Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Notices 63567

Proposed charge expiration date: July

31, 2000.

Total estimated PFC revenue:

$332,000.

Brief description of proposed

project(s):

PROJECTS TO IMPOSE AND USE: Acquire

Snow Removal Equipment, Update

Airport Master Plan, Interactive

Training Equipment, PFC

Administration, Groove and Mark

Runway 9/27.

IMPOSE-ONLY PROJECT: Terminal

Building Improvements.

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFCs: Air.

Taxi/Commercial Operators filing

FAA Form 1800–31.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the

Rhinelander-Oneida County Airport.

Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on December

4, 1995.

Benito De Leon,

Manager, Planning and Programming Branch,

Airports Division, Great Lakes Region.

[FR Doc. 95–30100 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Petition for Exemption From the

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard;

Jaguar

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 Jaguar Cars Limited (Jaguar)

for an exemption of a high-theft line

(whose nameplate is confidential) from

the parts-marking requirements of the

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

Barbara Gray, Office of Market

Incentives, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Ms

Gray’s telephone number is (202) 366–

1740. Her fax number is (202) 493–2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

31, 1995, Jaguar Cars, on behalf of Jaguar

Cars Limited, submitted to NHTSA a

petition for exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the theft

prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)

for a motor vehicle line. The nameplate

of the line and the model year of

introduction are confidential. 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.

Jaguar’s submittal is considered a

complete petition, as required by 49

CFR Part 543.7, in that it meets the

general requirements contained in

§ 543.5 and the specific content

requirements of § 543.6. In a letter to

Jaguar dated August 18, 1995, the

agency granted the petitioner’s request

for confidential treatment of most

aspects of its petition, including the

nameplate of the line and the model

year of its introduction.

In its petition, Jaguar 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 starter interrupt

function and an alarm function. The

antitheft device is activated by operating

a radio frequency (‘‘RF’’) transmitter or

by removing the ignition key and

locking the doors with it.

In order to ensure reliability and

durability of the device, Jaguar stated

that it conducted tests for performance

under conditions of vibration, humidity,

and temperature extremes, as well as for

endurance, flammability, resistance to

fluids, thermal shock, RFC and EMC,

and overall performance. Jaguar stated

its belief that the device is reliable and

durable since the device complied with

Jaguar’s specified requirements for each

test.

Jaguar also 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 new line is no

less effective than those devices in the

lines for which NHTSA has already

granted exemptions from the partsmarking requirements.

Jaguar bases its belief on the ease of

use of the antitheft system it is

proposing for the new car line. In

addition, it points out that other Jaguar

models, which are all parts-marked, all

have theft rates below the median theft

rate according to NHTSA’s vehicle theft

data published on November 29, 1994

(59 FR 61023). Other aspects of the

system cited by Jaguar as reasons why

it should be as effective as partsmarking are the shielding of the driver’s

door lock barrel to prevent opening by

‘‘Slim-Jims’’ and other tools; the

location of the hood latch control;

location of the battery, which is

protected by the security system; the

capability of the alarm to function when

the battery has been reconnected after

having been disconnected; and a

flashing LED and warning labels that

advise unauthorized persons that the

vehicle is protected by a security

system. Jaguar believes that the theft

rate for this vehicle line equipped with

this antitheft device as standard

equipment will be below the most

recent median theft rate of 3.5826

published by NHTSA.

Based on evidence submitted by

Jaguar, the agency believes that the

antitheft device for the new Jaguar 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

standards (49 CFR Part 541).

The agency believes that the device

will provide the types of performance

listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3):

Promoting activation; attracting

attention to unauthorized entries;

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.

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

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

agency finds that Jaguar has provided

adequate reasons for its belief that the

antitheft device will reduce and deter

theft. This conclusion is based on the

information Jaguar provided about its

device, much of which is confidential.

This confidential information included

a description of reliability and

functional tests conducted by Jaguar for

the antitheft device and its components.

For the foregoing reasons, the agency

hereby grants in full Jaguar’s petition for

exemption for vehicle line (confidential)

from the parts-marking requirements of

49 CFR Part 541.

If Jaguar decides not to use the

exemption for this line, it should

formally notify the agency. If such a

decision is made, the line must be fully

marked according to the requirements

under 49 CFR Parts 541.5 and 541.6

(marking of major component parts and

replacement parts).
63568 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Notices

NHTSA notes that if Jaguar 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. Part 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, Part

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 with Part

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: December 6, 1995.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 95–30101 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

[Docket No. 95–94; Notice 1]

Notice of Receipt of Petition for

Decision That Nonconforming 1991

BMW 735IL Passenger Cars Are

Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for

decision that nonconforming 1991 BMW

735IL passenger cares are eligible for

importation.

