33604 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices

been installed as original equipment. It

claims that the lighting system as a

whole on these vehicles provides

functionally equivalent lighting to

FMVSS 108 requirements.

We have reviewed the application and

disagree with Utilimaster that the

noncompliance is inconsequential to

motor vehicle safety. Utilimaster

replaced an incandescent lamp

assembly with one that uses LEDs. LEDs

emit a very distinct beam of light along

their longitudinal axis with almost no

light being emitted laterally. This is very

different from incandescent light

sources, which usually produce light in

a much wider pattern. The 30 degree

off-vertical set-back position of the

lamps tilts the top of the LED-equipped

lamps too far back for them to meet the

intensity requirements at 10 degrees

down and 45 degrees to the right and

left. With the increasing prevalence of

LEDs in signal lamp assemblies, we

believe it is important to stress to lamp

and vehicle manufacturers that LED

lamp assemblies’ different

characteristics must be taken into

account. Simply replacing lamps that

use incandescent bulbs with similarlysized LED-equipped lamps could have

adverse effects on the performance of

the lighting system. In this case, the

subject lamps have photometric failures

that are as high as 69 percent below the

required performance.

To support its application, Utilimaster

states that, for the areas in which the

clearance and identification lamps are

possibly noncompliant, the parking and

side marker lamps provide additional

light to account for these deficiencies. It

states that ‘‘on a system basis, the

lighting array and coverage of the

clearance, identification, side marker,

and parking lamps on the subject

vehicles provide—and even exceed—the

requisite outboard visibility under

FMVSS 108.’’ We disagree that the

parking and side marker lamps serve as

adequate substitutes for the deficient

areas in the clearance and identification

lamps.

Regarding the clearance lamps, their

intended purpose is to show the overall

width and height of a vehicle. The front

parking lamps do not accomplish this

because they are not near enough to the

edge of the vehicle nor as high as

practicable. We call attention to a

September 4, 1996, agency

interpretation that was requested by

Pace American, Inc. We stated that

‘‘locating a clearance lamp within six to

eight inches of the outermost edges of a

trailer that is 80 or more inches in

overall width does not indicate ‘overall

width’ within the meaning of Standard

No. 108.’’ The center of the front

parking lamps on the subject vehicles is

more than 12 inches from the edge of

the vehicle. Thus, they do not

accurately reflect the width of the

vehicle due to their inboard mounting.

It is also readily apparent that, because

the parking lamps are mounted next to

the headlamps, they do not help to

indicate the height of the subject

vehicles.

Regarding the identification lamps,

their intended purpose is to identify

vehicles with a width of greater than 80

inches (2032 millimeters). Utilimaster’s

argument that the intent of the standard

is met because the front parking lamps

provide light in the areas in which the

subject identification lamps are

deficient is not convincing. The

grouping of the three identification

lamps is unique to vehicles wider than

80 inches (2032 millimeters). If these

lamps are not visible, the front parking

lamps are not sufficient to give the same

recognition, as they do not provide the

universal message that a grouping of

three identification lamps at the top

front of the vehicle does.

To support its position, Utilimaster

cites four inconsequential

noncompliance applications which the

agency granted. It believes that they all

support its position that the lamps on a

vehicle should be viewed as a system,

where deficient areas in some lamps can

be accounted for with light provided by

other lamps. It did not elaborate further

on the similar characteristics of their

applications.

First, Utilimaster cites a General

Motors application in which vehicles

had turn signals that failed by 10

percent in a particular zone (group of

test points). The agency granted the

application based on the fact that the

other zones in the turn signal lamp

exceed the required light output by 20

percent (61 FR 1663). While

Utilimaster’s vehicles do have other

sources of light to account for some of

the deficiencies in the subject lamps, its

noncompliances are as much as 69

percent below the required minimum

level. This is far below the level of

noncompliance exhibited by the

vehicles covered by the GM application.

Further, the additional light in the

noncompliant GM turn signals is

provided from other zones in the same

lamp, not by some other auxiliary lamp.

The second application Utilimaster

cites also resulted in a grant to GM (63

FR 70179). GM produced vehicles in

which the center high-mounted stop

lamp (CHMSL) is partially obscured by

blackout paint on the rear window. One

of the reasons the agency gave to

support granting the application was

that the stop lamps on the vehicles ‘‘far

exceed the minimum photometric

performance levels.’’ The CHMSL and

stop lamps are designed to notify other

drivers of the same event. The lamps

that Utilimaster is trying to supplement

with additional light from the parking

lamps have a very specific meaning,

which will not be conveyed by the front

parking lamps.

Utilimaster cites a third application

from GM which involves daytime

running lamps (DRLs) that were too

close to the turn signals. In this case, a

factor the agency gave in granting the

application (64 FR 28864) was that the

turn signal was of greater than usual

intensity and would not be masked by

the DRL. We don’t understand how this

reasoning is relevant to Utilimaster’s

situation.

Finally, Utilimaster cites the grant of

an application from the American

Transportation Corporation (ATC)

regarding noncompliant air brakes (65

FR 1946). The air brake systems did not

meet the volumetric requirements for

the brake chambers. The vehicles’

stopping capability was not

compromised by the noncompliance

and the agency granted ATC’s

application based on this. We again

don’t understand how this reasoning is

relevant to Utilimaster’s situation.

In consideration of the foregoing,

NHTSA has decided that the applicant

has not met its burden of persuasion

that the noncompliance it describes is

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

Its application is hereby denied, and it

must notify and remedy the

noncompliance as required by the

statute.

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: June 18, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–15699 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–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 petition of BMW of North America,

Inc., (BMW) for an exemption of a highVerDate 11<MAY>2000 15:38 Jun 21, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM pfrm04 PsN: 22JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices 33605

theft line, the BMW MINI, 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 parts-marking requirements of the

Theft Prevention Standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this

notice is effective beginning with the

2002 model year (MY).

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) 493–2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a

petition dated April 4, 2001, BMW of

North America, Inc. (BMW), requested

exemption from the parts-marking

requirements of the theft prevention

standard (49 CFR part 541) for the BMW

MINI vehicle line, beginning with MY

2002. The petition has been filed

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. Based on the

evidence submitted by BMW, the

agency believes that the antitheft device

for the BMW MINI 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).

Section 33106(b)(2)(D) of Title 49,

United States Code, authorized the

Secretary of Transportation to grant an

exemption from the parts marking

requirements for not more than one

additional line of a manufacturer for

MYs 1997–2000. However, it does not

address the contingency of what to do

after model year 2000 in the absence of

a decision under Section 33103(d). 49

U.S.C. 33103(d)(3) states that the

number of lines for which the agency

can grant an exemption is to be decided

after the Attorney General completes a

review of the effectiveness of antitheft

devices and finds that antitheft devices

are an effective substitute for parts

marking. The Attorney General has not

yet made a finding and has not decided

the number of lines, if any, for which

the agency will be authorized to grant

an exemption. Upon consultation with

the Department of Justice, we

determined that the appropriate reading

of section 33103(d) is that the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) may continue to grant partsmarking exemptions for not more than

one additional model line each year, as

specified for model years 1997–2000 by

49 U.S.C. 33106(b)(2)(C). This is the

level contemplated by the Act for the

period before the Attorney General’s

decision. The final decision on whether

to continue granting exemptions will be

made by the Attorney General at the

conclusion of the review pursuant to

section 33103(d)(3).

BMW’s submittal 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.

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 new line. BMW will install its

antitheft device as standard equipment

on the MY 2002 BMW MINI vehicle

line. The antitheft device is a passive,

electronically-coded vehicle

immobilizer (EWS) system. The device

will prevent the vehicle from being

driven away under its own engine

power in the event the ignition lock and

doors have been manipulated. The

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. Locking the vehicle door and

trunk by using the key cylinder or the

radio frequency remote control will

further secure the vehicle. BMW stated

that the frequency codes for the remote

control constantly change to prevent an

unauthorized person from opening the

vehicle by intercepting the signals of its

remote control.

The EWS system consists of a key

with a transponder, a loop antenna

(coil) around the steering lock cylinder,

an EWS control unit and an engine

control unit (DME/DDE) with encoded

start release input.

BMW stated that in the key is a

transponder, a special transmitter/

receiver that communicates with the

EWS control through the transceiver

module. The transponder chip which is

integrated in the key consists of a

transmitter/receiver, a small antenna

coil, and a memory which can be

written to and read from. The memory

contains its own unique key and

customer service data.

BMW states that the EWS control unit

provides the interface to the loop

antenna (coil), engine control unit and

starter. BMW also states that the engine

control unit with coded start release

input has been designed in such a

manner that the ignition and the fuel

supply are only released when a correct

release signal has been sent by the EWS

control unit. The EWS control unit

inspects the key data for correctness and

allows the ignition to operate and fuel

supply to be released when a correct

signal has been received.

The vehicle is also equipped with a

central locking system which locks all

doors, the hood, the trunk and fuel filler

lid. The central locking system also

allows the driver to unlock the driver’s

door while the passenger doors remain

locked. This feature offers additional

security by preventing unauthorized

entry of the vehicle through the

passenger doors. BMW also states that it

is also possible to unlock all doors via

the central locking system. To prevent

locking the keys in the car upon exiting,

the driver’s door can only be locked

with a key or by use of the radio

frequency remote control after it is

closed. This also locks the other doors.

If the doors are open at the time of

locking, they are automatically locked

when they are closed.

BMW discussed the uniqueness of its

locks and its ignition key. The keys have

guide-ways milled in the middle of both

sides of the key bit. The same key

operates the door locks and the ignition/

steering lock and it can be inserted in

a keyhole in either direction. However,

BMW stated that its vehicle’s locks are

almost impossible to pick, and its

ignition key cannot be duplicated on the

open market.

BMW also stated that a special key

blank, key-cutting machine and owner’s

individual key code are needed to cut a

new key, and that its key blanks,

machines and codes will be closely

controlled. Additionally, new keys will

only be issued to authorized persons

and spare keys can only be obtained

through the dealership because they are

not copies of lost originals, but new

keys with their original electronic

identification. As an additional security

measure, lost keys can be disabled at the

vehicle and enabled again. BMW also

stated that every key request is

documented so that any inquiries by

insurance companies and investigative

authorities can be followed up on.

BMW states that the steering/ignition

lock is hardened against the grip of a

screw and the housing is reinforced to

prevent removal of the lock. When the

key is removed, a mechanism causes the

lock to engage, thereby preventing

steering wheel movement without any

additional action. Additionally, vehicles

equipped with automatic transmission

have an ignition/transmission interlock

that prevents ignition key removal

33606 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices

1On June 8, 2001, UP and BNSF filed a petition

for exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 34053

(Sub-No. 1), Union Pacific Railroad Company—

Trackage Rights Exemption—The Burlington

Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, wherein

UP and BNSF request that the Board permit the

proposed overhead trackage rights arrangement

described in the present proceeding to expire on

November 30, 2001. That petition will be addressed

by the Board in a separate decision.

unless the shift lever is in the ‘‘Park’’

position preventing movement of the

shift lever until the key is turned in the

lock.

The battery for BMW’s MINI vehicle

line will be covered and inaccessibly

located. Therefore, if a thief does

manage to penetrate and disconnect the

battery, it will not unlock the doors.

However, in the event of a crash, an

inertia switch will automatically unlock

all the doors.

BMW also stated that its antitheft

device does not incorporate any audible

or visual alarms. However, based on the

declining theft rate experience of other

vehicles equipped with devices that do

not have an audio or visual alarm for

which NHTSA has already exempted

from the parts-marking requirements,

the agency has concluded that the data

indicate that lack of a visual or audio

alarm has not prevented these antitheft

devices from being effective protection

against theft.

BMW compared the device proposed

for its new line with devices which

NHTSA has previously determined to be

as effective in reducing and deterring

motor vehicle theft as would

compliance with the parts-marking

requirements of Part 541, and has

concluded that the antitheft device

proposed for this line is no less effective

than those devices in the lines for which

NHTSA has already granted exemptions

from the parts-marking requirements.

The antitheft system that BMW intends

to install on its MINI vehicle line for

MY 2002 is exactly the same system that

is currently installed on its Carline 3,

Carline 5, Carline 7 and X5 vehicle

lines. The agency granted BMW’s

petition for modification of its Carline 7

beginning with MY 1995 (See 59 FR

47973, September 19, 1994); and its

petitions for exemptions granted in full

for Carline 5 beginning with MY 1997,

Carline 3 beginning with MY 1999 and

its X5 vehicle line beginning with MY

2000. (See 61 FR 6292, February 16,

1996, 62 FR 62800, November 25, 1997

and 64 FR 33947, June 24, 1999,

respectively).

In order to ensure reliability and

durability of the device, BMW

conducted performance tests based on

its own specified standards. BMW

provided a detailed list of the following

tests conducted: climatic tests, high

temperature endurance run,

thermoshock test in water, chemical

resistance, vibrational load, electrical

ranges, mechanical shock tests, and

electromagnetic field compatibility.

Additionally, BMW stated that its

immobilizer system fulfills the

requirements of the European vehicle

insurance companies which became

standard as of January 1995. The

requirements prescribe that the vehicle

must be equipped with an electronic

vehicle immobilizing device which

works independently from the

mechanical locking system and prevents

the operation of the vehicle through the

use of coded intervention in the engine

management system. In addition, the

device must be self-arming (passive),

become effective upon leaving the

vehicle, or not later than the point at

which the vehicle is locked, and allow

deactivation of the vehicle by electronic

means and not by use of the mechanical

key.

Based on evidence submitted by

BMW, the agency believes that the

antitheft device for the MINI 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

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the

reliability and durability of the device.

The device lacks the ability to attract

attention to the efforts of unauthorized

persons to enter or operate a vehicle by

a means other than a key

(§ 541.6(a)(3)(ii).

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

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

finds that BMW has provided adequate

reasons for its belief that the antitheft

device will reduce and deter theft. This

conclusion is based on the information

BMW provided about its antitheft

device. For the foregoing reasons, the

agency hereby grants in full BMW of

North America’s petition for an

exemption for the MY 2002 MINI

vehicle line from the parts-marking

requirements of 49 CFR part 541. 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 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.

Issued on: June 18, 2001.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety,

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 01–15698 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34053]

Union Pacific Railroad Company—

Trackage Rights Exemption—The

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Railway Company

The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

Railway Company (BNSF) has agreed to

grant overhead trackage rights to Union

Pacific Railroad Company (UP) over

BNSF’s rail lines between BNSF

milepost 885.2 near Bakersfield, CA,

and BNSF milepost 1120.54 near

Stockton, CA, a distance of

approximately 235 miles.1

The transaction is scheduled to be

consummated on June 17, 2001.

The purpose of the trackage rights is

to permit UP to use the BNSF trackage

when UP’s trackage is out of service for

scheduled maintenance.

As a condition to this exemption, any

employees affected by the trackage

rights will be protected by the