28548 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices 

description of the proposed service, is 

listed below. The complete application 

is given in DOT docket MARAD–2007–

28175 at http://dms.dot.gov. Interested 

parties may comment on the effect this 

action may have on U.S. vessel builders 

or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.- 

flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in 

accordance with Pub. L. 105–383 and 

MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR Part 

388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that 

the issuance of the waiver will have an 

unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel 

builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag 

vessels in that business, a waiver will 

not be granted. Comments should refer 

to the docket number of this notice and 

the vessel name in order for MARAD to 

properly consider the comments. 

Comments should also state the 

commenter’s interest in the waiver 

application, and address the waiver 

criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s 

regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

June 20, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

docket number MARAD–2007–28175. 

Written comments may be submitted by 

hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, 

U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, 

Department of Transportation, 400 7th 

St., SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

You may also send comments 

electronically via the Internet at http:// 

dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments 

will become part of this docket and will 

be available for inspection and copying 

at the above address between 10 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through 

Friday, except federal holidays. An 

electronic version of this document and 

all documents entered into this docket 

is available on the World Wide Web at 

http://dms.dot.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Maritime 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., #W21–203, Washington, 

DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–5979. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As 

described by the applicant the intended 

service of the vessel SOUND CHOICE is: 

Intended Use: ‘‘Passenger/sportfishing 

for personal use only (will be Alaska 

resident owned and operated).’’

Geographic Region: ‘‘Prince William 

Sound (Alaska)’’

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://dms.dot.gov. 

Dated: May 10, 2007. 

By order of the Maritime Administrator. 

Daron T. Threet, 

Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–9661 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft 

Prevention Standard; MAZDA 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the petition of Mazda Motor 

Corporation, (Mazda) for an exemption 

in accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 

CFR Part 543, Exemption from the Theft 

Prevention Standard, for the Mazda 5 

vehicle line beginning with model year 

(MY) 2009. 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 model 

year (MY) 2009. 

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 March 8, 2007, Mazda 

Motor Corporation (Mazda), requested 

an exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard (49 CFR part 541) for the 

Mazda 5 vehicle line beginning with 

MY 2009. 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 year. 

Mazda has petitioned the agency to 

grant an exemption for its Mazda 5 

vehicle line beginning with MY 2009. In 

its petition, Mazda provided a detailed 

description and diagram of the identity, 

design, and location of the components 

of the antitheft device for the new 

vehicle line. Mazda will install its 

passive antitheft device as standard 

equipment on its 5 vehicle line. Mazda’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. 

Mazda’s antitheft device is activated 

when the driver/operator turns off the 

engine using a properly coded ignition 

key. When the ignition key is turned to 

the ‘‘ON’’ position, the transponder 

(located in the head of the key) 

transmits a code to an immobilizer 

control module which then 

communicates with the powertrain’s 

electronic control module. The vehicle’s 

engine can only be started if the 

transponder code matches the code 

previously programmed into the 

module. If the code does not match, the 

engine will be disabled. Mazda stated 

that communications between the 

immobilizer system control function 

and the powertrain’s electronic control 

module are encrypted with 18 trillion 

different codes, and each transponder is 

hard coded with a unique code at the 

time of manufacture. Mazda also stated 

that its immobilizer system incorporates 

a light-emitting diode (LED) that 

provides information as to when the 

system is ‘‘set and ‘‘unset’’. When the 

ignition is initially turned to the ‘‘ON’’

position, a three-second continuous LED 

indicates the proper ‘‘unset’’ state of the 

device. When the ignition is turned to 

‘‘OFF’’, a flashing LED indicates the 

‘‘set’’ state of the system and provides 

a visual confirmation that the vehicle is 

protected by the immobilizer system. 

The integration of the setting/unsetting 

device (transponder) into the ignition 

key prevents any inadvertent activation 

of the system. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of 543.6, Mazda provided 

information on the reliability and 

durability of its proposed device. To 

ensure reliability and durability of the 

device, Mazda conducted tests based on 

its own specified standards. Mazda also 

provided a detailed list of the tests 

conducted and believes that the device 

is reliable and durable since the device 

complied with its specified 

requirements for each test. The 

components of the immobilizer device 

are tested in climatic, mechanical and 

chemical environments, and, immunity 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 97 / Monday, May 21, 2007 / Notices 28549 

to various electromagnetic radiation. 

Mazda stated that for reliability/ 

durability purposes, its key and key 

cylinders must also meet unique 

strength tests against attempts of 

mechanical overriding. The tests 

conducted were for thermal shock, high 

temperature exposure, low-temperature 

exposure, thermal cycle, humidity 

temperature cycling, functional, random 

vibration, dust, water, connector and 

lead/lock strength, chemical resistance, 

electromagnetic field, power line 

variations, DC stresses, electrostatic 

discharge, transceiver/key strength and 

transceiver mounting strength. Mazda 

also stated that its device is reliable and 

durable because it does not have any 

moving parts, nor does it require a 

separate battery in the key. Therefore, 

Mazda believes that any attempt to 

slam-pull the ignition lock cylinder will 

have no effect on a thief’s ability to start 

the vehicle, and if the correct code is 

not transmitted to the electronic control 

module there is no way to mechanically 

override the system and start the 

vehicle. Furthermore, Mazda stated that 

drive-away thefts are virtually 

eliminated with the sophisticated 

design and operation of the electronicengine immobilizer system which 

makes conventional theft methods (i.e., 

hot-wiring or attacking the ignition-lock 

cylinder) ineffective. 

Additionally, Mazda reported that in 

MY 1996, the proposed system was 

installed on certain U.S. Ford vehicles 

as standard equipment (i.e. on all Ford 

Mustang GT and Cobra models, Ford 

Taurus LX, SHO and Sable LS models). 

In MY 1997, the immobilizer system 

was installed on the Ford Mustang 

vehicle line as standard equipment. 

When comparing 1995 model year 

Mustang vehicle thefts (without 

immobilizer), with MY 1997 Mustang 

vehicle thefts (with immobilizer), data 

from the National Insurance Crime 

Bureau showed a 70% reduction in 

theft. (Actual NCIC reported thefts were 

500 for MY 1995 Mustang, and 149 

thefts for MY 1997 Mustang.) Mazda 

also provided additional data from the 

July 2000 Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety (IIHS) news release to 

support its belief in the reliability of its 

device. The IIHS news release showed 

an average theft reduction of about fifty 

percent for vehicles equipped with 

immobilizer systems. 

Mazda’s proposed device, as well as 

other comparable devices that have 

received full exemptions from the partsmarking requirements, lack an audible 

or visible alarm. Therefore, these 

devices cannot perform one of the 

functions listed in 49 CFR part 

543.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to 

unauthorized attempts to enter or move 

the vehicle. However, theft data have 

indicated a decline in theft rates for 

vehicle lines that have been equipped 

with devices similar to that which 

Mazda proposes. In these instances, the 

agency has concluded that the lack of a 

visual or audio alarm has not prevented 

these antitheft devices from being 

effective protection against theft. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

Mazda, the agency believes that the 

antitheft device for the Mazda 5 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 541). 

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. 

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

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

agency finds that Mazda has provided 

adequate reasons for its belief that the 

antitheft device will reduce and deter 

theft. This conclusion is based on the 

information Mazda provided about its 

device. For the foregoing reasons, the 

agency hereby grants in full Mazda’s 

petition for exemption for its 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 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 parts-marking 

requirements of the Theft Prevention 

Standard. 

If Mazda 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). 

NHTSA notes that if Mazda 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 that 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: May 15, 2007. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. E7–9666 Filed 5–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

Notice and Request for Comments 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to seek approval 

of existing collection: Waybill Sample 

SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq. (PRA), the Surface 

Transportation Board (STB or Board) 

gives notice of its intent to seek from the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) an approval for the currently 

existing collection of Waybill Sample 

data. This information collection is 

described in detail below. Comments 

are requested concerning: (1) The 

accuracy of the Board’s burden 

estimates; (2) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; (3) ways to 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

information on the respondents, 

including the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, when 

appropriate; and (4) whether this 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES