34498 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

Building, Room 10202, Attention DOT/

FAA Desk Officer, Washington, DC

20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Judith Street, ABC–100; Federal

Aviation Administration, 800

Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20591; Telephone

number (202) 267–9895.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

3507 of Title 44 of the United States

Code, as adopted by the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, requires that

agencies prepare a notice for publication

in the Federal Register, listing

information collection requests

submitted to OMB for approval or

renewal under that Act. OMB reviews

and approves agency submissions in

accordance with criteria set forth in that

Act. In carrying out its responsibilities,

OMB also considers public comments

on the proposed forms and the reporting

and recordkeeping requirements. OMB

approval of an information collection

requirement must be renewed at least

once every three years.

Title: Certification and Operations:

Air Carriers and Commercial Operators

of Large Aircraft-FAR 121.

OMB Control Number: 2120–0008.

Abstract: Each operation which seeks

to obtain, or is in possession of, an air

carrier operating certificate must

comply with the requirements of FAR

121 in order to maintain data which is

used to determine if the air carrier is

operating in accordance with minimum

standards.

Need: Title 49, United States Code,

Section 44701, prescribes the

requirements governing air carrier

operations. Air carriers are respondents

and the information collected is used to

determine operators compliance and

applicant eligibility.

Respondents: The respondents are an

estimated 140 air carriers and

commercial operators certificated under

FAR 121.

Frequency: Annually.

Burden: The estimated total burden is

3.3 million hours.

Title: Aviator Safety Studies.

OMB Control Number: 2120–0587.

Abstract: In order to conduct effective

research on the contribution of pilots to

aircraft accidents, data are required on

the normative distribution of various

pilot attributes and their association

with accident

Need: In order to develop effective

intervention programs to improve

safety, data are required on the type and

range of various pilot attributes related

to their skill in making safety-related

aeronautical decisions. The information

collected will be used to develop new

training methods particularly suited to

general aviation pilots.

Respondents: The respondents are an

estimated 4,000 certified pilots.

Frequency: On occasion.

Burden: The estimated total burden is

8,000 hours.

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 27,

1996.

Phillip A. Leach,

Information Clearance Officer, United States

Department of Transportation.

[FR Doc. 96–16864 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Petition for Modification of a

Previously Approved Antitheft Device;

Porsche

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for

modification of a previously approved

antitheft device.

SUMMARY: On June 2, 1989, this agency

granted Porsche Cars of North America,

Inc.’s (Porsche) petition for exemption

from the parts-marking requirements of

the vehicle theft prevention standard for

the 911 and 928 car lines. On September

9, 1994, the agency determined that the

proposed changes made on the 911

antitheft device for model year (MY)

1995 were de minimis changes and did

not require Porsche to submit a petition

to modify its exemption pursuant to 49

CFR 543.9(c)(2). This notice grants

Porsche’s petition for a new

modification to its previously approved

antitheft device for the 911 car line

beginning with the 1998 model year.

The agency grants this petition because

it has determined, based on substantial

evidence, that the modified antitheft

device described in Porsche’s petition to

be placed on the car line as standard

equipment is likely to be as effective in

reducing and deterring motor vehicle

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Rosalind Proctor, Office of Planning and

Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590. Ms. Proctor’s telephone number

is (202) 366–1740. Her fax number is

(202) 493–2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its MY

1989 petition, Porsche included a

detailed description and diagrams of the

identity, design, and location of the

components of the antitheft device for

the MY 1990 Porsche 911 and 928 car

lines. The antitheft device consisted of

a central-locking system, a starterinterrupt feature and an audible and

visible alarm system. The device was

activated by locking either the driver or

passenger door with the ignition key.

When the ignition key was used to lock

either the driver or passenger door, the

remaining door was automatically

locked. When all the doors were locked,

the vehicle’s alarm system automatically

armed to monitor the protected areas of

the vehicle. The alarm monitored the

doors, front hood, rear trunk (911) or

hatch (928), radio and ignition switch.

If any of the protected areas were

violated, the alarm horn would sound,

and the fog and brake lights would

flash. In its petition, Porsche stated that

the car would not start as long as the

alarm remained armed. Disarming the

device was accomplished by unlocking

either the driver or passenger door with

the ignition key. The agency determined

that the antitheft device Porsche

intended to install on the MY 1990 911

and 928 car lines as standard equipment

was likely to be as effective in reducing

and deterring motor vehicle theft as

compliance with the parts-marking

requirements.

In its MY 1995 request for

modification, Porsche included a

detailed description of the identity,

design and location of the components

of the antitheft device, including

diagrams of components and their

location in the vehicle. Porsche stated

that the MY 1995 device added a remote

control, automatic activation and

expanded anti-start features to the MY

1990 device. Porsche also described the

antitheft device installed as standard

equipment as passively activated. By

letter dated September 9, 1994, the

agency determined that the proposed

changes made on the MY 1995 911

antitheft device were de minimis

changes and did not require Porsche

Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche) to

submit a petition to modify its

exemption. The agency determined that

the antitheft device, which Porsche

intended to install on the 911 car line

as standard equipment, would be likely

to be as effective in reducing and

deterring motor vehicle theft as would

compliance with the parts-marking

requirements of the Theft Prevention

Standard.

By letter dated February 21, 1996,

Porsche submitted its petition for a

second modification to its previously

approved antitheft device. Porsche’s

submittal is a complete petition, as

required by 49 CFR 543.9(d), in that it

meets the general requirements

contained in § 543.5 and the specific

content requirements of § 543.6.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices 34499

Porsche stated that the antitheft

device on the MY 1998 car line differs

from the MY 1995 device in that it is

simpler and better integrated. In the MY

1998 device, the disablement of the

engine can only be accomplished by

using the key in the ignition, while in

the MY 1995 device it could be done

through the use of the remote control.

Also, in the MY 1995 antitheft device

the vehicle could only be locked or

unlocked using the remote control,

while in the MY 1998 antitheft device,

it can be done by using the key or the

remote control.

The MY 1998 antitheft device will

consist of a micro-processor based

immobilizer system, which prevents the

engine management system from

functioning when the system is engaged,

and a central-locking and alarm system.

The immobilizer system is

automatically activated by removing the

correct key from the ignition switch/

steering lock. The ignition key contains

a radio signal transponder which sends

a signal to the control unit to allow the

engine to start. According to Porsche,

only by inserting the proper key into the

ignition switch will the correct signal be

sent to the control unit. The time for the

control unit to verify the correct signal

takes only milliseconds and is

completed in the time it takes to turn

the key to start the engine. Disablement

of the immobilizer system is virtually

impossible, since the only way to enable

the engine management system is by

using the correct ignition key to send

the proper code to the immobilizer

system, which then signals the engine

management system to operate. Removal

of the key returns the device to its

normal ‘‘off’’ state where engine

operation is impossible. Therefore, even

if the driver/operator forgets to lock the

doors upon leaving the vehicle, an

unauthorized person will be unable to

move the vehicle unless the proper

ignition key is used to disable the

immobilizer system.

Porsche also stated that, for MY 1998,

the antitheft device will feature a

central-locking system that can be

activated by using either the ignition

key or the remote control. When either

the ignition key or the remote control is

used to lock any door, all doors are

locked and the vehicle’s alarm system is

automatically armed to monitor the

protected areas of the vehicle. The

device monitors for opening of the

doors, front luggage compartment, rear

decklid, fuel filler door, soft top storage

compartment, glove compartment, radio

contact switches and interior movement

via an infra-red sensor. If one of the

protected areas of the vehicle is

violated, the horn will sound and the

lights will flash.

The antitheft device will function

separately from the immobilizer system

in that the immobilizer system cannot

be disabled by any manipulation of the

door locks or the central-locking system.