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt

by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) of a petition

for a decision that a 1991 BMW 735IL

that was not originally manufactured to

comply with all applicable Federal

motor vehicle safety standards is

eligible for importation into the United

States because (1) It is substantially

similar to a vehicle that was originally

manufactured for importation into and

for sale in the United States and that

was certified by its manufacturer as

complying with the safety standards,

and (2) it is capable of being readily

altered to conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments

on the petition is January 10, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket number and notice number,

and be submitted to: Docket Section,

Room 5109. National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St.,

SW., Washington, DC 20590. (Docket

hours are from 9:30 am to 4 pm).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George Entwistle, Office of Vehicle

Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–

5306).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A)

(formerly section 108(c)(3)(A)(i)(I) of the

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle

Safety Act (the Act)), a motor vehicle

that was not originally manufactured to

conform to all applicable Federal motor

vehicle safety standards shall be refused

admission into the United States unless

NHTSA had decided that the motor

vehicle is substantially similar to a

motor vehicle originally manufactured

for importation into and for sale in the

United States, certified under 49 U.S.C.

30115 (formerly section 114 of the Act),

and of the same model year as the

model of the motor vehicle to be

compared, and is capable of being

readily altered to conform to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

Petitions for eligibility decisions may

be submitted by either manufacturers or

importers who have registered with

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA

publishes notice in the Federal Register

of each petition that it receives, and

affords interested persons an

opportunity to comment on the petition.

At the close of the comment period,

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the

petition and any comments that it has

received, whether the vehicle is eligible

for importation. The agency then

publishes this decision in the Federal

Register.

Champagne Imports, Inc. of Lansdale,

Pennsylvania (‘‘Champagne’’)

(Registered Importer 90–009) has

petitioned NHTSA to decide whether

1991 BMW 735IL passenger cars are

eligible for importation into the United

States. The vehicle which Champagne

believes is substantially similar is the

1991 BMW 735IL that was

manufactured for importation into, and

sale in, the United States and certified

by its manufacturer, Bayerische Motoren

Werke A.G., as conforming to all

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety

standards.

The petitioner claims that it carefully

compared the non-U.S. certified 1991

BMW 735IL to its U.S. certified

counterpart, and found the two vehicles

to be substantially similar with respect

to compliance with most Federal motor

vehicle safety standards.

Champagne submitted information

with its petition intended to

demonstrate that the non-U.S. certified

1991 BMW 735IL, as originally

manufactured, conforms to many

Federal motor vehicle safety standards

in the same manner as its U.S. certified

counterpart, or is capable of being

readily altered to conform to those

standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that

the non-U.S. certified 1991 BMW 735IL

is identical to its U.S. certified

counterpart with respect to compliance

with Standards Nos. 102 Transmission

Shift Lever Sequence * * *., 103

Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104

Windshield Wiping and Washing

Systems, 105 Hydraulic Brake Systems,

106 Brake Hoses, 107 Reflecting

Surfaces, 109 New Pneumatic Tires, 113

Hood Latch Systems, 116 Brake Fluid,

124 Acclerator Control Systems, 201

Occupant Protection in Interior Impact,

202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering

Control Rearward Displacement, 205

Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and

Door Retention Components, 207

Seating Systems, 209 Seat Belt

Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly

Anchorages, 211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel

Discs and Hubcaps, 212 Windshield

Retention, 216 Roof Crush Resistance,

219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, and 302

Flammability of Interior Materials.

Additionally, the petitioner states that

the non-U.S. certified 1991 BMW 735IL

complies with the Bumper Standard

found in 49 CFR part 581.

Petitioner also contends that the

vehicle is capable of being readily

altered to meet the following standards,

in the manner indicated:

Standard No. 101 Controls and

Displays: (a) Substitution of a lens

marked ‘‘Brake’’ for a lens with an ECE

symbol on the brake failure indicator

lamp; (b) installation of a seat belt

warning lamp; (c) recalibration of the

speedometer/odometer from kilometers

to miles per hour.

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective

Devices and Associated Equipment: (a)

Installation of U.S.-model headlamp

assemblies which incorporate sealed

beam headlamps; (b) installation of

U.S.-model front and rear sidemarker/

reflector assemblies; (c) installation of

U.S.-model taillamp assemblies; (d)