Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Notices 55453

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards, is substantially similar to a

motor vehicle manufactured for

importation into and/or sale in the

United States, and certified under 49

U.S.C. 30115, as specified in Annex A,

and is capable of being readily altered

to conform to all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Issued on: October 20, 1997.

Marilynne Jacobs,

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

Annex—A—Nonconforming Motor

Vehicles Decided To Be Eligible For

Importation

1. Docket No. 97–048

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1990–1994,

1996, and 1997 Saab 900 SE

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1990–1994, 1996, and 1997

Saab 900 SE

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR

42157 (August 5, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–219

2. Docket No. 97–051

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1987–1997

Kawasaki ZX400 Motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1987–1997 Kawasaki ZX600

Motorcycles

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR

43425 (August 13, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–222

3. Docket No. 97–052

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1996–1997

Ducati 748 Biposto Motorcycles

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1996–1997 Ducati 916 Biposto

Motorcycles

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR

43770 (August 15, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–220

4. Docket No. 97–053

Nonconforming Vehicles: 1992, 1994–1997

BMW 750iL

Substantially similar U.S.-certified

vehicles: 1992, 1994–1997 BMW 750iL

Notice of Petition published at: 62 FR

43771 (August 15, 1997)

Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP–221.

[FR Doc. 97–28279 Filed 10–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Petition for Modification of a

Previously Approved Antitheft Device;

Saab

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 20, 1997, Saab Cars,

USA, Inc. (Saab) filed a petition with

the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) asking for a

second modification to an agencyapproved exemption from the vehicle

theft prevention standard for its 900 car

line. NHTSA is granting Saab’s petition

for modification of its exemption from

the parts-marking requirements of the

vehicle theft prevention standard for its

model year (MY) 1999 900 car line

because it has determined, based on

substantial evidence, that the antitheft

device described in Saab’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.

DATES: The exemption granted by this

notice is effective at the beginning of the

1999 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Rosalind Proctor, Office of Planning and

Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400

Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC

20590. Ms. Proctor’s telephone number

is (202) 366–0846. Her fax number is

(202) 493–2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

26, 1993, NHTSA published in the

Federal Register a notice granting a

petition from Saab for an exemption

from the parts marking requirements of

the vehicle theft prevention standard for

the Saab 900 car line beginning with

MY 1994 (See 58 FR 39853). By letters

dated September 8 and 12, 1994, Saab

petitioned for the first modification to

its device. The agency determined that

the proposed changes made on Saab

900’s antitheft device for MY 1995 were

de minimis changes and did not require

it to submit a petition to modify its

exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part

543.9(c)(2).

On June 20, 1997, Saab submitted a

second petition for modification of its

previously approved antitheft system for

MY 1999. According to the petition,

Saab will begin MY 1999 production of

the 900 car line in February 1998. This

notice responds to that petition.

Saab’s 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.

Saab’s petition also provided a detailed

description of the identity, design and

location of the components of the

antitheft system, including diagrams of

the components and their location in

the vehicle beginning with the 1999

model year. On August 20, 1997, the

agency contacted Saab by telephone and

obtained additional information which

clarified the nature of the changes to its

antitheft system for the 900 car line for

MY 1999.

In its MY 1999 petition, Saab stated

that for its MY 1999 car line, the driver/

operator will be able to arm the system,

activate the central-locking feature and

monitor the protected areas of the

vehicle from unauthorized tampering

either by using the remote transmitter or

locking the driver’s or passenger’s door

with the correct ignition key. This is a

change from the previously approved

system, in which only the remote

transmitter had the capability to arm

and disarm the system and only the

ignition key could activate the centrallocking feature.

In addition, Saab stated that for MY

1999, the remote transmitter will not

arm or disarm the starter immobilization

feature of the system. The only way to

activate and deactivate that feature will

be by using the correct ignition key

containing a radio signal transponder. In

the previously approved system, the

starter immobilization feature as well as

the ignition and fuel immobilization

features could be armed and disarmed

by using the remote transmitter.

The petition also states that the MY

1999 Saab 900 car line will incorporate

a battery backup for the alarm siren,

‘‘free wheeling’’ door lock cylinders, a

tilt sensor which will detect possible

theft of the vehicle by means of a flatbed

or tow truck removal, and a panic

function feature.

Saab also stated that for MY 1999, the

electronic components in the 900 car

line will use more advanced technology

between various vehicle systems,

including but not limited to the engine

management system and the on-board

diagnostic requirements. Beginning with

MY 1999, the 900 car line will

incorporate a new advanced

communications architecture, ‘‘CAN–

BUS’’. The ‘‘CAN–BUS’’ architecture

will improve the speed and reliability of

the electronic communications between

vehicle systems, and allow

improvements in the standard antitheft

system.

However, Saab noted that the use of

the ‘‘CAN-BUS’’ architecture means that

it will not be able to use the fuel and

ignition immobilization features of its

antitheft system in all of the vehicles for

the 900 car line in the 1999 model year.

These features will be present only in

those vehicles that are equipped with a

turbo-charged engine; they will not be

present in the vehicles with the 2.3 liter
55454 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / Notices

engine. Saab stated that those vehicles

that are equipped with a 2.3 liter engine

will not incorporate the fuel and

ignition immobilizer feature until MY

2000.

In order to ensure the reliability and

durability of the device, Saab stated that

it conducted tests of the antitheft device

which far exceeds the previous testing

program that was used to validate the

reliability and durability of the 1995

through 1998 vehicles.

Saab believes that the antitheft system

proposed for installation on its 900 line

is likely to be as effective in reducing

thefts as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of Part 541. It

believes that the antitheft system for

model years 1999 and later will provide

essentially the same functions and

features as found on today’s 1995

through 1998 system. Therefore, Saab

believes that the modified system will

provide at least the same level of theft

prevention over parts marking. Saab

supports its belief that its proposed

system will be no less effective than the

MY 1995 through 1998’s system by

comparing its MY 1995 preliminary

theft rate of 1.3973 for the 900 line with

the median theft rate of 3.5826

indicating that the agency’s theft data

supports its belief.

Saab also submitted information from

the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI),

which reported a comparison of the

number of claims per thousand insured

vehicles per year. HLDI’s September

1996 insurance theft report indicated a

theft index of 15 for the 1994 through

1995 Saab 900 line. This was the second

lowest figure for all large, midsize, and

small cars listed. The HLDI theft report

published in September 1997 indicated

a theft index of 13, a reduction from the

previous year’s index. HLDI reported

that the antitheft device installed on the

Saab 95 car line and sold in Sweden, has

been awarded the highest-ever security

ratings (96.7 % security rating) given by

Thatcham, the motor vehicle insurance

industry’s research centre.

The agency has evaluated Saab’s MY

1999 petition for modification of the

exemption for the 900 car line from the

parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR

Part 541, and has decided to grant it. It

has determined that the 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

ability to arm the system using either

the ignition key or a remote transmitter

means that arming the system does not

require any additional action by the

driver, which means that the system is

more likely to be armed. The ability to

use the key or the remote to activate and

deactivate the starter immobilizer

improves the level of convenience for

the driver/operator to arm and disarm

the modified system over the present

system. Other improvements include

the addition of a battery backup for the

alarm siren, ‘‘free wheeling’’ door lock

cylinders, a tilt sensor that will detect

attempts to steal the vehicle by means

of flatbed or tow truck, and a panic

function feature.

In its petition, Saab also states that for

MY 1999, not all of the vehicles in the

900 car line will have the fuel and

ignition immobilizer features as part of

the antitheft system. One prerequisite to

qualifying for an exemption under Part

543 is that the antitheft device must be

installed as standard equipment on all

vehicles on a model line. 49 U.S.C.

Section 33106(b). Therefore, in

evaluating whether a system qualifies

for an exemption, the agency may

consider only those features that are

standard across the car line; and may

not consider features that are only

present on some vehicles in the line.

Accordingly, for the purpose of

evaluating whether the system installed

on the Saab 900 line for MY 1999

qualifies for an exemption under Part

543, the agency cannot consider the fuel

and ignition interrupt features to be part

of the system. Since these features are

present on the current system on the

Saab 900, this means that the agency

must treat the MY 1999 system as

though these features are no longer

included.

The absence of these features

diminishes the level of theft protection

somewhat from that provided by the MY

1995 system because the fuel and

ignition immobilizer will not be

standard equipment on the car line. The

agency believes, however, that the

decrease is not substantial and that even

without this feature, the system as

described in Saab’s petition for

modification will provide a level of theft

protection equivalent to parts marking.

The agency notes that Saab has stated

in its petition that it plans to install the

fuel and ignition immobilizer features in

all vehicles in the 900 car line beginning

with MY 2000. If Saab does in fact

decide to add these features as standard

equipment on the 900 line, it must file

either a new petition for modification of

the exemption or a request for de

minimis treatment for the system that

incorporates these features.

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: October 21, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–28291 Filed 10–23–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Section 5a Application No. 34 (Amendment

No. 9)]

Middlewest Motor Freight Bureau, Inc.

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board;

DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation

Board is seeking comments from

interested persons on the application

filed by the Middlewest Motor Freight

Bureau, Inc. (MWB) for approval of

amendments to its by-laws. The

proposed amendments are described

below.

DATES: Comments are due by November

24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send an original and 10

copies of pleadings to Section 5a

Application No. 34 (Amendment No. 9)

to: Surface Transportation Board, Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925

K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20423–0001. Also send one copy to

MWB’s representative: Bryce Rea, Jr.,

1920 N Street, NW., Washington, DC

20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph H. Dettmar, (202) 565–1600 (TDD

for the hearing impaired: (202) 565–

1695.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MWB is

seeking Surface Transportation Board

approval of several minor amendments

to its by-laws. MWB states that the

amendments would reduce the number

of directors and quorum requirements

for meetings of the board of directors

(the Board) of MWB, reduce the size of

the nominating committee for the Board,

revise titles of officers, authorize the

Board to fill vacancies on the Board,

allow for greater flexibility in

scheduling and holding Board meetings,

and eliminate territorial classifications

for the Board or for directors.

MWB proposes to change the titles of

Board members as follows: ‘‘Executive

Vice President’’ would be changed to

‘‘President’’, ‘‘President’’ would be

changed to ‘‘Chairman of the Board’’,

and ‘‘Vice President’’ would be changed

to ‘‘Vice Chairman of the Board.’’