Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Notices 15843 

total annual enplanements at Aspen/ 

Pitkin County Airport. 

Brief Description of Projects Approved 

for Collection and Use 

Acquire snow removal equipment 

(plow). 

Extend runway 15/33. 

Construct connector taxiway. 

Construct south deice pad apron. 

Improve runway safety area. 

PFC application and administration 

fees. 

Decision Date: February 17, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jesse Lyman, Denver Airports District 

Office, (303) 342–1262. 

Public Agency: City of Klamath Falls, 

Oregon. 

Application Number: 12–03–C–00– 

LMT. 

Application Type: Impose and use a 

PFC. 

PFC Level: $4.50. 

Total PFC Revenue Approved in This 

Decision: $987,785. 

Earliest Charge Effective Date: April 1, 

2012. 

Estimated Charge Expiration Date: 

October 1, 2023. 

Class of Air Carriers Not Required To 

Collect PFCs: None. 

Brief Description of Projects Approved 

for Collection and Use 

Terminal enhancements. 

Security enhancements. 

Construct north end perimeter road. 

Conduct miscellaneous studies. 

Rehabilitate runway 14/32. 

Rehabilitate runway 7/25. 

Environmental mitigation. 

Acquire snow removal equipment. 

PFC administration costs. 

Decision Date: February 27, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Trang Tran, Seattle Airports District 

Office, (425) 227–1662. 

AMENDMENTS TO PFC APPROVALS

Amendment No., City, State Amendment 

approved date 

Original 

approved net 

PFC revenue 

Amended 

approved net 

PFC revenue 

Original 

estimated 

charge exp. 

date 

Amended 

estimated 

charge exp. 

date 

03–06–C–01–ACV; Arcata, CA. .......................................... 2/01/12 $578,450 $523,597 03/01/05 03/01/05 

05–07–C–01–ACV; Arcata, CA. .......................................... 2/02/12 392,265 336,981 10/01/05 10/01/05 

09–03–C–02–PGV; Greenville, NC. .................................... 2/03/12 596,985 396,985 10/01/11 10/01/11 

03–02–C–01–MCW; Mason City, IA. ................................... 2/08/12 379,500 303,061 02/01/12 02/01/12 

08–07–C–01–MOD; Modesto, CA. ...................................... 2/10/12 395,134 337,634 12/01/15 04/01/12 

99–02–C–07–MCI; Kansas City, MO. ................................. 2/14/12 7,375,439 6,741,254 05/01/11 04/01/11 

09–09–C–02–BUR; Burbank, CA. ....................................... 2/16/12 21,965,000 24,965,000 05/01/15 09/01/15 

09–06–C–01–PUW; Pullman, WA. ...................................... 2/17/12 255,998 271,077 05/01/11 12/01/10 

10–11–C–02–ATL; Atlanta, GA. .......................................... 2/21/12 422,480,178 347,373,302 01/01/23 07/01/22 

94–01–C–04–RIC; Richmond, VA. ...................................... 2/23/12 11,847,867 11,846,842 05/01/98 05/01/98 

01–04–C–04–RIC; Richmond, VA. ...................................... 2/23/12 3,401,433 2,647,868 11/01/16 114/01/16 

Issued in Washington, DC on March 8, 

2012. 

Joe Hebert, 

Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger 

Faculty Charge Branch. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6315 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; 

Nissan 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

Nissan North America, Inc.’s (Nissan) 

petition for exemption of the Juke 

vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR 

Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle 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 partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). 

Nissan requested confidential treatment 

of specific information in its petition by 

letter dated November 29, 2011. The 

agency addressed Nissan’s request for 

confidential treatment by letter dated 

December 29, 2011. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2013 model year (MY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carlita Ballard, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, West Building, 

W43–439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard’s 

telephone number is (202) 366–5222. 

Her fax number is (202) 493–2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated November 29, 2011, 

Nissan requested an exemption from the 

parts-marking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) 

for the MY 2013 Nissan Juke vehicle 

line. The petition requested an 

exemption from parts-marking pursuant 

to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 

based on the installation of an antitheft 

device as standard equipment for the 

entire vehicle line. 

Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may 

petition NHTSA to grant an exemption 

for one vehicle line per model year. In 

its petition, Nissan provided a detailed 

description and diagram of the identity, 

design and location of the components 

of the antitheft device for the Juke 

vehicle line. Nissan will install a 

passive transponder-based, electronic 

immobilizer, antitheft device as 

standard equipment on its Juke vehicle 

line beginning with MY 2013. Major 

components of the antitheft device will 

include an engine control module, 

immobilizer/body control module 

(BCM), immobilizer antenna and a 

security indicator light. Nissan will also 

install an audible and visible alarm 

system on the Juke as standard 

equipment. Nissan stated that activation 

of the immobilization device occurs 

automatically when the ignition key is 

turned to the ‘‘OFF’’ position and all the 

doors are closed and locked through the 

use of the key or the remote control 

mechanism. Deactivation occurs when 

all the doors are unlocked with the key 

or remote control mechanism. Nissan’s 

submission is considered a complete 

petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in 

that it meets the general requirements 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

15844 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Notices 

contained in § 543.5 and the specific 

content requirements of § 543.6. 

Nissan stated that the immobilizer 

device prevents normal operation of the 

vehicle without the use of a special key. 

Nissan further stated that installation of 

the theft alarm system in the device has 

been designed to protect the belongings 

within the vehicle and the vehicle itself 

from being stolen when the back door 

and all of the side doors are closed and 

locked. The alarm system is activated 

when any attempt is made to open any 

of the vehicle doors without the use of 

the key or remote control mechanism. 

Nissan stated that when the alarm is 

activated, the head lamps will flash and 

the horn will sound. Nissan stated that 

deactivation of the alarm can only occur 

when the driver’s side door is unlocked 

with the key or the remote control 

device. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of 543.6, Nissan provided 

information on the reliability and 

durability of the device. Nissan stated 

that its antitheft device is tested for 

specific parameters to ensure its 

reliability and durability. Additionally, 

Nissan stated that the immobilizer 

device satisfies the requirements of 

European Directive ECE R116, including 

tamper resistance. Nissan provided a 

detailed list of the tests conducted and 

believes that the device is reliable and 

durable since the device complied with 

its specified requirements for each test. 

Nissan provided data on the 

effectiveness of the antitheft device 

installed on its Juke vehicle line in 

support of the belief that its antitheft 

device will be highly effective in 

reducing and deterring theft. Nissan 

referenced the National Insurance Crime 

Bureau’s data which it stated showed a 

70 percent reduction in theft when 

comparing MY 1997 Ford Mustangs 

(with a standard immobilizer) to MY 

1995 Ford Mustangs (without an 

immobilizer). Nissan also referenced the 

Highway Loss Data Institute’s data 

which reported that BMW vehicles 

experienced theft loss reductions 

resulting in a 73 percent decrease in 

relative claim frequency and a 78 

percent lower average loss payment per 

claim for vehicles equipped with an 

immobilizer. Additionally, Nissan 

stated that theft rates for its Pathfinder 

vehicle experienced reductions from 

model year (MY) 2000 to 2001 with 

implementation of the engine 

immobilizer device as standard 

equipment and further significant 

reductions subsequent to MY 2001. 

Specifically, Nissan noted that the 

agency’s theft rate data for MY’s 2001 

through 2006 reported theft rates of 

1.9146, 1.8011, 1.1482, 0.8102, 1.7298 

and 1.3474 respectively for the Nissan 

Pathfinder after installation of an 

immobilizer device. 

In support of its belief that its 

antitheft device will be as effective as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements in reducing and deterring 

vehicle theft, Nissan compared its 

device to other similar devices 

previously granted exemptions by the 

agency. Specifically, it referenced the 

agency’s grant of a full exemption to 

General Motors Corporation for the 

Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora 

(58 FR 44872, August 25, 1993), and 

Cadillac Seville vehicle lines (62 FR 

20058, April 24, 1997) from the partsmarking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard. Nissan stated that 

it believes that since its device is 

functionally equivalent to other 

comparable manufacturers’ devices that 

have already been granted parts-marking 

exemptions by the agency such as the 

‘‘PASS–Key III’’ device used on the 

1997 Buick Park Avenue, the 1998 

Cadillac Seville and the 2000 Cadillac 

DeVille, Pontiac Bonneville, Buick 

LeSabre and Oldsmobile Aurora lines, 

the Nissan immobilizer device has the 

potential to achieve the level of 

effectiveness equivalent to the ‘‘PASS– 

Key III’’ device. 

Based on the supporting evidence 

submitted by Nissan on the device, the 

agency believes that the antitheft device 

for the Juke vehicle line is likely to be 

as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 

541). 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. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 

CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a 

petition for exemption from the partsmarking 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 Nissan has provided adequate 

reasons for its belief that the antitheft 

device for the Juke vehicle line is likely 

to be as effective in reducing and 

deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of the Theft Prevention 

Standard (49 CFR part 541). This 

conclusion is based on the information 

Nissan provided about its device. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full Nissan’s petition 

for exemption for the Juke vehicle line 

from the parts-marking requirements of 

49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 

2013 model year vehicles. The agency 

notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix 

A–1, identifies those lines that are 

exempt 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 partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. 

If Nissan decides not to use the 

exemption for this line, it must 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 Nissan 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. § 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 § 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Notices 15845 

Issued on: March 9, 2012. 

Christopher J. Bonanti, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6411 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

March 13, 2012. 

The Department of the Treasury will 

submit the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and clearance in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

DATES: Comments should be received on 

or before April 16, 2012 to be assured 

of consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding 

the burden estimate, or any other aspect 

of the information collection, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden, to 

the (1) Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget, Attention: 

Desk Officer for Treasury, New 

Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503, or email at 

OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV and 

to the (2) Treasury PRA Clearance 

Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Suite 11020, Washington, DC 20220, or 

on-line at www.PRAComment.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Copies of the submission(s) may be 

obtained by calling (202) 927–5331, 

email at PRA@treasury.gov, or the entire 

information collection request may be 

found at www.reginfo.gov. 

Alcohol and Tabacco Tax and Trade 

Bureau (TTB) 

OMB Number: 1513–0002. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Personnel Questionnaire— 

Alcohol and Tobacco Products. 

Form: TTB F 5000.9. 

Abstract: The information listed on 

TTB F 5000.9, Personnel 

Questionnaire—Alcohol and Tobacco 

Products, enables TTB to determine 

whether or not an applicant for an 

alcohol or tobacco permit meets the 

minimum qualifications. The form 

identifies the individual, residence, 

business background, financial sources 

for the business and criminal record. 

Affected Public: Private Sector: 

Businesses or other for-profits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 9,950. 

OMB Number: 1513–0026. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Claim for Drawback of Tax on 

Tobacco Products, Cigarette Papers, and 

Cigarette Tubes. 

Form: TTB F 5620.7. 

Abstract: TTB F 5620.7 documents 

taxpaid tobacco products, cigarette 

papers, and cigarette tubes that were 

exported to a foreign country, Puerto 

Rico, or Virgin Islands. This form is 

used by taxpayers to claim drawback for 

tax paid on exported products. 

Affected Public: Private Sector: 

Businesses or other for-profits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 144. 

OMB Number: 1513–0042. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Drawback on Distilled Spirits 

Exported. 

Form: TTB F 5110.30. 

Abstract: TTB F 5110.30 is used by 

persons who export distilled spirits and 

wish to claim a drawback of taxes 

already paid in the United States (U.S.). 

The form describes the claimant, spirits 

for tax purposes, amount of tax to be 

refunded, and a certification by the U.S. 

Government agent attesting to 

exportation. 

Affected Public: Private Sector: 

Businesses or other for-profits. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

10,000. 

OMB Number: 1513–0112. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Title: Special (occupational) Tax 

Registration and Return. 

Form: TTB F 5630.5a, 5630.5d, 

5630.5t. 

Abstract: On August 10, 2005, 

President Bush signed into law the 

‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users,’’ Public Law 109–59. Section 

11125 of that Act permanently repealed, 

effective July 1, 2008, the special 

(occupational) taxes on all taxpayers 

except for Tobacco Products 

Manufacturers (TPM), Cigarette Papers 

and Tubes Manufacturers (CPTM), and 

TP Export Warehouse Proprietors 

(TPEWP). TTB F 5630.5t is used for 

registration and tax payment for the 

TPM, CPTM, and TPEWP; TTB F 

5630.5a is a tax return/registration for 

persons already in business who failed 

to register or pay on or before 6/30/ 

2008; and TTB F 5630.5d is used to 

register Alcohol Dealers on and after 

7/1/08. 

Affected Public: Individuals and 

households; Private Sector: Businesses 

or other for-profits and not-for-profit 

institutions. 

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 

14,583. 

Dawn D. Wolfgang, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6396 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

State Small Business Credit Initiative 

(SSBCI) National Standards For 

Compliance 

AGENCY: Department of the Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of Document 

Availability. 

SUMMARY: This Notice announces the 

availability of ‘‘SSBCI National 

Standards: Compliance and Oversight 

for Participating States’’. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 15, 2012 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the document are 

available at the SSBCI Web site at www.

treasury.gov/ssbci. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information 

should be directed to Deputy Director, 

SSBCI, Department of the Treasury, 

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20220. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

‘‘SSBCI National Standards: Compliance 

and Oversight for Participating States’’ 

are applicable to all states, territories, 

the District of Columbia, and 

municipalities that were approved by 

Treasury to participate in the SSBCI 

(‘‘Participating States’’). The list of 

Participating States is available here on 

the SSBCI Web site at www.treasury.

gov/ssbci. These national standards 

provide Participating States with a 

recommended framework for 

identifying, monitoring, and managing 

SSBCI compliance and oversight risks. 

These national standards for compliance 

also provide guidance on mitigating 

specific risks that SSBCI believes are 

high-potential for all approved state 

programs. For each risk, SSBCI 

recommends specific best practices and 

mitigation techniques for Participating 

States that will supplement and inform 

the oversight duties imposed on 

Participating States by the Small 

Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111– 

240) (the ‘‘Act’’), the Allocation 

Agreement, and the SSBCI Policy 

Guidelines. This document is published 

under the authority in Section 

3009(a)(2) of the Act, which requires the 

Secretary of the Treasury to establish 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES