19984 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices

ranking crew member. The individual

railroads propose that each employee

will have his or her own personal

identification number (‘‘pin’’) which

will remain confidential to the

employee. When accessing the

computer for input of the hours of

service record, required by § 228.11, the

‘‘pin’’ will not appear on the computer

screen when the employee enters his or

her number. The ‘‘pin’’ is proposed to

satisfy the signature requirements of the

‘‘Hours of Service of Railroad

Employees.’’ The railroads maintain that

the change is necessary to modernize

recordkeeping.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17,

1995.

Phil Olekszyk,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Compliance and Program Implementation.

[FR Doc. 95–9943 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

Petition for Waivers of Compliance

In accordance with 49 CFR 211.9,

211.41 and 211.45, notice is hereby

given that the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) has received a

request for a waiver of compliance with

certain requirements of the Federal

safety laws and 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.

Renfe Talgo of America, Incorporated

Addendum to Docket Numbers RSGM–

94–2 and SA–94–1

The Washington State Department of

Transportation (WDT) is the lessee of

the Renfe Talgo of America,

Incorporated (RTOA) passenger train

currently in service in the Pacific

Northwest High Speed Corridor between

Seattle, Washington and Portland,

Oregon. The Talgo train is operating

under the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) waivers Docket

Numbers RSGM–94–2 and SA–94–1.

The waivers were conditionally granted

on March 25, 1994.

RTOA requested the waivers of

compliance with certain provisions of

the Railroad Safety Glazing Standards

(49 CFR Part 223) under Docket Number

RSGM–94–2 and the Railroad Safety

Appliance Standards (49 CFR Part 231),

under Docket Number SA–94–1 and the

(see 59 FR 9016, February 24, 1994).

The RSGM–94–2 conditional waiver

permits the operation of the Talgo train

in revenue service in the Pacific

Northwest High Speed Rail Corridor for

the WDT operated by the National

Railroad Passenger Corporation

(Amtrak). The waiver is from

compliance with the Railroad Glazing

Standards (49 CFR 223.15(b)), which

requires that all side facing glazing on

passenger cars must meet the FRA Type

II testing criteria. RTOA states that the

side facing glazing of the TALGO train

may in fact meet the FRA requirements

for FRA Type II, but it has not been

subjected to the test specified in the

regulation. The windows in the sides of

the cars are double glazed with

tempered safety glass. Each layer is 6

mm. (.24 inches) thick with an air space

in between the two layers.

The SA–94–1 conditional waiver from

compliance of the Railroad Safety

Appliance Standards (49 CFR 231.14)

and Sections 2 and 4 of the Safety

Appliance Act (45 U.S.C. Sections 2 and

4), which requires that each passenger

car must be equipped with side

handholds, end handholds and

uncoupling levers. The passenger cars

have side handholds at the doors for the

assistance of passengers, but there are

no side handholds or end handholds

which the rules contemplate for use in

switching operations or coupling and

uncoupling. RTOA states that the 12

cars in the TALGO train constitute a

single unit, in that the cars will not be

uncoupled from one another, except at

specified maintenance facilities. The

individual cars are joined by swivel

type traction couplers which will not

uncouple in normal operations and

because of this configuration there is no

need for uncoupling levers. Standard

AAR Type E couplers will be installed

at the ends of the front and rear service

cars.

WDT has requested a change in the

waiver in order to place the Talgo train

in temporary revenue service between

Seattle and Vancouver, British

Columbia, Canada; and removing it from

revenue service between Seattle and

Portland.

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proceeding by

submitting written views, data, or

comments. FRA does not anticipate

scheduling a public hearing in

connection with this proceeding.

However, if an opportunity for oral

presentation before representatives of

the FRA is requested before May 1,

1995, FRA will provide such

opportunity at a public hearing. If held,

this public hearing will take place in

Seattle, Washington, on May 16, 1995.

Information as to whether a hearing will

be held, and specific location, may be

obtained after May 1, 1995, by

contacting the FRA Docket Clerk at 202–

366–2257 or by writing the Docket Clerk

at the Federal Railroad Administration,

Office of Chief Counsel, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

All communications concerning these

proceedings should identify the

appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver

Petition Docket Number SA–94–1) and

must be submitted in triplicate to the

Docket Clerk, Office of Chief Counsel,

Federal Railroad Administration, Nassif

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20590.

