186 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 3, 2007 / Notices 

Laredo, Texas. Interested parties are 

invited to present oral statements at the 

hearing. The hearing will be informal 

and will be conducted in accordance 

with FRA’s Rules of Practice (49 CFR 

211.25) by a representative designated 

by FRA. FRA’s representative will make 

an opening statement outlining the 

scope of the hearing, as well as any 

additional procedures for the conduct of 

the hearing. The hearing will be a 

nonadversarial proceeding in which all 

interested parties will be given the 

opportunity to express their views 

regarding the waiver petition, without 

cross-examination. After all initial 

statements have been completed, 

individuals wishing to make a brief 

rebuttal statement will be given an 

opportunity to do so in the same order 

in which the initial statements were 

made. 

In addition, FRA is hereby extending 

the comment period to February 21, 

2007. All communications concerning 

this waiver petition should identify the 

appropriate docket number (FRA–2006–

25765) and must be submitted to the 

Docket Clerk, DOT Docket Management 

Facility, Room PL–401 (Plaza Level), 

400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590. All written communications 

concerning these proceedings are 

available for examination during regular 

business hours (9 a.m.–5 p.m.) at the 

above facility. Documents in the public 

docket are also available for review and 

copying on the Internet at the docket 

facility Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the document, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review the DOT Privacy Act Statement 

in the Federal Register published on 

April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; 

Pages 19477–78). The statement may 

also be found at http://dms.dot.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC on December 26, 

2006. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E6–22443 Filed 12–29–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

[Docket No. MARAD-2006–26740] 

Information Collection Available for 

Public Comments and 

Recommendations 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice announces the Maritime 

Administration’s (MARAD’s) intention 

to request extension of approval for 

three years of a currently approved 

information collection. 

DATES: Comments should be submitted 

on or before March 5, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas M.P. Christensen, Office of 

National Security Plans, Maritime 

Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

202–366–5900; FAX 202–488–0941 or 

e–mail: tom.christensen@dot.gov. 

Copies of this collection can also be 

obtained from that office. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title of Collection: Voluntary Tanker 

Agreement. 

Type of Request: Extension of 

currently approved information 

collection. 

OMB Control Number: 2133–0505. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Expiration Date of Approval: Three 

years after date of approval by the Office 

of Management and Budget. 

Summary of Collection of 

Information: The collection consists of a 

request from the Maritime 

Administration (MARAD) that each 

participant in the Voluntary Tanker 

Agreement submit a list of the names of 

ships owned, chartered or contracted for 

by the participant, and their size and 

flags of registry. There is no prescribed 

format for this information. 

Need and Use of the Information: The 

collected information is necessary to 

evaluate tanker capability and make 

plans for the use of this capability to 

meet national emergency requirements. 

This information will be used by both 

MARAD and Department of Defense to 

establish overall contingency plans. 

Description of Respondents: Tanker 

companies that operate in international 

trade and who have agreed to 

participate in this agreement. 

Annual Responses: 15. 

Annual Burden: One hour per 

response. 

Comments: Comments should refer to 

the docket number that appears at the 

top of this document. Written comments 

may be submitted to the Docket Clerk, 

U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590. Comments may also be 

submitted by electronic means via the 

Internet at http://www.dmses.dot.gov/ 

submit. Specifically address whether 

this information collection is necessary 

for proper performance of the functions 

of the agency and will have practical 

utility, accuracy of the burden 

estimates, ways to minimize this 

burden, and ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected. All 

comments received will be available for 

examination at the above address 

between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. EDT, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

Holidays. An electronic version of this 

document is available on the World 

Wide Web at http://www.dms.dot.gov. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://www.dms.dot.gov. 

(Authority: 49 CFR 1.66) 

Dated: December 27, 2006. 

By Order of the Maritime Administrator. 

Joel C. Richard, 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–22486 Filed 12–29–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption from the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard; DaimlerChrysler 

AGENCY: National Highway traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), Department 

of Transportation (DOT) 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the DaimlerChrysler Corporation’s 

(DaimlerChrysler) petition for 

exemption of the Dodge Magnum 

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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 3, 2007 / Notices 187 

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 of the Theft 

Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541). 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2008 model year. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carlita Ballard, Office of International 

Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Ballard’s phone number is (202) 366–

0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated June 2, 2006, 

DaimlerChrysler requested an 

exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the 

Dodge Magnum 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. DaimlerChrysler’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. 

Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may 

petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for 

one line of its vehicle lines per year. In 

its petition, DaimlerChrysler provided a 

detailed description and diagram of the 

identity, design, and location of the 

components of the antitheft device for 

the Dodge Magnum vehicle line. 

DaimlerChrysler stated that all Dodge 

Magnum vehicles will be equipped with 

a standard Sentry Key Immobilizer 

System (SKIS) antitheft device. The 

SKIS, a transponder-based, passive 

immobilizer antitheft device will 

provide vehicle protection by 

preventing the engine from operating 

unless a valid electronically encoded 

key is detected in the ignition lock 

cylinder. The SKIS consists of a 

Wireless Ignition Node Module (WIN), a 

Powertrain Control Module (PCM), and 

a FOB Integrated Key (FOBIK) which 

collectively perform the immobilizer 

function. The immobilizer feature is 

activated when the key is removed from 

the ignition switch. Once activated, only 

a valid key inserted into the ignition 

switch will disable immobilization and 

allow the vehicle to start and continue 

to run. 

According to DaimlerChrysler, each 

new FOBIK is programmed for 

operation of the Remote Keyless Entry 

(RKE) system and has a unique 

transponder identification code that is 

permanently programmed into it by the 

manufacturer. The ignition key must be 

programmed into the WIN module to be 

recognized by the SKIS as a valid key. 

The FOBIK transponder cannot be 

adjusted or repaired. once the FOBIK 

has been programmed to a particular 

vehicle, it cannot be used on another 

vehicle. If it is faulty or damaged, the 

entire key and RKE transmitter unit 

must be replaced. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of 543.6, DaimlerChrysler 

provided information on the reliability 

and durability of its proposed device. 

To ensure the reliability and durability 

of the device, DaimlerChrysler 

conducted tests based on its own 

specific standards. DaimlerChrysler 

provided information on the tests 

conducted and believes that the device 

is reliable and durable since the device 

complied with its specified 

requirements for each test. According to 

DaimlerChrysler, the device has met 

stringent performance standards which 

demonstrated a minimum 95 percent 

reliability. The SKIS also undergoes 

daily short-term durability tests and all 

of the devices undergo a series of three 

functional tests prior to being shipped 

from the supplier to the vehicle 

assembly plant for installation in the 

vehicles. 

DaimlerChrysler also stated that the 

proposed antitheft device does not 

provide any visible or audible 

indication of unauthorized entry. 

DaimlerChrysler believes that the 

immobilizer system proposed for the 

Dodge Magnum will be at least as 

effective as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard. DaimlerChrysler 

also stated that its experience with 

vehicles subject to the parts-marking 

requirement that are later equipped with 

ignition immobilizer systems as 

standard equipment indicate that even 

lower theft rates can be expected from 

vehicles initially equipped with 

standard ignition immobilizer systems 

as that proposed. It has concluded that 

the proposed antitheft device is no less 

effective than those devices installed on 

lines for which NHTSA has already 

granted full exemption from the partsmarking requirements. 

For comparative purposes, 

DaimlerChrysler offered the Jeep Grand 

Cherokee vehicles as an example of 

vehicles subject to the parts-marking 

requirements that have been equipped 

with ignition immobilizer systems as 

standard equipment. The Jeep Grand 

Cherokee vehicle line was granted an 

exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements beginning with MY 2004 

vehicles, however it has had a SKIS 

system installed as standard equipment 

since the 1999 model year. 

DaimlerChrysler stated that NHTSA’s 

theft data for the Jeep Grand Cherokee 

vehicle line for model years prior to 

1999 (MY 1995 through 1998) provides 

evidence that the average theft rate is 

significantly higher than the 1990/1991 

median theft rate of 3.5826. For 

clarification purposes, the agency would 

like to note that it does not collect theft 

data. NHTSA publishes theft rates based 

on data provided by the National Crime 

Information Center (NCIC) of the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. NHTSA 

uses the NCIC data to calculate theft 

rates and publishes these rates annually 

in the Federal Register. DaimlerChrysler 

also indicated that, since the 

introduction of immobilizer systems as 

standard equipment on Jeep Grand 

Cherokee vehicles, the average theft rate 

for the five model years (MY 1999 

through 2003) is significantly lower 

than the 1990/1991 median theft rate of 

3.5826. 

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 devices is likely to be as 

effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-making requirements of part 

541. As explained below, the agency 

finds that DaimlerChrysler has provided 

adequate reasons for its belief that the 

antitheft device will reduce and deter 

theft. This conclusion is based on the 

information DaimlerChrysler provided 

and additional investigation by NHTSA 

about the device for the Dodge Magnum 

vehicle line. 

The agency concludes that the device 

will provide four of the five types of 

performance listed in § 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 agency agrees that the device is 

substantially similar to the device the 

agency approved for the Jeep Grand 

Cherokee, which was also a SKIS which 

did provide a visual or audible 

indication. As cited by DaimlerChrysler, 

the average theft rate for the Jeep Grand 

Cherokee has decreased substantially 

since the installation of this device as 

standard equipment. While 

DaimlerChrysler used a different 

method of calculating the average theft 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
188 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 3, 2007 / Notices 

rates than NHTSA has used in the past, 

NHTSA agrees that both calculations 

show a substantial reduction in the theft 

rate since the installation of the device 

as standard equipment. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full DaimlerChrysler’s 

petition for exemption for the Dodge 

Magnum vehicle line from the partsmarking requirements of 49 CFR Part 

541, beginning with the 2008 model 

year vehicles. 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 Part 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 partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. 

If DaimlerChrysler 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 Parts 541.5 and 

541.6 (marking of major component 

parts and replacement parts). 

NHTSA notes that if DaimlerChrysler 

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, 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 Part 

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: December 27, 2006. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administration for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 06–9957 Filed 12–29–06; 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 document grants in full 

the Nissan North America, Inc.’s 

(Nissan) petition for exemption of the 

Versa 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 partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541). 

Nissan requested confidential treatment 

for the information and attachments it 

submitted in support of its petition. In 

a letter dated November 2, 2006, the 

agency granted the petitioner’s request 

for confidential treatment of most 

aspects of its petition. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2008 model year. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Deborah Mazyck, Office of International 

Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Mazyck’s phone number is (202) 366–

0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated September 29, 2006, 

Nissan requested exemption from the 

parts-marking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) 

for the MY 2008 Nissan Versa vehicle 

line. The petition requested an 

exemption from parts-marking pursuant 

to 49 CFR 543, Exemption from Vehicle 

Theft Prevention Standard, based on the 

installation of an antitheft device as 

standard equipment for the 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, Nissan provided a 

detailed description and diagram of the 

identity, design, and location of the 

components of the antitheft device fro 

the new vehicle line. Nissan will install 

its passive, transponder-based 

immobilizer device as standard 

equipment on its Versa vehicle line 

beginning with MY 2008. Key 

components of the antitheft device are 

in engine electronic control module 

(ECM), a passive immobilizer and a 

transponder key. The immobilizer 

system prevents normal operation of the 

vehicle without the use of the key. 

Nissan also stated that the system will 

not incorporated an audible or visible 

alarm. Nissan’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. 

Nissan also provided information on 

the reliability and durability of its 

proposed device, conducting tests based 

on its own specified standards. In a 

letter dated November 2, 2006, NHTSA 

granted Nissan confidential treatment 

for the test information. Nissan 

provided a list of the tests it conducted. 

Nissan based its belief that the device is 

reliable and durable on the fact that the 

device complied with the specific 

requirements for each test. 

Nissan 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. Nissan stated that its 

antitheft device will be no less effective 

than those devices in the lines for which 

NHTSA has already granted full 

exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements. 

Nissan stated that NHTSA’s theft data 

have shown a decline in theft rates for 

vehicle lines that have been equipped 

with antitheft devices similar to that 

which Nissan proposes to install on the 

new line. Nissan stated that based on 

the agency’s theft rate data, the Buick 

Riviera and the Oldsmobile Toronado/ 

Aurora vehicles equipped with the 

PASS-Key and PASS-Key II systems 

experienced a significant reduction in 

theft rates from 1987 to 1996. Nissan 

concluded that the data indicates that 

the immobilizer was effective in 

contributing to the theft rate reduction 

for these lines. Nissan stated that based 

on NHTSA’s theft data for 1987 through 

1996, the average theft rate for the Buick 

Rivieraand the Oldsmobile Toronado/ 

Aurora vehicles without the 

immobilizer was 4.8970 and 5.0760, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES