHCs. All SLHCs are assigned a rating, although the degree of supervisory scrutiny varies based on a risk-focused evaluation of their size, complexity, business activities, and risk exposures. OTS is committed to maintaining a common CORE component framework and a rating system that is flexible and applies to all SLHCs. After reviewing public comments, OTS intends to make any necessary changes to the proposal and adopt a final SLHC rating system. DATES: Comments must be received by June 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by OTS-2007-0009, by any of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Office of Thrift Supervision” from the agency drop-down menu, then click submit. Select Docket ID “OTS-2007-0009” to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials for this notice of proposed rulemaking. The “User Tips” link at the top of the page provides information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for submitting or viewing public comments, viewing other supporting and related materials, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period. • Mail: Regulation Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, Attention: OTS-2007-0009. • Hand Delivery/Courier: Guard's Desk, East Lobby Entrance, 1700 G Street, NW., from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on business days, Attention: Regulation Comments, Chief Counsel's Office, Attention: OTS-2007-0009. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be entered into the docket and posted on Regulations.gov without change, including any personal information provided. Comments, including attachments and other supporting materials received are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Office of Thrift Supervision” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” Select Docket ID “OTS-2007-0009” to view public comments for this notice of proposed rulemaking. Viewing Comments On-Site: You may inspect comments at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., by appointment. To make an appointment for access, call

(202)906-5922, send an e-mail to *public.info@ots.treas.gov* , or send a facsimile transmission to

(202)906-6518. (Prior notice identifying the materials you will be requesting will assist us in serving you.) We schedule appointments on business days between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. In most cases, appointments will be available the next business day following the date we receive a request. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Deale, Director, Holding Companies and Affiliates,

(202)906-7488. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The SLHC rating system is a management information and supervisory tool that systematically indicates the condition of SLHCs. It provides an evaluation of the SLHC's condition for use by the supervisory community and focuses supervisory responses and actions. The SLHC rating system also provides a measurement tool to discuss the enterprise's condition with SLHC management. The current SLHC rating system was implemented in 1988. The rating system currently includes the following components: Capital The first component of a holding company examination is an evaluation of Capital. OTS does not apply a standardized capital requirement to SLHCs. Instead, OTS considers the overall risk profile of the consolidated entity on a case-by-case basis. This involves assessing analytical measures that include overall leverage, the level of short-term debt and liquidity, cash flow, reliance on thrift and other subsidiary earnings, interest coverage, quality of earnings, and level of consolidated tangible and equity capital. Individualized capital requirements can be used as a tool to achieve this goal when necessary. Organizational Structure The Organizational Structure component requires examiners to identify the organizational structure and ownership and assess any changes. OTS also reviews the activities of the holding company and other affiliates to determine regulatory compliance and to assess the risks these activities may pose to the thrift. Relationship In the Relationship component, examiners assess the interaction of the holding company's board of directors and executive management with the thrift. Examiners reach conclusions about: • The materiality of the thrift to the holding company or its controlling shareholders; • The degree of influence the holding company has over the thrift and how this influence affects the thrift's operations; • Whether the board of directors provides adequate oversight for the holding company and its subsidiaries; • How actively the holding company is involved in the management of the thrift; • The degree of interdependence of the thrift and other entities within the holding company structure; and • Whether the board has implemented effective policies and procedures to maintain separate corporate identities and avoid conflicts of interest. Earnings In the Earnings component, examiners assess the holding company's operations and financial condition and their current and prospective effect on the subsidiary thrift. OTS pays close attention to the holding company's earnings trends and capacity as well as cash flow. It also evaluates the relative contributions and dividend payout ratios of significant subsidiaries and the overall financial performance of the holding company enterprise. You can find a thorough description along with examination procedures for each component in the OTS Holding Companies Handbook at *http://www.ots.treas.gov.* After evaluating these four components, OTS assigns a composite SLHC rating using the following definitions: 1 1 Component ratings are assigned to all complex SLHCs and may be assigned, at the examiner's discretion, to noncomplex SLHCs. When assigned, the four components are rated on a scale of one to three in descending order of performance quality. The definitions currently in use are set forth in the OTS Holding Companies Handbook. *Above Average (A):* Holding company enterprises in this group have a wealth of financial strength. The enterprise could be called upon to provide financial or managerial resources to the thrift if circumstances dictate. Above Average holding company enterprises may exhibit minor weaknesses, but they are deemed to be correctable in the normal course of business. For this rating, all component ratings will generally be rated 1 or 2. *Satisfactory (S):* Holding company enterprises in this group are those whose effect on the thrift is considered neutral. Overall, these holding companies exhibit financial conditions and operating performance that pose only a remote threat to the viability of the thrift. Satisfactory holding company enterprises generally do not possess the financial strength to be considered a substantial resource to the thrift. These companies may be reliant on the thrift for dividends or other sources of funds to service debt; however, their debt level and expected need for funds from the thrift are not considered overwhelming. For this rating, the components should generally be rated 2, but may include components rated 1 or 3. *Unsatisfactory (U):* This rating is reserved for holding company enterprises that impose a detrimental or burdensome effect on the thrift. Such companies exhibit high levels of various operating weaknesses that at best are considered less than satisfactory. There exists an inordinate reliance involving the thrift. Either the holding company is inordinately reliant on the thrift for cash flow, or the thrift is inordinately reliant on the holding company for critical operating systems. Without immediate corrective action, the thrift's viability may be impaired. Enterprises deserving of this rating will predominantly have components that are rated 3, although even one component with a 3 rating may suffice to justify an overall U rating if the problems are severe enough. An Unsatisfactory rating is only given in the most severe circumstances. Such a rating would be comparable to a 4 or 5 composite thrift rating, and would carry the presumption that formal enforcement action is required, pursuant to RB 18-1b. Since the introduction of this rating system, banking organizations and SLHCs have become more complex. Several SLHCs have significant international operations and many engage in multiple types of financial activities. In addition, certain SLHCs that existed prior to the enactment of activities restrictions in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act engage in commercial, manufacturing, and other retail activities. As of December 2006, SLHCs had aggregate consolidated assets of $7.7 trillion. Because of SLHCs' diversity and OTS's risk focused holding company examination approach, the agency's approach to holding company examinations and ratings must document our assessment of the risk profile of the holding company enterprise as well as management's ability to identify, measure, monitor, and control risks. Changes to Examination Components This document proposes changes to two of the existing four examination components. OTS is proposing these changes to place greater emphasis on risk management. The number of components and OTS's risk focused examination approach would not change because of this proposal. Using a slightly revised approach within the CORE framework, OTS will review two components that focus on financial condition (Capital and Earnings) and two other components (Organizational Structure and Risk Management) that focus on the activities and operations conducted within the enterprise and the SLHC's risk management practices. With the exception of the ratings changes discussed later in this document, OTS is not proposing a change to its philosophy on evaluating the financial components (Capital and Earnings). OTS will continue to evaluate capital adequacy relative to a given enterprise's risk profile. Within the Organizational Structure component, examiners would assess inherent risk in the context of lines of business, operations, affiliate relationships, concentrations, and other exposures. The most significant types of risk are defined in the proposed rating description for the Organizational Structure component. Based on its experience regulating holding companies and on a review of similar guidance by other banking and supervisory agencies, OTS compiled a comprehensive list of risks that holding company enterprises face. OTS proposes changing the name of the “R” component from Relationship to Risk Management. Within the Risk Management component, examiners would evaluate corporate governance; board of directors and senior management oversight; policies, procedures, and limits; risk monitoring and management information systems; and internal controls. OTS recognizes that each SLHC must have the flexibility to tailor risk management programs to its size, complexity, and inherent risks. OTS also recognizes that its most complex holding companies are highly integrated and may manage risk on an enterprise-wide basis, both within and across business lines and legal entities. Changes to Rating System OTS believes that it should refine the current holding company supervisory approach and ratings system. An effective rating system must include an accurate assessment of each enterprise's financial and managerial condition. The rating system must be flexible and apply to holding companies of all sizes and complexity. The current rating scale does not facilitate meaningful distinctions in the strengths and weaknesses of an enterprise. Therefore, OTS is proposing the use of a five-point numeric scale similar to the Uniform Financial Institution Ratings System (UFIRS) and the OTS CAMELS rating system. The five-point scale would be used for both composite and component ratings assigned to SLHCs. The use of a five-point scale will better reflect issues of supervisory concern and will provide more distinction in the supervisory assessment of condition. A five-point scale also correlates with and is more comparable to the thrift and bank holding company rating systems. OTS proposes to make one other change to the ratings definitions. Historically, OTS has based the rating of the holding company enterprise on its effect on its subsidiary thrift. OTS has encountered situations where it has supervisory concerns within the holding company enterprise, which did not have a direct impact on the thrift. OTS believes that using the effect on the thrift subsidiary as a SLHC rating criterion can lead to misinterpretation of the rating. It also may not be as accurate in portraying the condition of the SLHC enterprise as ratings criteria based on financial condition, operations, and risk profile. After thoroughly evaluating the language in the ratings definitions, OTS believes that language emphasizing the SLHC's effect on its thrift subsidiary limits the supervisory purpose of the rating. The SLHC's effect on its thrift subsidiary will continue to be an important consideration in the examination process, but the proposal does not include such language as rating criterion. The proposed changes will elevate the prominence of risk management; better align holding company examination components with OTS's supervisory process; and provide a more accurate assessment of the condition of SLHCs. OTS recognizes that it bases certain guidance and administrative processes on the current SLHC rating scale and definitions. OTS anticipates that a rating of “4” or “5” will equate to an “unsatisfactory” rating for assessment and enforcement purposes. OTS expects to conform existing guidance and regulations to incorporate any changes made to the SLHC rating system. Proposed Text of the Savings and Loan Holding Company Rating System Holding Company Rating System The holding company rating system is used to assess a holding company's Capital, Organizational Structure, Risk Management, and Earnings. Using this system, OTS comprehensively and uniformly evaluates all holding company enterprises, focusing supervisory attention on the holding company enterprises that are complex or exhibit financial and operational weaknesses or adverse trends. The rating system: • Identifies problem or deteriorating holding company enterprises • Categorizes holding company enterprises with deficiencies in particular areas • Assesses the aggregate strength of the SLHC industry. Each holding company enterprise receives a composite rating based on the evaluation factors. Composite and component ratings are assigned based on a 1 to 5 numeric scale. A “1” rating is the highest rating, indicating the strongest performance and practices and least degree of supervisory concern. A “5” rating is the lowest rating, indicating the weakest performance and the highest degree of supervisory concern. Examiners will use the following descriptions to assign composite and component ratings to SLHCs. Description of the Rating System Elements Composite Rating The composite rating is the overall assessment of the holding company enterprise as reflected by its organizational structure, risk management, and consolidated financial strength. The composite rating encompasses both a forward-looking and current assessment of the consolidated enterprise, as well as an assessment of the relationship between the companies in the enterprise. The composite rating is not a simple numeric average of the CORE components; rather, the composite rating reflects OTS's judgment of the relative importance of each component to the operation of the holding company enterprise. Some components may receive more weight than others depending on the SLHC's activities and risk profile. Assignment of a composite rating may incorporate any factor that significantly affects the overall condition of the holding company enterprise, although generally the composite rating is closely related to the component ratings assigned. *Composite 1.* A holding company enterprise in this group is sound in almost every respect and generally has components rated 1 or 2. Any weaknesses are minor, and the board of directors and management can correct them in the normal course of business. The enterprise is able to withstand economic, financial, and risk exposure changes because of solid risk management practices and financial condition. Cash flow is abundant and adequately services debt and other obligations. This holding company enterprise exhibits strong performance and risk management practices relative to its size, complexity, and risk profile. *Composite 2.* A holding company enterprise in this group is fundamentally sound but may have modest weaknesses. The board of directors and management are capable and willing to correct any weaknesses. Generally, no component rating should be more severe than 3 for this holding company enterprise. Risk management practices and financial condition create stability, and this holding company enterprise is capable of withstanding business fluctuations. Cash flow is adequate to service obligations. Overall, risk management practices are satisfactory relative to the enterprise's size, complexity, and risk profile. *Composite 3.* A holding company enterprise in this group raises some degree of supervisory concern in one or more of the component areas, with weaknesses that range from moderate to severe. The magnitude of the deficiencies is generally not severe enough to rate a component more severely than 4. Management may lack the ability or willingness to effectively address weaknesses within appropriate time frames. This holding company enterprise is less resistant to adverse business conditions. Risk management practices may be less than satisfactory relative to the enterprise's size, complexity, and risk profile. However, there is only a remote threat to the holding company enterprise's continued viability. *Composite 4.* A holding company enterprise in this group has serious financial or managerial deficiencies that result in unsatisfactory performance. The supervisory concerns, which management and the board are not satisfactorily addressing, range from severe to critically deficient. A holding company enterprise in this group is generally not capable of withstanding adverse business fluctuations. Risk management practices are generally unacceptable relative to the enterprise's size, complexity, and risk profile. The enterprise may place undue pressure on subsidiaries to meet its cash flow by upstreaming imprudent dividends or fees. Unless there is prompt action to correct these conditions, future viability could be impaired. *Composite 5.* The magnitude and character of the risk management or financial weaknesses of a holding company enterprise in this category could lead to insolvency without immediate aid from shareholders or supervisory action. The volume and severity of problems are beyond the board and management's ability or willingness to control or correct. Risk management practices are inadequate relative to the enterprise's size, complexity, and risk profile. The inability to prevent liquidity or capital depletion places the holding company enterprise's continued viability in serious doubt. Capital Adequacy

(C)Component Rating C reflects the adequacy of an enterprise's consolidated capital position, from a regulatory perspective and an economic capital perspective, as appropriate to the holding company enterprise. During OTS's review of capital adequacy, OTS will consider the risk inherent in an enterprise's activities and the ability of capital to absorb unanticipated losses, support business activities including the level and composition of the parent company and subsidiaries' debt, and support business plans and strategies. *Capital Rating 1.* A rating of 1 indicates that the consolidated holding company enterprise maintains an abundant amount of capital to support the volume and risk characteristics of its business lines and products; to provide a significant cushion to absorb unanticipated losses; and to fully support the level and composition of borrowing. In addition, the enterprise has abundant capital to support its business plans and strategies, it has the ability to enter capital markets to raise additional capital as necessary, and it has a strong capital allocation and planning process. *Capital Rating 2.* A rating of 2 indicates that the consolidated holding company enterprise maintains adequate capital to support the volume and risk characteristics of its business lines and products; to provide a sufficient cushion to absorb unanticipated losses; and to support the level and composition of borrowing. In addition, the enterprise has sufficient capital to support its business plans and strategies, it has the ability to enter capital markets to raise additional capital when necessary, and it has a satisfactory capital allocation and planning process. *Capital Rating 3.* A rating of 3 indicates that the consolidated holding company enterprise may not maintain sufficient capital to support the volume and risk characteristics of certain business lines and products; the unanticipated losses arising from the activities; or the level and composition of borrowing. In addition, the enterprise may not maintain a sufficient capital position to support its business plans and strategies, it may not have the ability to enter into capital markets to raise additional capital as necessary, or it may not have a sufficient capital allocation and planning process. The capital position of the consolidated holding company enterprise could quickly become inadequate if there is deterioration in operations. *Capital Rating 4.* A rating of 4 indicates that the capital level of the consolidated holding company enterprise is significantly below the amount needed to ensure support for the volume and risk characteristics of certain business lines and products; the unanticipated losses arising from activities; and the level and composition of borrowing. In addition, the weaknesses in the capital position prevent the enterprise from supporting its business plans and strategies, it may not have the ability to enter into capital markets to raise additional capital as necessary, or it has a weak capital allocation or planning process. *Capital Rating 5.* A rating of 5 indicates that the level of capital of the consolidated holding company enterprise is critically deficient. Immediate assistance from shareholders or other external sources of financial support is required. Organizational Structure

(O)Component Rating The O component is an assessment of the operations and risks in the holding company enterprise. In the O component, OTS evaluates the organizational structure, considering the lines of business, affiliate relationships, concentrations, exposures, and the overall risk inherent in the structure. OTS's analysis under the O component considers existing as well as potential issues and risks. OTS pays particular attention to the following types of risk in assigning the O rating: Type of risk Description Credit Credit risk arises from the potential that a borrower or counterparty will fail to perform on an obligation. Market Market risk is the risk to a financial institution's condition resulting from adverse movements in market rates or prices, such as interest rates, foreign exchange rates, or equity prices. Liquidity Liquidity risk is the potential that an institution will be unable to meet its obligations as they come due because of an inability to liquidate assets or obtain adequate funding (funding liquidity risk) or that it cannot easily unwind or offset specific exposures without significantly lowering market prices because of inadequate market depth or market disruptions (market liquidity risk). Operational Operational risk arises from the potential that inadequate information systems, operational problems, breaches in internal controls, fraud, or unforeseen catastrophes will result in unexpected losses. Transaction risk arises from problems with service or product delivery. This risk is a function of internal controls, information systems, employee integrity, and operating processes. Legal/Compliance Legal risk arises from the potential that unenforceable contracts, lawsuits, or adverse judgments can disrupt or otherwise negatively affect the operations or condition of a banking organization. Compliance risk is the risk to earnings or capital arising from violations of, or nonconformance with, laws, rules, regulations, prescribed practices, or ethical standards. Reputation Reputation risk is the potential that negative publicity regarding an institution's business practices, whether true or not, will cause a decline in the customer base, costly litigation, or revenue reductions. Country/Sovereign Country risk arises from the general level of political, financial, and economic uncertainty in a country, which impacts the value of the country's bonds and equities. Sovereign risk is the risk that a central bank will impose foreign exchange regulations that will reduce or negate the value of foreign exchange contracts. It also refers to the risk of government default on a loan made to a country or guaranteed by it. Contagion/Systemic Contagion entails the risk that financial difficulties encountered by a business line or subsidiary of a holding company could have an adverse impact on the financial stability of the enterprise and possibly even on the markets in which the constituent parts operate. Systemic risk is defined by financial system instability, potentially catastrophic, caused or exacerbated by idiosyncratic events or conditions in financial intermediaries. Impacted areas include: market value of positions, liquidity, credit-worthiness of counterparties and obligors, default rates, liquidations, risk premia, and valuation uncertainty. Concentration The exposure to losses due to a concentration (assets, liabilities, off-balance-sheet) at the subsidiary, business line, and/or enterprise level. Intra-Group Transactions Exposures to risk that result from transactions between affiliates. Strategic and Execution Strategic and execution risk is the risk to earnings or capital arising from adverse business decisions or improper implementation of those decisions. This risk is a function of the compatibility of an organization's strategic goals, the business strategies developed to achieve those goals, the resources deployed against these goals, and the quality of implementation. The resources needed to carry out business strategies are both tangible and intangible. They include communication channels, operating systems, delivery networks, and managerial capacities and capabilities. Strategic risk focuses on more than an analysis of the written strategic plan. It focuses on how plans, systems, and implementation affect the enterprise's franchise value. It also incorporates how management analyzes external factors that impact the strategic direction of the company. Insurance Pricing and Underwriting Risk The risk that pricing and underwriting practices are inadequate to provide for the risks assumed. Reserving Risk The risk that actual losses or other contractual payments reflected in reported reserves or other liabilities will be greater than estimated. *Organizational Structure Rating 1.* A rating of 1 indicates that the organizational structure, including the nature and level of risk associated with the affiliates' activities, pose minimal concern. Management controls and monitors intra-group exposures. Any concerns posed by strategic plans, the control environment, concentrations, legal or reputational issues, or other types of risk within the enterprise are minor, and management and the board can address them in the normal course of business. *Organizational Structure Rating 2.* A rating of 2 indicates that the organizational structure exhibits minor weaknesses, but the nature and level of risks associated with the holding company's activities are unlikely to be material concerns. Intra-group exposures, including servicing agreements, are generally acceptable, but isolated transactions or exposures may present limited cause for regulatory concern. Concerns posed by strategic plans, the control environment, concentrations, legal or reputational issues, or other types of risks within the enterprise are modest, and management and the board can address them in the normal course of business. *Organizational Structure Rating 3.* A rating of 3 indicates that there are organizational structure weaknesses that raise supervisory concern. The nature and level of risks associated with the holding company activities are moderately likely to cause concern. Intra-group exposures, including servicing agreements, have the potential to undermine the financial condition of other companies in the enterprise. Strategic growth plans, weaknesses in the control environment, concentrations, legal or reputational issues, or other types of risk within the enterprise are moderately likely to cause regulatory concern. The enterprise has one or more entities in the structure that could adversely affect the operation of other entities in the enterprise if management does not take corrective action. *Organizational Structure Rating 4.* A rating of 4 indicates that there are weaknesses in the organizational structure of the enterprise, and/or the nature and level of risks associated with the holding company's activities are, or have a considerable likelihood of becoming, a cause for concern. Intra-group exposures, including servicing agreements, may also have the immediate potential to undermine the operations of companies in the enterprise. Strategic growth plans, weaknesses in the control environment, concentrations, legal or reputational issues, or other types of risk within the enterprise may be of considerable cause for regulatory concern. The weaknesses identified could seriously affect the operation of one or more companies in the enterprise. *Organizational Structure Rating 5.* A rating of 5 indicates that there are substantial weaknesses in the organizational structure of the enterprise, and/or the nature and level of risks associated with the activities are, or pose a high likelihood of becoming, a significant concern. Strategic growth plans, a deficient control environment, concentrations, legal or reputational issues, or other types of risk within the enterprise may be of critical concern to one or more companies in the enterprise. The weaknesses identified seriously jeopardize the continued viability of one or more companies in the enterprise. Risk Management

(R)Component Rating R represents OTS's evaluation of the ability of the directors and senior management, as appropriate for their respective positions, to identify, measure, monitor, and control risk. The R rating underscores the importance of the control environment, taking into consideration the complexity of the enterprise and the risk inherent in its activities. The R rating includes an assessment of four areas: board and senior management oversight; policies, procedures, and limits; risk monitoring and management information systems; and internal controls. These areas are evaluated in the context of inherent risks as related to the size and complexity of the holding company's operations. They provide a consistent framework for evaluating risk management and the control environment. Moreover, a consistent review of these four areas provides a clear structure and basis for discussion of the R rating. Risk management element Description Governance/Board and Senior Management Oversight This area evaluates the adequacy and effectiveness of board and senior management's understanding and management of risk inherent in the holding company enterprise's activities, as well as the general capabilities of management. It also considers management's ability to identify, understand, and control the risks within the holding company enterprise, to hire competent staff, and to respond to changes in risk profile or changes in the holding company's operating sectors. Policies, Procedures, and Limits This area evaluates the adequacy of policies, procedures, and limits given the risks inherent in the activities of the consolidated enterprise and its stated goals and objectives. OTS's analysis considers the adequacy of the enterprise's accounting and risk disclosure policies and procedures. Risk Monitoring and Management Information Systems This area assesses the adequacy of risk measurement and monitoring, and the adequacy of the holding company's management reports and information systems. Include a review of the assumptions, data, and procedures used to measure risk and the consistency of these tools with the level of complexity of the enterprise's activities. Internal Controls This area evaluates the adequacy of internal controls and internal audit procedures, including the accuracy of financial reporting and disclosure and the strength and influence of the internal audit team. Include a review of the independence of control areas from management and the consistency of the scope coverage of the internal audit team with the complexity of the enterprise. *Risk Management Rating 1.* A rating of 1 indicates that management effectively identifies and controls all major enterprise risks. Management is fully prepared to address risks emanating from new products and changing market conditions. The board and management are forward-looking and active participants in managing risk. Management ensures that appropriate policies and limits exist and that the board understands, reviews, and approves them. Policies and limits are supported by risk monitoring procedures, reports, and management information systems that provide management and the board with the information and analysis necessary to make timely and appropriate decisions in response to changing conditions. Risk management practices and the enterprise's infrastructure are flexible and highly responsive to changing industry practices and current regulatory guidance. Staff has sufficient expertise and depth to manage the risks assumed. Internal controls and audit procedures are sufficiently comprehensive and appropriate to the size and activities of the holding company. There are few noted exceptions to the enterprise's established policies and procedures, and none is material. Management effectively and accurately monitors and manages the enterprise consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and guidance, and in accordance with internal policies and procedures. Risk management processes are fully effective in identifying, monitoring, and controlling risks. *Risk Management Rating 2.* A rating of 2 indicates that the enterprise's management of risk is largely effective, but exhibits some minor weaknesses. Management and the board demonstrate a responsiveness and ability to cope successfully with existing and foreseeable risks in the business plans. While the enterprise may have some minor risk management weaknesses, management and the board have recognized and are resolving these problems. Overall, board and senior management oversight, policies and limits, risk monitoring procedures, reports, and management information systems are satisfactory and effective. Risks are controlled and do not require additional supervisory attention. The holding company enterprise's risk management practices and infrastructure are satisfactory, and management makes appropriate adjustments in response to changing industry practices and current regulatory guidance. Staff expertise and depth are generally appropriate to manage the risks assumed. Internal controls may display modest weaknesses or deficiencies, but they are correctable in the normal course of business. The examiner may have recommendations for improvement, but the weaknesses noted should not have a significant effect on the condition of the enterprise. *Risk Management Rating 3.* A rating of 3 signifies that there are moderate deficiencies in risk management practices and, therefore, there is a cause for additional supervisory attention. One or more of the four elements of sound risk management is not acceptable, which precludes the enterprise from fully addressing one or more significant risks to its operations. Certain risk management practices need improvement to ensure that management and the board are able to identify, monitor, and control all significant risks. In addition, the risk management structure may need improvement in areas of significant business activity, or staff expertise may not be commensurate with the scope and complexity of business activities. Management's response to changing industry practices and regulatory guidance may not be sufficient. The internal control system may be lacking in some important aspects, leading to continued control exceptions or failure to adhere to written policies and procedures. The risk management weaknesses could have adverse effects if management does not take corrective action. *Risk Management Rating 4.* A rating of 4 represents deficient risk management practices that fail to identify, monitor, and control significant risk exposures in material respects. There is a general lack of adequate guidance and supervision by management and the board. One or more of the four elements of sound risk management is deficient and requires immediate and concerted corrective action by the board and management. The enterprise may have serious identified weaknesses that require substantial improvement in internal control, accounting procedures, or adherence to laws, regulations, and supervisory guidance. The risk management deficiencies warrant a high degree of supervisory attention because, unless properly addressed, they could seriously affect the condition of the holding company enterprise. *Risk Management Rating 5.* A rating of 5 indicates a critical absence of effective risk management practices in identifying, monitoring, or controlling significant risk exposures. One or more of the four elements of sound risk management is wholly deficient, and management and the board have not demonstrated the capability to address these deficiencies. Internal controls are critically weak and could seriously jeopardize the continued viability of the enterprise. If not already evident, there is an immediate concern about the reliability of accounting records and regulatory reports and the potential for losses if corrective measures are not taken immediately. Deficiencies in the enterprise's risk management procedures and internal controls require immediate and close supervisory attention. Earnings

(E)Component Rating E reflects the consolidated holding company enterprise's overall financial performance, including measures such as the quality of consolidated earnings, profitability, and liquidity. OTS's review of this area considers the level, trend, and sources of earnings on a consolidated level as well as for material legal entities or business lines. OTS also assesses the ability of earnings to augment capital and to provide ongoing support for an enterprise's activities. Within this component, OTS also considers the liquidity of the enterprise. This rating reflects the consolidated holding company enterprise's ability to attract and maintain the sources of funds necessary to achieve financial efficiency, support operations, and meet obligations. OTS evaluates the funding conditions for each of the material legal entities in the holding company structure to determine if any weaknesses exist that could affect the funding profile of the consolidated enterprise. *Earnings Rating 1.* A rating of 1 indicates that the consolidated holding company enterprise's overall financial performance is solid. The quantity and quality of earnings for material business lines and subsidiaries are sufficient to make full provision for the absorption of losses and/or accretion of capital in light of asset quality and business plan objectives. The enterprise has strong liquidity levels along with well-developed funds management practices. The parent company and subsidiaries have reliable and sufficient access to sources of funds on favorable terms to meet present and anticipated liquidity needs. *Earnings Rating 2.* A rating of 2 indicates that the consolidated holding company enterprise's financial performance is adequate. The quantity and quality of the earnings for major business lines and subsidiaries are generally adequate to make provision for the absorption of losses and/or accretion of capital in light of asset quality and business plan objectives. The enterprise maintains satisfactory liquidity levels and funds management practices. The parent company and subsidiaries have access to sufficient sources of funds on acceptable terms to meet present and anticipated liquidity needs. Modest weaknesses in funds management practices may be evident, but management and the board can correct those weaknesses in the normal course of business. *Earnings Rating 3.* A rating of 3 indicates that the consolidated holding company enterprise's financial performance exhibits modest weaknesses. Major business line and subsidiary earnings are not fully adequate to make provisions for the absorption of losses and the accretion of capital in relation to the business plan objectives. The financial performance of this enterprise may reflect static or inconsistent earnings trends, chronically insufficient earnings, or less than satisfactory asset quality. This enterprise's liquidity levels or funds management practices may need improvement. The enterprise may lack ready access to funds on reasonable terms or may evidence significant weaknesses in funds management practices at the parent company or subsidiary levels. However, these deficiencies are correctable in the normal course of business with sufficient board and management attention. *Earnings Rating 4.* A rating of 4 indicates that the consolidated holding company enterprise's financial performance is weak. Major business line or subsidiary earnings are insufficient to provide for losses and the necessary accretion of capital. The enterprise may exhibit erratic fluctuations in net income, poor earnings (and the likelihood of a further downward trend), intermittent losses, chronically depressed earnings, or a substantial drop from previous performance. The liquidity levels or funds management practices of this holding company enterprise may be deficient. The enterprise may not have or be able to obtain a sufficient volume of funds on reasonable terms to meet liquidity needs at the parent company or subsidiary levels. *Earnings Rating 5.* A rating of 5 indicates that the consolidated holding company enterprise has poor financial performance and one or more business lines or subsidiaries are experiencing losses. Such losses, if not reversed, represent a distinct threat to the enterprise's solvency through erosion of capital. In addition, the liquidity levels or funds management practices are critically deficient and may threaten continued viability. The enterprise requires immediate external financial assistance to meet maturing obligations or other liquidity needs. Dated: April 3, 2007. By the Office of Thrift Supervision. Scott M. Polakoff, Deputy Director & Chief Operating Officer. [FR Doc. E7-6602 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6720-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0222] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Cemetery Administration (NCA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection for which approval has expired, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information needed to obtain a government headstone or grave marker. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov* ; or to Mechelle Powell, National Cemetery Administration (40D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420; or *e-mail: mechelle.powell@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0222” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mechelle Powell at