Communications received before May

26, 1995, will be considered by FRA

before final action is taken. Comments

received after that date will be

considered as far as practicable. All

written communications concerning

these proceedings are available for

examination during regular business

hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) in Room 8201,

Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20590.

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17,

1995.

Phil Olekszyk,

Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for

Safety Compliance and Program

Implementation.

[FR Doc. 95–9944 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

Petitions for Modification of

Exemptions From the Vehicle Theft

Protection Standard; Saab Cars USA,

Inc.

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Grant of petitions for

modification of exemptions from

vehicle theft protection standard.

SUMMARY: On September 8 and

September 12, 1994, Saab Cars, USA,

Inc. (‘‘Saab’’) filed petitions with the

National Highway Traffic Safety

Adminsitration (‘‘NHTSA’’) asking for

modification to agency-approved

exemptions from the vehicle theft

protection standard for its model years

(MY) 1995–1997 900 and 9000 car lines.

NHTSA is granting Saab’s petitions for

modification of its exemption from the

parts-marking requirement of the

vehicle theft prevention standard for the

MY 1995–1997 900 and 9000 car lines

because it has determined, based on

substantial evidence, that the antitheft

devices described in Saab’s petition to

be placed on the car lines as standard

equipment, are likely to be as effective

in reducing and deterring motor vehicle
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices 19985

theft as compliance with parts-marking

requirements.

DATES: The exemptions granted by this

notice are effective for MY 1995 and

thereafter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Barbara A. Gray, Office of Market

Incentives, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,

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

Gray’s telephone number is (202) 366–

1740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 1,

1988, NHTSA published in the Federal

Register a notice granting a petition

from Saab Cars USA, Inc. (Saab) for an

exemption from the parts-marking

requirements of the vehicle theft

prevention standard for the Saab 9000

car line beginning with MY 1989. (See

53 FR 20061, June 1, 1988.) On July 26,

1993, the agency published a Federal

Register notice granting a petition from

Saab for an exemption from the partsmarking requirement of the vehicle theft

protection standard beginning with MY

1994 for a car line whose nameplate was

at that time confidential. (See 58 FR

39853, July 26, 1993.) With the

beginning of production in MY 1994,

the identity of that car line, the Saab

900, became publicly available. The

agency determined that the antitheft

devices, which Saab intends to install

on the two car lines as standard

equipment was likely to be as effective

in reducing and deterring motor vehicle

theft as would compliance with the

parts-marking requirements of the theft

prevention standard.

Saab submitted petitions for

modification of those previously

approved antitheft systems, dated

September 8, 1994, and September 12,

1994, for the MYs 1995 through 1997

Saab 900 and 9000 car lines,

respectively. This notice responds to

both of those petitions.

These petitions contained detailed

descriptions of the identity, design, and

location of the components of the

antitheft systems, including diagrams of

the components and their location in

each vehicle. Saab stated that the

modified antitheft systems have been

enhanced to incorporate a glassbreakage sensor; a remote transmitter

which arms, locks, unlocks, and disarms

the systems; and an ignition-fuel

disengagement feature.

The functions of the existing systems

have been modified by adding three

components: (1) A radio frequency

remote transmitter; (2) a separate glass

breakage sensor for the windows

(excluding the Saab 900 convertible

models); (3) an ignition and fuel-cutoff

feature to supplement the starter

disengagement feature. Presently, the

operator may activate these systems by

using the key. This function has been

extended to incorporate the use of a

remote transmitter. Saab stated that the

transmitter uses radio frequencies and

rolling security codes. Thus, each time

the driver uses the remote transmitter, a

different code is set, making it virtually

impossible to circumvent. The

transmitter also has a small LED

indicator beside each button of the

transmitter to show battery charge. On

the Saab 9000, locking of either front

door with the key or the remote

transmitter will automatically lock all

vehicle doors and the hatch/trunk lid,

and arm the starter interrupt, fuel pump,

and ignition system relays. On the 900

activation of the system can only be

accomplished by using the remote. The

ignition key will only lock the doors.

Furthermore, Saab stated, in a telephone

call, that use of the key or the remote

transmitter to lock the doors will protect

all windows (except on the Saab 900

convertible) from unauthorized entry.

Once the systems are armed,

unauthorized entry or breach of the

protected areas will trigger the antitheft

system. In addition to activating the

audible alarm, flashing lights and starter

interrupt, arming the new system causes

the fuel and ignition systems to be

disabled for 30 minutes. If the alarm is

disarmed within a 30 to 300 second

period, the alarm will be interrupted

and the turn signals will stop. However,

if another attempted unauthorized entry

is made during that time, the system

will reset itself for another 30-minute

period. Saab has added a glass breakage

sensor (except on the Saab 900

convertible), which will further attract

attention to unauthorized entry

attempts. There is an LED display on the

dashboard that indicates the various

states of alarm.

Saab has customized some features of

the alarm system, giving customers the

ability to configure the system to

automatic arming whenever the ignition

is turned off, to change the type of

confirmation signal when the alarm is

armed/disarmed, or to select among

different responses when the alarm is

triggered.

To prevent defeat of these system, all

system components will be inaccessibly

located and be monitored by the

antitheft system for unauthorized

tampering. In addition, all door lock

mechanisms are covered and recessed

inside the door, making it very difficult

for an unauthorized person to unlock

the doors using an instrument that

slides between the window and the

outer door. The interior door lock

plungers are designed so that they

cannot be snagged with a wire inserted

between the weatherstripping and the

window glass. Because the latch

mechanism will be located in the door,

it will be more difficult to unlatch the

door by sliding an instrument between

the door and the B- or C-pillar. In the

event that there is unauthorized entry

without a key despite activation of the

visual and audible alarm features, the

fuel, ignition and starter disengagement

features will be activated, preventing

operation of the vehicle.

Saab also stated that the keylocks on

the 900 and 9000 are unique to Saab and

almost impossible to pick; and it would

be extremely difficult to duplicate the

keys on either vehicle. Special keycutting equipment and blanks are

needed to duplicate the keys. In

addition, access to codes and key blanks

is made more difficult by the fact that

they are protected within the Saab

dealer and corporate network.

Saab addressed the reliability and

durability of its antitheft device by

providing a list of specific testing

programs that validate the system’s

integrity. The examinations included

testing for electrical strength,

electromagnetic compatibility, radiated

interference susceptibility, conduction

emissions/audio frequency, disturbance

(supply lines), transient emissions,

radiated emissions/radio-frequency

disturbance (vehicle level), mechanical

vibration, random and cycled

temperature, durability life cycle,

mechanical shock, ambient temperature

extremes, corrosion resistance, dust and

small particle exposure, salt spray and

low air pressure.

In addition, Saab stated that its

antitheft systems are protected against

false activation caused by sound wave

vibration, air turbulence, and

temperature or light changes. They are

also equipped with a self-diagnosis

system which monitors proper

functioning of the system each time it is

armed. If the system detects failure, a

fault code is stored, and the LED will

blink for ten seconds after the arming of

the alarm (rather than remaining

steadily lit for ten seconds) as long as

the code is left in memory.

In discussing why it believes these

antitheft devices will be effective in

reducing and deterring motor vehicle

theft, Saab said that the modified

systems will add features to already

effective antitheft systems. Saab based

its contention in part on NHTSA’s

preliminary MY 1992 theft data, which

shows that the Saab 9000 car line

equipped with the system for which it

was previously granted an exemption

has a theft rate of .4695, ranking it 195th

out of 215 vehicle lines. Saab also based

its contention on Highway Loss Data
19986 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 77 / Friday, April 21, 1995 / Notices

Institute (HLDI) results for MYs 1991–

1993. Based on that data, the Saab 9000

had a relative theft rate of 57, compared

with an average rate for mid-size luxury

models of 94. This included the

following specific vehicle theft rate

numbers: Buick Riviera—114; Volvo

940/960—68; Infiniti J30—71; Mercedes

190E—121; BMW 318i/325i—126; and

the BMW 525i/535i—112.

Saab contends that its system for the

900 line is effective at reducing theft

based on the HLDI data for 1991–1993.

That data indicated that for the Saab 900

convertible, which used an antitheft

system that was activated by a remote

transmitter but lacked the

immobilization feature of the modified

system, the relative theft rate was 128 as

compared to 140 for all cars in the

‘‘small sports model category.’’

Comparable models were the Chevrolet

Corvette convertible, the Mazda Miata

convertible, and the Mercury Capri

convertible. Saab also stated that the

preliminary NHTSA theft data for MY

1992 showed that the rate for the Saab

900 line was 1.7442, well below the

median. Saab said that it expects the

rate for the MYs 1995–1996 900 line

will be below this low rate, and close to

the 9000’s rate of .4695.

Saab states that it believes that the

antitheft systems to be installed on the

9000 and 900 car lines will be more

effective than parts marking in reducing

and deterring motor vehicle theft

because the existing system already

comply with all of the criteria of

§ 543.6(a)(3), the new modifications are

designed to improve the current

systems, and Saab now uses visible

antitheft system window warning labels.

NHTSA believes that there is

substantial evidence indicating that the

modified antitheft systems planned to

be installed as standard equipment on

the MY 1995 Saab 900 and 9000 car

lines will likely be as effective in

reducing and deterring motor vehicle

theft as compliance with the

requirements of the theft prevention

standard (49 CFR part 541). This

determination is based on the

information that Saab submitted with its

petitions and on other available

information. The agency believes that

the modified device will continue to

provide the types of performance listed

in section 543.6(a)(3): Promoting

activation, attracting attention to

unauthorized entries, preventing defeat

or circumventing 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 CFR 543.6(a)(4), the

agency also finds that Saab has provided

adequate reasons for its belief that the

modified antitheft device will reduce

and deter theft. This conclusion is based

on the information Saab provided on its

devices. This information included a

description of reliability and functional

tests conducted by Saab for the antitheft

device and its components.

49 CFR section 543.9(h)(2)(ii) permits

the agency to establish an effective date

for the modification of the exemptions

earlier than ‘‘the model year following

the model year in which NHTSA issued

the modification decision’’ upon a

showing of good cause by the

manufacturer that an earlier effective

date for modifying its exemption is

consistent with the public interest and

purposes of 49 U.S.C. section 33106.

Saab’s petitions sought a 1995 model

year effective date for the modification

of its exemption, which is earlier than

the model year following the one in

which its petition is granted. Making the

modification of Saab’s antitheft systems

effective beginning with MY 1995 are in

the public interest since it would permit

expeditious manufacture and sale of

vehicles with the modified antitheft

systems as standard equipment. Saab

cited the 1992 theft data published by

NHTSA in the Federal Register showing

that the Saab 9000 line had a theft rate

of .4695 and for the 900 the rate was

1.7442, well below the median theft

rate. Saab stated its belief that the

antitheft device proposed for the MY

1995 900, which is essentially the same

device, will continue to have a theft rate

well below the median. NHTSA finds

that this constitutes a showing of ‘‘good

cause’’ and that making the

modification of Saab’s petition effective

beginning with MY 1995 is consistent

with the public interest and 49 U.S.C.

33106.

For the foregoing reasons, the agency

hereby exempts the Saab 900 and 9000

car lines that are the subject of this

notice, in whole, from the requirements

of 49 CFR part 541 for MYs 1995

through 1997.

If, in the future, Saab decides not to

use the exemptions for a car lines that

are the subject of this notice, it should

formally notify the agency. If such a

decision is made, the car lines must be

fully marked according to the

requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and

541.6 (marking of major component

parts and replacement parts).

The agency notes that the limited and

apparently conflicting data on the

effectiveness of the pre-standard parts

marking programs continue to make it

difficult to compare the effectiveness of

an antitheft device with the

effectiveness of compliance with the

theft prevention standard. The statute

clearly invites such a comparison,

which the agency has made on the basis

of the limited data available. With

implementation of the requirements of

the ‘‘Anti Car Theft Act of 1992,’’

NHTSA anticipates more probative data

upon which comparisons may be made.

NHTSA notes also that if Saab wishes

in the future to modify the device on

which these exemptions are based, the

company may have to submit a petition

to modify the exemptions. 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,

§ 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission

of petitions ‘‘(t)o modify an exemption

to permit the use of an antitheft device

similar to but differing from the one

specified in that exemption.’’

However, 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: April 14, 1995.

Ricardo Martinez,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–9885 Filed 4–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P