Porsche states that any manipulation of

the door locks or the central-locking

system will not disable the immobilizer

system because neither the door locks or

the central-locking system are capable of

sending the necessary codes to the

control unit. When the alarm system is

armed, a ‘‘safe’’ function is activated

that removes the mechanical link

between the inside and outside door

handles and the locking mechanism.

This prevents the manipulation of the

door handles from having any influence

on the door locks.

Porsche states that an unauthorized

person will be unable to operate the

vehicle without the use of the proper

key. Porsche also states that

disconnection of power to the antitheft

device or the engine management

system does not affect their operation.

The immobilizer and alarm systems

are located within the passenger

compartment of the vehicle. The control

unit is located under the driver seat and

the battery and alarm horn are

inaccessibly located inside the front

trunk of the vehicle.

Porsche addressed the reliability and

durability of its antitheft device by

providing a list of specific tests that

ensure the system’s integrity. The tests

included testing for extreme

temperature, voltage spike, reverse

polarity, electromagnetic interference,

vibration and endurance. Additionally,

the antitheft device utilizes a built-in

self test which constantly checks for

system failures. If a failure is detected,

the driver/operator is signaled by the

alarm indicator.

Porsche compares its MY 1998

antitheft device to similar devices that

have previously been granted

exemptions by the agency. It compared

its proposed device to devices that do

not have alarms such as the General

Motors’ PASS-Key device, the

Mercedes-Benz 202 car line device and

the Porsche MY 1997 (confidential

nameplate) device. Porsche states that

the agency has previously determined

that these devices without alarms are as

effective as parts marking. Therefore,

Porsche contends that since the MY

1998 device will include the same

features and an alarm as standard

equipment, its device will also be as

effective in reducing and deterring theft

as parts marking. Based on data from the

FBI’s National Crime Information

Center, NHTSA’s official source of theft

data, Porsche showed that the theft rate

of the Chevrolet Camaro fell below the

median after installation of the PASSKey device in MY 1989. Porsche reports

that for MY 1988, the Chevrolet Camaro

had a theft rate of 25.7394 (per thousand

vehicles produced) and for MY 1993, it

fell to 2.7243. Preliminary theft data for

MY 1994 show that theft rates for the

Chevrolet Camaro and Mercedes-Benz

202 car lines remain below the median

of 3.5826. The preliminary data for MY

1994 show a theft rate of 3.5375 for the

Chevrolet Camaro and 1.3810 for the

Mercedes-Benz 202 car line. Porsche

also stated that other GM models

equipped with the PASS-KEY device,

such as the Pontiac Firebird and

Chevrolet Corvette, have shown large

decreases in theft rates. Preliminary

theft data for MY 1994 show a theft rate

of 3.0927 for the Pontiac Firebird and

4.5884 for the Chevrolet Corvette.

Additionally, Porsche reaffirmed that its

MY 1998 device will provide engine

disablement for its 911 line, which it

believes is at least as effective as that

provided by the GM PASS-Key device.

For these reasons, Porsche believes

that the antitheft device proposed for

installation on its 911 car line is likely

to be as effective in reducing thefts as

compliance with the parts-marking

requirements of part 541.

NHTSA believes that there is

substantial evidence indicating that the

modified antitheft device installed as

standard equipment on the MY 1998

Porsche 911 car line will likely be as

effective in reducing and deterring

motor vehicle theft as compliance with

the requirements of the Theft Prevention

Standard (49 CFR part 541). This

determination is based on the

information that Porsche submitted with

its petition and other available

information. The agency believes that

the modified device will continue to

provide the types of performance listed

in § 543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;

attracting attention to unauthorized

entries; preventing defeat or

circumventing 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 CFR 543.6(a)(4), the

agency also finds that Porsche has

provided adequate reasons for its belief

that the modified antitheft device will

reduce and deter theft. This information

included a description of reliability and

functional tests conducted by Porsche

for the antitheft device and its

components.

For the foregoing reasons, the agency

hereby exempts the Porsche 911 car line

that is the subject of this notice, in
34500 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 2, 1996 / Notices

whole, from the requirements of 49 CFR

part 541.

If, in the future, Porsche decides not

to use the exemption for the car line that

is the subject of this notice, it should

formally notify the agency. If such a

decision is made, the car 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 Porsche wishes

in the future to modify the device on

which this exemption is based, the

company may have to submit a petition

to modify the exemption. Section

543.7(d) states that a part 543 exemption

applies only to vehicles that belong to

a line exempted under this part and

equipped with the antitheft device on

which the line’s exemption is based.

Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the

submission of petitions ‘‘(t)o 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 which

§ 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: June 27, 1996.

Patricia Breslin,

Acting Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–16840 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits

Administration, Department of Veterans

Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork and respondent

burden, the Veterans Benefits

Administration (VBA) invites the

general public and other Federal

agencies to comment on this

information collection. This request for

comment is being made pursuant to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub.

L. 104–13; 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).

Comments should address the accuracy

of the burden estimates and ways to

minimize the burden including the use

of automated collection techniques or

the use of other forms of information

technology, as well as other relevant

aspects of the information collection.

DATES: Written comments and

recommendations on the proposal for

the collection of information should be

received by no later than September 3,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits

Administration (20M30), Department of

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20420. All

comments will become a matter of

public record and will be summarized

in the VBA request for Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

approval. In this document the VBA is

soliciting comments concerning the

following information collection:

OMB Control Number: 2900–0055.

Title and Form Number: Request for

Determination of Loan Guaranty

Eligibility—Unremarried Surviving

Spouses, VA Form 26–1817.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Need and Uses: A completed VA

Form 26–1817 constitutes a formal

request by an unremarried surviving

spouse of a veteran for a certificate of

eligibility for home loan benefits. The

information is used to determine the

applicant’s basic eligibility for the

benefit.

Current Actions: Title 38, U.S.C.,

3701(b)(2), authorizes the VA to extend

home loan benefits to unremarried

surviving spouses of veterans whose

deaths occurred either while serving on

active duty or were a direct result of

service-connected disabilities.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households.

Estimated Annual Burden: 187 hours.

Estimated Average Burden Per

Respondent: 15 minutes.

Frequency of Response: On occasion.

Estimated Number of Respondents:

750.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for additional information or

copies of the form should be directed to

Department of Veterans Affairs, Attn:

Jacquie McCray, Information

Management Service (045A4), 810

Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC

20420, Telephone (202) 273–8032 or

FAX (202) 273–5981.

Dated: June 24, 1996.

By direction of the Secretary.

William T. Morgan,

Management Analyst.

[FR Doc. 96–16779 Filed 7–1–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

Agency Information Collection

Activities: Proposed Collection;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits

Administration, Department of Veterans

Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort

to reduce paperwork and respondent

burden, Veterans Benefits

Administration (VBA) invites the

general public and other Federal

agencies to comment on this

information collection. This request for

comment is being made pursuant to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–13; 44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)). Comments should

address the accuracy of the burden

estimates and ways to minimize the

burden including the use of automated

collection techniques or the use of other

forms of information technology, as well

as other relevant aspects of the

information collection.

DATES: Written comments and

recommendations on the proposal for

the collection of information should be

received by no later than September 3,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments

to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits

Administration (20M30), Department of

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20420. All

comments will become a matter of

public record and will be summarized

in the VBA request for Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

approval. In this document VBA is

soliciting comments concerning the

following information collection:

OMB Control Number: 2900–0092.

Title and Form Number: Counseling

Record—Personal Information, VA Form

28–1902.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Need and Uses: A counseling

psychologist uses the form to evaluate

veteran claimants and assist eligible

veterans to plan a suitable program of

vocational rehabilitation. If needed, VA

must develop a program of assistance

and services to improve the veteran’s

potential to participate in vocational