360 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Notices 

docket facility’s Web site at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review the DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 

19477–78). The Statement may also be 

found at http://dms.dot.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on December 27, 

2006. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E6–22557 Filed 1–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Petition for Waiver of Compliance 

In accordance with Part 211 of Title 

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

notice is hereby given that the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA) received 

a request for a waiver of compliance 

with certain requirements of Federal 

railroad safety regulations. The 

individual petition is described below, 

including the party seeking relief, the 

regulatory provisions involved, the 

nature of the relief being requested, and 

the petitioner’s arguments in favor of 

relief. 

The Mid-Continent Railway Historical 

Society, Inc. 

[Docket Number FRA–2006–26300] 

The Mid-Continent Railway Historical 

Society, Inc. (MCRY), seeks a waiver of 

compliance from certain provisions of 

the Safety Glazing Standards of 49 CFR 

223.9, and Railroad Safety Appliance 

Standards of 49 CFR Part 231, for one 

locomotive: MCRY 1256. The MCRY is 

located in Sauk County, Wisconsin. 

This is a rural area in which 

locomotives travel at a maximum speed 

of 15 miles per hour through an all-rural 

countryside. 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in these proceedings by 

submitting written views, data, or 

comments. FRA does not anticipate 

scheduling a public hearing in 

connection with these proceedings since 

the facts do not appear to warrant a 

hearing. If any interested party desires 

an opportunity for oral comment, they 

should notify FRA in writing before the 

end of the comment period and specify 

the basis for their request. 

All communications concerning this 

petition should identify the appropriate 

docket number (FRA–2006–26300) and 

may be submitted by one of the 

following methods: 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic site; 

• Fax: 202–493–2251; 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001; or 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Communication received within 45 

days of the date of this notice will be 

considered by FRA prior to final action 

being taken. Comments received after 

that date will be considered to the 

extent practicable. All written 

communications concerning these 

proceedings are available for 

examination during regular business 

hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the above 

facility. All documents in the public 

docket are also available for inspection 

and copying on the Internet at the 

docket facility’s Web site at http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union, etc.). You may review the DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 

19477–78). The Statement may also be 

found at http://dms.dot.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on December 27, 

2006. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E6–22558 Filed 1–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; 

BMW 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) 

petition for exemption of the X3 vehicle 

line in accordance with 49 CFR part 

543, Exemption from the Theft 

Prevention Standard. This petition is 

granted because the agency has 

determined that the antitheft device to 

be placed on the line as standard 

equipment is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2007 model year (MY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Deborah Mazyck, Office of International 

Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Mazyck’s telephone number is (202) 

366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–

2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated July 18, 2006, BMW 

requested exemption from the partsmaking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) 

for the MY 2007 BMW X3 vehicle line. 

The petition requested exemption from 

parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 

543, Exemption From Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard, based on the 

installation of an antitheft device as 

standard equipment for an entire 

vehicle line. BMW’s submission is 

considered a complete petition as 

required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it 

meets the general requirements 

contained in 543.5 and the specific 

content requirements of 543.6. 

Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may 

petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for 

one line of its vehicle lines per year. In 

its petition, BMW provided a detailed 

description and diagram of the identity, 

design, and location of the components 

of the antitheft device for the X3 Vehicle 

line. BMW will install its antitheft 

device, the Electronically-coded Vehicle 

Immobilizer (EWS), as standard 

equipment on the BMW X3 vehicle line 

beginning with MY 2007. Features of 

the antitheft device will include a key 

with a transponder, loop antenna (coil) 

around the steering lock cylinder, EWS 

control unit and passive immobilizer. 

BMW stated that the EWS 

immobilizer device prevents the vehicle 

from being driven away under its own 

engine power. The EWS control unit 

provides the interface to the loop 

antenna (coil), engine control unit and 

starter. It queries key data from the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Notices 361 

transponder and provides the coded 

release of the engine management for a 

valid key. The ignition and fuel supply 

are only released when a correct coded 

release signal has been sent by the EWS 

control unit, to allow the vehicle to 

start. The immobilizer device is 

automatically activated when the engine 

is shut off and the vehicle key is 

removed from the ignition lock cylinder. 

In addition to the key, the antitheft 

device can be activated by the use of its 

radio frequency remote control. The 

frequency for the remote control 

constantly changes to prevent an 

unauthorized person from opening the 

vehicle by intercepting the signals of its 

remote control. The vehicle is also 

equipped with a central-locking system 

that can be operated to lock and unlock 

all doors or to unlock only the driver’s 

door, preventing forced entry into the 

vehicle through the passenger doors. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of 543.6, BMW provided 

information on the reliability and 

durability of its proposed device. To 

ensure reliability and durability of the 

device, BMW conducted tests based on 

its own specified standards. BMW also 

provided a detailed list of the tests 

conducted and believes that the device 

is reliable and durable since the device 

complied with this specified 

requirements for each test. BMW stated 

that because the EWS immobilizer 

device is incorporated into the ignition, 

fuel injection, and starter circuit of the 

vehicle and is activated passively, 

reliability and durability of the system 

have to be ensured because the vehicle 

will not start if the EWS system 

malfunctions. BMW also stated that, if 

a malfunction should occur, the EWS 

device incorporates a microprocessor 

that can be accessed by using BMW 

diagnostic equipment to diagnose and 

correct the cause of the problem. 

