Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices 27619

towards the design of an acceptable

guard. We have involved Montana State

University professors from their

Mechanical Engineering department.

We have conducted Finite Element

Analysis and traditional methods of

design arriving at a plastically

deforming guard that meets the

standard, for nonasphalt carrying

applications.’’ The deforming guard

does not retract, thus cannot be used on

dump body trailers. It believes that its

problem is similar to that experienced

by other manufacturers manufacturing

dump trailers. The company states that

‘‘devices used in other countries do not

meet FMVSS 224.’’ It continues to study

‘‘hinged/retractable devices’’ but must

overcome lack of space for a retracted

device. It will strive to develop a device

that would comply with Federal

requirements while an exemption is in

effect.

If an exemption is not granted,

substantial economic hardship will

result. First, it would lose a trailer that

accounts for 40 percent of its overall

production. In addition, ‘‘some

percentage of the remaining 60% would

be lost since our customers typically

purchase matching truck mounted

dump bodies which may also be lost.’’

It also believes that 31 of its 63

employees would have to be laid off if

its application is denied. Maintenance

of full employment would be in the

public interest it argues. Beall’s net

income was $39,317 in 1996 and

$72,213 in 1996. In the first 10 months

of 1997, its net income before income

taxes was $697,040. If the application is

denied, it foresees a net loss of $71,445

for 1998.

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on the petition

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket and notice number, and be

submitted to: Docket Management,

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. It is requested but not required

that 10 copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date below will be considered,

and will be available for examination in

the docket at the above address both

before and after that date, between the

hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. To the

extent possible, comments filed after the

closing date will also be considered.

Notice of final action on the petition

will be published in the Federal

Register pursuant to the authority

indicated below.

Comment closing date: June 8, 1998.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.4

Issued on: May 13, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–13276 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–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 notice grants in full the

petition of Nissan North America, Inc.,

(Nissan) for an exemption of a high-theft

line (whose nameplate is confidential)

from the parts-marking requirements of

the Federal Motor 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.

DATES: The exemption granted by this

notice is effective beginning with the

(confidential) model year.

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) 366–0846. Her fax number is

(202) 493–2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a letter

dated November 26, 1997, Nissan North

America, Inc., (Nissan) requested

exemption from the parts-marking

requirements of the theft prevention

standard for a motor vehicle line. The

nameplate of the line and the model

year of introduction are confidential.

The letter 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 line.

Nissan’s submittal is considered a

complete petition, as required by 49

CFR 543.7, in that it met the general

requirements contained in § 543.5 and

the specific content requirements of

§ 543.6. Nissan requested confidential

treatment for the information submitted

in support of its petition. In a letter to

Nissan dated January 13, 1998, the

agency granted the petitioner’s request

for confidential treatment of most

aspects of its petition.

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 new line. This antitheft device

includes an engine-immoblizer system.

The antitheft device is activated by

turning the ignition switch to the ‘‘OFF’’

position using the proper ignition key.

In order to ensure the reliability and

durability of the device, Nissan

conducted tests based on its own

specified standards. Nissan provided a

detailed list of the tests conducted.

Nissan stated its belief that the device

is reliable and durable since the device

complied with Nissan’s specified

requirements for each test.

Nissan compared the device proposed

for its vehicle line with devices which

NHTSA has determined to be as

effective in reducing and deterring

motor vehicle theft as would

compliance with the parts-marking

requirements. Nissan’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 542.6(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 antitheft

devices similar to that which Nissan

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.

On the basis of this comparison,

Nissan has concluded that the antitheft

device proposed for its vehicle line is no

less effective than those devices in the

lines for which NHTSA has already

granted full exemptions from the partsmarking requirements.

Based on the evidence submitted by

Nissan, the agency believes that the

antitheft device for the Nissan vehicle

line 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).

The agency believes that the device

will provide four of the five types of

performance listed in 49 CFR

543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;

preventing defeat or circumvention of

the device by unauthorized persons;

preventing operation of the vehicle by
27620 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 96 /Tuesday, May 19, 1998 / Notices

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the

reliability and durability of the device.

As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and

49 CFR 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the agency

finds that Nissan has provided adequate

reasons for its belief that the antitheft

device will reduce and deter theft. This

conclusion is based on the information

Nissan provided about its antitheft

device, much of which is confidential.

This confidential information included

a description of reliability and

functional tests conducted by Nissan for

the antitheft device and its components.

For the foregoing reasons, the agency

hereby grants in full Nissan’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–I identifies

those lines that are exempted from the

theft prevention standard for a given

model year. Advance listing, including

the release of future product

nameplates, is necessary in order to

notify law enforcement agencies of new

models exempted from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft

Prevention Standard. Therefore, since

Nissan has been granted confidential

treatment for the nameplate of its

vehicle, the confidential status of the

nameplate will be protected until, but

no later than, June 1, prior to the model

year of its introduction into the

marketplace. At that time, Appendix

A–I will be revised to reflect the

nameplate of Nissan’s exempted vehicle

line.

If Nissan decides not to use the

exemption or 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 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. 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 ‘‘to modify an

exemption to permit the use of an

anthitheft 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: May 12, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–13252 Filed 5–18–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs

Administration Office of Hazardous

Materials Safety

Notice of Applications for Exemptions

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs

Administration, Office of Hazardous

Materials Safety, DOT.

ACTION: List of Applicants for

Exemptions.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

procedures governing the application

for, and the processing of, exemptions

from the Department of Transportation’s

Hazardous Materials Regulations (49

CFR Part 107, Subpart B), notice is

hereby given that the Office of

Hazardous Materials Safety has received

the applications described herein. Each

mode of transportation for which a

particular exemption is requested is

indicated by a number in the ‘‘Nature of

Application’’ portion of the table below

as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail

freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo

aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying

aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 18, 1998.

ADDRESS COMMENTS TO: Dockets Unit,

Research and Special Programs

Administration, Room 8421, DHM–30,

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Washington, DC 20590.

Comments should refer to the

application number and be submitted in

triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of

comments is desired, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard showing

the exemption application number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of the applications (See Docket

Number) are available for inspection at

the New Docket Management Facility,

PL–401, at the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Nassif Building, 400 7th

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.

This notice of receipt of applications

for new exemptions is published in

accordance with Part 107 of the

Hazardous Materials Transportations

Act (49 U.S.C. 1806; 49 CFR 1.53(e)).

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 14,

1998.

J. Suzanne Hedgepeth,

Director, Office of Hazardous Materials,

Exemptions and Approvals.

NEW EXEMPTIONS

Application No. Docket No. Applicant Regulation(s) affected Nature of exemption thereof

12063–N ........ RPSA–1998–3827 The Hydrocarbon Flow

Specialist, Inc., Morgan City, LA.

49 CFR 172.102, SP T–

18.

To authorize the transportation in commerce of

Hydrofluoric Acid solutions, Class 8, in IM 101

tanks equipped with valve to allow for bottom

discharge. (Modes 1, 3.)

12064–N ........ RPSA–1998–3830 Occident Chemical

Corp., Webster, TX.

49 CFR 180.509(e) ....... To authorize the requalification of tank cars

using acoustic emission testing. (Mode 2.)

12065–N ........ RPSA–1998–3831 International Flavors &

Fragrances Inc.,

Hazlet, NJ.

49 CFR 173.120(c)(ii) ... To authorize the the use of a specially designed

device to obtain flashpoint data for fragrance

formulas. (Modes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.)

12066–N ........ RPSA–1998–3834 KMG Bernuth Inc.,

Houston, TX.

49 CFR 173.35(b) ......... To authorize the reuse of flexible IBCs for use in

transporting pentachlororphenol, Division 6.1.

(Mode 1.0