(202)501-1960 or FAX

(202)273-9381. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-21), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect to the following collection of information, NCA invites comments on:

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of NCA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of NCA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Application for Standard Government Headstone or Marker for Installation in a Private or State Veterans' Cemetery, VA Form 40-1330. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0222. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* The next of kin or other responsible parties of deceased veterans complete VA Form 40-1330 to apply for Government provided headstones or markers for unmarked graves. VA uses the data collected to determine the veteran's eligibility for headstone or marker. *Affected Public:* Individuals or Households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 83,500 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 15 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 334,000. Dated: March 29, 2007. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E7-6513 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0051] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(SAAs)for expenses incurred in the approval and supervision of education and training programs. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov* or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail to *nancy.kessinger@va.gov* . Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0051” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at

(202)273-7079 or FAX

(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(SAAs)for necessary salary, fringe and travel expenses incurred in the approval and supervision of education and training programs. SAAs are required to report their activities to VA quarterly and provide notices regarding which courses, training programs and tests were approved, disapproved or suspended. *Affected Public:* Federal Government, and State, Local or Tribal Government. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 37,647 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 1 hour. *Frequency of Response:* Quarterly. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 59. *Estimated Number of Responses:* 3,637. Dated: March 29, 2007. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E7-6514 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0697] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments for information needed to approve licensing and certification tests for payment. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov* or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail to *nancy.kessinger@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0697” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at

(202)273-7079 or FAX

(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501—3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Application for Approval of a Licensing or Certification and Organization Entity: 38 CFR 21.4268. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0697. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* The data collected will be used to determine whether licensing and certification tests, and the organizations offering them, should be approved for VA training under education programs VA administers. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 3,000 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondents:* 3 hours. *Estimated Annual Responses:* 1,000. Dated: March 29, 2007. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E7-6515 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0249] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments for information needed to service delinquent home loans. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov* or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail to *nancy.kessinger@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0249” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at

(202)273-7079 or FAX

(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501—3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Loan Service Report, VA Form 26-6808. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0249. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* VA personnel complete VA Form 26-6806 during personal contact with delinquent obligors. VA will use the information collected to determine whether a loan default is insoluble or whether the obligor has reasonable prospects for curing the default and maintaining the mortgage obligation in the future. The information will also be used to intercede with the holder of the loan to accept a specially arrange repayment plan or other forbearance aimed at assisting the obligor in retaining his or her home. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 6,250 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 25 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 15,000. Dated: March 29, 2007. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E7-6516 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0325] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on information needed to authorize advance payment of educational assistance benefits. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov* or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail to *nancy.kessinger@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0325” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at

(202)273-7079 or FAX

(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Certificate of Delivery of Advance Payment and Enrollment, VA Form 22-1999V. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0325. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* VA will make payments of educational assistance in advance when the veteran, servivcemember, reservist, or eligible person has specifically requested such payment. The school in which a student is accepted or enrolled delivers the advance payment to the student and is required to certify the deliveries to VA. VA Form 22-1999V serves as the certificate of delivery of advance payment and to report any changes in the student's training status. The schools are required to report the following to VA: the failure of the student to enroll; an interruption or termination of attendance; or a finding of unsatisfactory attendance, conduct or progress. *Affected Public:* State, Local or Tribal Government, Business or other for-profit, and Not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 1,551 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 5 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,807. *Estimated Total Number of Respondents:* 18,614. Dated: March 29, 2007. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E7-6518 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0495] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(DIC)benefits. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov* or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail to *nancy.kessinger@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0495” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at

(202)273-7079 or FAX

(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Titles:* Marital Status Questionnaire, VA Form 21-0537. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0495. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* VA Form 21-0537 is used to confirm the marital status of a surviving spouse receiving dependency and indemnity compensation benefits (DIC). If a surviving spouse remarries, he or she is no longer entitled to DIC unless the marriage began after age 57 or has been terminated. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 189 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 5 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 2,270. Dated: March 29, 2007. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E7-6520 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0695] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments for information needed to determine an applicant's eligibility for reimbursement of licensing and certification test fees. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov* or to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20M35), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail to *nancy.kessinger@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0695” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy J. Kessinger at

(202)273-7079 or FAX

(202)275-5947. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Application for Reimbursement of Licensing or Certification Test Fees, 38 CFR 21.1030(b), 21-7140(c)(4). *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0695. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* Claimants complete VA Form 22-0803 to request reimbursement of licensing or certification fees paid. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden:* 1,590 hours. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondents:* 15 minutes. *Estimated Annual Responses:* 6,361. Dated: March 29, 2007. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E7-6521 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0559] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Cemetery Administration (NCA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information needed to determine the number of interments conducted at State veterans' cemeteries. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov;* or to Mechelle Powell, National Cemetery Administration (40D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420; or e-mail: *mechelle.powell@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0559” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mechelle Powell at

(202)501-1960 or FAX

(202)273-6695. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of NCA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of NCA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* State Cemetery Data, VA Form 40-0241. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0559. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* VA Form 40-0241 is used to provide data regarding number of interments conducted at State veterans' cemeteries each year. The State Cemetery Grants Services use the data collected to project the need for additional burial space and to demonstrate to the States (especially those without State veterans' cemeteries) the viability of the program. *Affected Public:* Federal Government, and State, Local or Tribal Government. *Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* 65. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 60 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* Annually. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 65. Dated: March 29, 2007. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E7-6522 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0365] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The National Cemetery Administration (NCA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information needed to determine a claimant entitlement to disinter the remains of a loved one from or within a national cemetery. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov;* or to Mechelle Powell, National Cemetery Administration (40D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420; or e-mail: *mechelle.powell@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0365” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mechelle Powell at

(202)273-5181 or FAX

(202)273-6695. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of NCA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of NCA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Request for Disinterment, VA Form 40-4970. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0365. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* Claimants complete VA Form 40-4970 to request removal of remains from a national cemetery for interment at another location. Interments made in national cemeteries are permanent and final. All immediate family members of the decedent, including the person who initiated the interment, (whether or not he/she is a member of the immediate family) must provide a written consent before disinterment is granted. VA will accept an order from a court of local jurisdiction in lieu of VA Form 40-4970. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Annual Burden Hours:* 55. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 10 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 329. Dated: March 29, 2007. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E7-6524 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS [OMB Control No. 2900-0600] Proposed Information Collection Activity: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Veterans Health Administration

(VHA)is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

(PRA)of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the **Federal Register** concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on information needed to request an informal review of veterans' denied healthcare benefits claims. DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 8, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the collection of information through *www.Regulations.gov;* or to Mary Stout, Veterans Health Administration (193E1), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420; or e-mail: *mary.stout@va.gov.* Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0600” in any correspondence. During the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)at *www.Regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Stout at

(202)273-8664. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VHA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of VHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. *Title:* Regulation for Reconsideration of Denied Claims. *OMB Control Number:* 2900-0600. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved collection. *Abstract:* Veterans who disagree with the initial decision denying their healthcare benefits in whole or in part may obtain reconsideration by submitting a request in writing within one year of the date of the initial decision. The request must state why the decision is in error and include any new and relevant information not previously considered. This process reduces both formal appeals and allows decision making to be more responsive to veterans using the VA healthcare system. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Total Annual Burden:* 50,826 hours. *Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent:* 30 minutes. *Frequency of Response:* On occasion. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 101,652. Dated: March 29, 2007. By direction of the Secretary. Denise McLamb, Program Analyst, Records Management Service. [FR Doc. E7-6526 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Privacy Act of 1974 AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). ACTION: Notice of new system of records; reopen comment period. SUMMARY: The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552(e)(4), requires that all agencies publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of the existence and character of their systems of records. On October 24, 2006, the Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA)published a notice of a new system of records entitled “Automated safety Incident Surveillance and tracking System—VA” (99VA13). 71 FR 62347-62350. The system notice provided for a comment period ending November 24, 2006, and if no comments were received during that period of time, the system of records was to be effective on that date. 71 FR 62347. On November 24, 2006, the comment period was extended until December 26, 2006. In response to a request for additional time in which to submit comments, the Department of Veterans Affairs is hereby reopening the comment period until October 9, 2007. All written comments previously received will be considered and need not be resubmitted. DATES: The comment period is reopened to October 9, 2007. Comments must be received on or before October 9, 2007. If no public comment is received, the new system will become effective October 9, 2007. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted through *www.Regulations.gov;* by mail or hand-delivery to the Director, Regulations Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to

(202)273-9026. Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1063B, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call

(202)273-9515 for an appointment. In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Veterans Health Administration Privacy Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20420, telephone

(727)320-1839. Approved: April 3, 2007. Robert C. McFetridge, Assistant to the Secretary for Regulation Policy and Management. [FR Doc. 07-1738 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 16

Traces to 16 documents

U.S. Code