Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mercedes-Benz, 39890-39891 [E7-14093]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
39890
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 139 / Friday, July 20, 2007 / Notices
year for treadwear testing. NHTSA
estimates it cost $0.60 per vehicle mile
including salaries, overhead and
reports. This brings the annual
treadwear testing cost to $2,160,000. For
the traction testing, it is estimated that
1,900 tires are tested annually with an
estimated cost of $38,000 for use of the
government test facility. Using a factor
of 3.5 times to cover salary and
overhead of test contractors, the
estimated cost of traction testing is
$133,000. A separate temperature grade
testing for tires is required, since the test
will not be an extension of the high
speed performance test of 49 CFR
571.109 which is required for safety
certification. Section 571.109 is
replaced by § 571.139, which has
different test speeds. For the
temperature testing, it is estimated that
1,900 tires are tested annually with an
estimated average cost per test of $423.
Therefore, the estimated UTQGS
temperature annual testing is $803,700.
Thus the total estimated cost for UTQGS
testing is $3,096,700. The cost of
printing the tread labels is
approximately 21,890,000 and estimate
for printing brochures is at $999,000.
This yields a total annual financial
burden of approximately $25,985,700
(approximately $26 million) on the tire
manufacturers.
Estimated Annual Burden to the
Government: The estimated annual cost
of UTQGS to the Federal government is
$1,278,000. The cost consists of
approximately $152,000 for data
management $730,000 for enforcement
testing, and about $396,000 for general
administration of the program.
Number of Respondents: There are
approximately 163 individual tire
brands sold in the United States. The
actual number of respondents is much
less than 163 due to company
acquisitions, mergers, and in most cases,
the manufacturer will report for the
various individual brand names that
they produce tires for. The actual
number of respondents is about 65
individual responses.
Comments are invited on: Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Department,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of
the Department’s estimate of the burden
of the proposed information collection;
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Jul 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
Issued on: July 16, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E7–14094 Filed 7–19–07; 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;
Mercedes-Benz
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document grants in full
the Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.’s,
(MBUSA) petition for exemption of the
C-Line Chassis vehicle line in
accordance with 49 CFR part 543,
Exemption from the 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 (49 CFR part
541).
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with model
year (MY) 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Carlita Ballard, Office of International
Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., NVS–131, Room W43–439
(4th Floor), Washington, DC 20590. Ms.
Ballard’s phone number is (202) 366–
5222. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated August 8, 2006, MBUSA
requested exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR part 541)
for the C-Line Chassis vehicle line,
beginning with the 2008 model year.
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.
Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may
petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for
one line of its vehicle lines per model
year. In its petition, MBUSA provided a
detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the
components of the antitheft device for
the C-Line Chassis vehicle line. MBUSA
stated that all C-Line Chassis vehicles
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
will be equipped with a passive,
transponder-based electronic
immobilizer device as standard
equipment beginning with MY 2008.
Features of the antitheft device will
include an electronic key, a passive
immobilizer system (FBS III) which
includes an electronic ignition starter
switch control unit (EIS) and an engine
control unit (ECU). The device will also
have a visible and audible alarm. The
alarm system will provide protection for
all four doors, the trunk and the engine
hood. If any of the protected areas are
violated, the four turn signal lamps and
the left and right side turn signal marker
lamps will flash, the interior lamps will
switch on and the alarm will sound.
MBUSA’s submission 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.
MBUSA stated that the transmitter
key, the electronic ignition starter
switch control unit and the engine
control unit will work collectively to
perform the immobilizer function. The
immobilizer will prevent the engine
from running unless a valid key is used
in the ignition switch. Immobilization is
activated when the key is removed from
the ignition switch, whether the doors
are open or closed. Once activated, a
valid, coded-key must be inserted into
the ignition switch to disable
immobilization and permit the vehicle
to start.
In addressing the specific content
requirements of § 543.6, MBUSA
provided information on the reliability
and durability of its proposed device.
To ensure reliability and durability of
the device and to verify its ability to
satisfactory perform under extreme
conditions, MBUSA conducted various
tests based on its own specified
standards. MBUSA provided a detailed
list of the various tests conducted and
believes that the device is reliable and
durable since the device complied with
its own specific test conditions.
MBUSA also compared the device
proposed for its vehicle line with other
devices which NHTSA has determined
to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as would
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements. MBUSA stated that its
proposed device is functionally
equivalent to the systems used in the SLine Chassis and E-Line Chassis
vehicles which the agency has granted
exemptions from the parts-marking
requirements of the theft prevention
standard. MBUSA concluded that the
antitheft device for its C-Line Chassis
vehicle line is no less effective than
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 139 / Friday, July 20, 2007 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
those devices in lines for which NHTSA
has already granted full exemption.
On the basis of this comparison,
MBUSA informed the agency that the CLine Chassis vehicle line was first
introduced as a model year 1994
vehicle. MBUSA stated that based on
NHTSA’s theft rates from 1994 to 2004,
the average theft rate of the C-Line
Chassis vehicles without the
immobilizer was 1.6437 (CY 1994–1997)
and 1.4167 after installation of the
immobilizer device. MBUSA concluded
that the data indicates that the
immobilizer was effective in
contributing to the theft rate reduction
for its C-Line Chassis vehicles.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49
CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a
petition for an exemption from the
parts-marking requirements of part 541
either in whole or in part, if it
determines that, based upon substantial
evidence, the standard equipment
antitheft device is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with
the parts-marking requirements of part
541. The agency finds that MBUSA has
provided adequate reasons for its belief
that the antitheft device will reduce and
deter theft. This conclusion is based on
the information MBUSA provided about
its device.
The agency concludes that the device
will provide the five types of
performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3):
Promoting activation; attracting
attention to the efforts of unauthorized
persons to enter or operate a vehicle by
means other than a key; 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 agency agrees that the device is
substantially similar to devices in other
vehicles lines for which the agency has
already granted exemptions. In addition,
the theft rate has reduced since the
installation of this device on the line.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full MBUSA’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–1, identifies
those lines that are exempted from the
Theft Prevention Standard for a given
model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:19 Jul 19, 2007
Jkt 211001
publication requirements incident to the
disposition of all Part 543 petitions.
Advanced listing, including the release
of future product nameplates, the
beginning model year for which the
petition is granted and a general
description of the antitheft device is
necessary in order to notify law
enforcement agencies of new vehicle
lines exempted from the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard.
If MBUSA 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 MBUSA 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
§ t 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted
vehicle manufacturers and itself. The
agency did not intend 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: July 16, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E7–14093 Filed 7–19–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39891
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety; Notice of
Application for Special Permits
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: List of Applications for Special
Permits.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special
permits from the Department of
Transportation’s Hazardous Material
Regulations (49 CFR Part 107, Subpart
B), notice is hereby given that the Office
of Hazardous Materials Safety has
received the application described
herein. Each mode of transportation for
which a particular special permit 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—Passengercarrying aircraft.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before August 20, 2007.
Address Comments To: Record
Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, 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 special permit number.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Copies of the applications are available
for inspection in the Records Center,
Nassif Building, 400 7th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC or at https://
dms.dot.gov.
This notice of receipt of applications
for special permit is published in
accordance with Part 107 of the Federal
hazardous materials transportation law
(49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 11,
2007.
Delmer Billings,
Director, Special Permits & Approvals
Programs, Office of Hazardous Materials,
Special Permits & Approvals.
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 139 (Friday, July 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39890-39891]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14093]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Mercedes-Benz
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.'s,
(MBUSA) petition for exemption of the C-Line Chassis vehicle line in
accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the 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 (49 CFR part 541).
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
model year (MY) 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., NVS-131, Room W43-439 (4th Floor), Washington,
DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number
is (202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated August 8, 2006, MBUSA
requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the C-Line Chassis vehicle
line, beginning with the 2008 model year. 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.
Under Sec. 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines per model year. In its
petition, MBUSA provided a detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device for the C-Line Chassis vehicle line. MBUSA stated that all C-
Line Chassis vehicles will be equipped with a passive, transponder-
based electronic immobilizer device as standard equipment beginning
with MY 2008. Features of the antitheft device will include an
electronic key, a passive immobilizer system (FBS III) which includes
an electronic ignition starter switch control unit (EIS) and an engine
control unit (ECU). The device will also have a visible and audible
alarm. The alarm system will provide protection for all four doors, the
trunk and the engine hood. If any of the protected areas are violated,
the four turn signal lamps and the left and right side turn signal
marker lamps will flash, the interior lamps will switch on and the
alarm will sound. MBUSA's submission is considered a complete petition
as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements
contained in Sec. 543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.
543.6.
MBUSA stated that the transmitter key, the electronic ignition
starter switch control unit and the engine control unit will work
collectively to perform the immobilizer function. The immobilizer will
prevent the engine from running unless a valid key is used in the
ignition switch. Immobilization is activated when the key is removed
from the ignition switch, whether the doors are open or closed. Once
activated, a valid, coded-key must be inserted into the ignition switch
to disable immobilization and permit the vehicle to start.
In addressing the specific content requirements of Sec. 543.6,
MBUSA provided information on the reliability and durability of its
proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device and
to verify its ability to satisfactory perform under extreme conditions,
MBUSA conducted various tests based on its own specified standards.
MBUSA provided a detailed list of the various tests conducted and
believes that the device is reliable and durable since the device
complied with its own specific test conditions.
MBUSA also compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with
other devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing
and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-
marking requirements. MBUSA stated that its proposed device is
functionally equivalent to the systems used in the S-Line Chassis and
E-Line Chassis vehicles which the agency has granted exemptions from
the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. MBUSA
concluded that the antitheft device for its C-Line Chassis vehicle line
is no less effective than
[[Page 39891]]
those devices in lines for which NHTSA has already granted full
exemption.
On the basis of this comparison, MBUSA informed the agency that the
C-Line Chassis vehicle line was first introduced as a model year 1994
vehicle. MBUSA stated that based on NHTSA's theft rates from 1994 to
2004, the average theft rate of the C-Line Chassis vehicles without the
immobilizer was 1.6437 (CY 1994-1997) and 1.4167 after installation of
the immobilizer device. MBUSA concluded that the data indicates that
the immobilizer was effective in contributing to the theft rate
reduction for its C-Line Chassis vehicles.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that MBUSA has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based
on the information MBUSA provided about its device.
The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of
performance listed in Sec. 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation;
attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or
operate a vehicle by means other than a key; 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 agency agrees that the
device is substantially similar to devices in other vehicles lines for
which the agency has already granted exemptions. In addition, the theft
rate has reduced since the installation of this device on the line.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full MBUSA'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-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft
Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains
publication requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543
petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product
nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted
and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order
to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from
the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
If MBUSA 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 MBUSA 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, Sec. 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 Sec.
t 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend 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: July 16, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E7-14093 Filed 7-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