BMW further stated that NHTSA’s 

preliminary theft rate data (0.5955 

thefts/thousand vehicles produced) for 

calendar year/model year 2004 shows 

the effectiveness of the antitheft system 

on the X3 line. The theft rate is below 

the rate of 1.83 thefts/thousand vehicles 

for the entire U.S. fleet, a ranking of 188 

out of 231 lines. 

For clarification purposes, the agency 

notes that it does not collect theft data. 

NHTSA publishes theft rates based on 

data provided by the National Crime 

Information Center (NCIC) of the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. NHTSA 

uses NCIC data to calculate theft rates 

and publishes these rates annually in 

the Federal Register. 

The effectiveness of BMW’s EWS is 

compared with devices which NHTSA 

has previously determined to be as 

effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as would 

compliance with the parts-making 

requirements of part 541. The antitheft 

device that BMW intends to install on 

its X3 vehicle line for MY 2007 is the 

same system that BMW installed on its 

BMW X5 line, BMW 6 line, BMW 7 line, 

the BMW Z4 line and the MINI vehicle 

line. BMW has concluded that the 

antitheft device proposed for its X3 line 

is no less effective than those devices 

for which NHTSA has already granted 

exemptions from the parts-marking 

requirements. 

BMW stated that the proposed 

antitheft device does not provide any 

visible or audible indication of 

unauthorized entry. Theft data have 

indicated a decline in theft rates, as 

published by NHTSA, for vehicle lines 

that have been equipped with antitheft 

devices similar to that which BMW 

proposes to install on the X3 line. Citing 

the grant of exemptions for the 

Oldsmobile Aurora and the Buick 

Riviera, BMW notes that the agency has 

concluded that the lack of a visual or 

audio alarm has not prevented these 

antitheft devices from being effective 

protection against theft. 

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

CFR 543.7(b), the agency finds that 

BMW has provided adequate reasons for 

its belief that the antitheft device for the 

X3 vehicle line will reduce and deter 

theft. The agency concludes that the 

device will provide four of the five 

types of performance listed in 

§ 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; 

preventing defeat or circumvention of 

the device by unauthorized persons; 

preventing operation of the vehicle by 

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 

reliability and durability of the device. 

The agency agrees that the device is 

substantially similar to devices for 

which the agency has previously 

approved exemptions, including the 

BMW X5 line, BMW 6 line, BMW 7 line, 

the BMW Z4 line and the MINI vehiche 

line. In addition, the X3 vehicle line, 

which has had the device as standard 

equipment since the 2004 model year, 

has a theft rate below the median theft 

rate. This conclusion is based on the 

information BMW provided about the 

device for the BMW X3 vehicle line. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full BMW’s petition for 

exemption for the X3 vehicle line from 

the parts-marking requirements of 49 

CFR part 541, beginning with the 2007 

model year. The agency notes that 49 

CFR part 541, Appendix A–1, identifies 

those lines that are exempted from the 

Theft Prevention Standard for a given 

model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains 

publication requirements incident to the 

disposition of all part 543 petitions. 

Advanced listing, including the release 

of future product nameplates, the 

beginning model year for which the 

petition is granted and a general 

description of the antitheft device is 

necessary in order to notify law 

enforcement agencies of new vehicle 

lines exempted from the parts-marking 

requirements of the Theft Prevention 

Standard. 

If BMW decides not to use the 

exemption for this line, it must formally 

notify the agency, and, thereafter, the 

line must be fully marked as required by 

49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of 

major component parts and replacement 

parts). 

NHTSA notes that if BMW wishes in 

the future to modify the device on 

which this exemption is based, the 

company may have to submit a petition 

to modify the exemption. Section 

543.7(d) states that a part 543 exemption 

applies only to vehicles that belong to 

a line exempted under this part and 

equipped with the anti-theft device on 

which the lines’s exemption is based. 

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

submission of petitions ‘‘to modify an 

exemption to permit the use of an 

antitheft device similar to but differing 

from the one specified in that 

exemption.’’

The agency wishes to minimize the 

administrative burden that § 543.9(c)(2) 

could place on exempted vehicle 

manufacturers and itself. The agency 

did not intend part 543 to require the 

submission of a modification petition 

for every change to the components or 

design of an antitheft device. The 

significance of many such changes 

could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA 

suggests that if the manufacturer 

contemplates making any changes the 

effects of which might be characterized 

as de minimis, it should consult the 

agency before preparing and submitting 

a petition to modify. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of 

authority at 49 CFR 1.50. 

Issued on: December 15, 2006. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 06–9959 Filed 1–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES