Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 58789 

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 

reliability and durability of the device. 

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

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

finds that Fuji has provided adequate 

reasons for its belief that the antitheft 

device will reduce and deter theft. This 

conclusion is based on the information 

Fuji provided about its device. For the 

foregoing reasons, the agency hereby 

grants in full Fuji’s petition for 

exemption for the vehicle line from the 

parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR 

part 541. 

If Fuji 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 Fuji 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 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 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: October 3, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05–20186 Filed 10–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–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 CX–

7 vehicle line beginning with model 

year (MY) 2007. 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) 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rosalind Proctor, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington DC 20590. Ms. 

Proctor’s phone number is (202) 366–

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated June 21, 2005, Mazda 

Motor Corporation (Mazda), requested 

an exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard (49 CFR part 541) for the 

Mazda CX–7 vehicle line beginning 

with MY 2007. The petition requested 

an exemption from parts-marking 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 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. 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. The anti-theft device is a 

transponder-based, electronic, 

immobilizer system. Mazda will install 

its antitheft device, as standard 

equipment on its CX–7 vehicle line 

beginning with MY 2007. 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 the 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 powertrain’s 

electronic control module. The vehicle’s 

engine can only be started if the 

transponder code matches the code 

previously programmed into the 

immobilizer control module. If the code 

does not match, the engine will be 

disabled. Mazda stated that 

communications between the 

immobilizer system control function 

and the powertrains electronic control 

module are encrypted with 18 × 1018

different codes, and each transponder is 

hard coded with a unique code at 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 

to various electromagnetic radiation. 

Mazda stated that for reliability/ 

durablility 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 

58790 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 

1Watco owns 100% of the issued and outstanding 

stock of LSRR. 

variations, DC stresses, electrostatic 

discharge, transceiver/key strength and 

transceiver mounting strength. Mazda 

also stated that its proposed device is 

reliable and durable because it does not 

have any moving parts, nor does it 

require a separate battery in the key. 

Any attempt to slam-pull the ignition 

lock cylinder, for example, will have no 

effect on a thief’s ability to start the 

vehicle. 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’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 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. 

On the basis of this comparison, 

Mazda 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 parts-marking 

requirements. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

Mazda, the agency believes that the 

antitheft device for the Mazda 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 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. 

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 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, 

§ 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 § 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. 

Dated: October 3, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05–20184 Filed 10–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 34752] 

Watco Companies, Inc.—Continuance 

in Control Exemption—Louisiana 

Southern Railroad, Inc. 

Watco Companies, Inc. (Watco), has 

filed a verified notice of exemption to 

continue in control of the Louisiana 

Southern Railroad, Inc. (LSRR), upon 

LSRR’s becoming a Class III rail carrier.1

The transaction was scheduled to be 

consummated on or shortly after 

September 25, 2005. 

This transaction is related to the 

concurrently filed verified notice of 

exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 

34751, Louisiana Southern Railroad, 

Inc.—Lease and Operation Exemption—

The Kansas City Southern Railway 

Company. In that proceeding, LSRR 

seeks to acquire by lease from The 

Kansas City Southern Railway Company 

and operate approximately 165.8 miles 

of rail line extending between: (1) A 

point 1,600 feet south of LN&W 

milepost 62, near Gibsland, LA, and 

milepost B–192, near Pineville, LA; (2) 

milepost 148.8, at Winnfield, LA, and 

the end of the track, at Joyce, LA; (3) 

milepost 78.8, at Minden, LA, and 

milepost 83.5, at Sibley, LA; and (4) 

milepost 48.48, south of Springhill, LA, 

and milepost B–102, east of Hinkle, LA. 

Watco, a Kansas corporation, is a 

noncarrier that currently controls 13 

Class III rail carriers: South Kansas and 

Oklahoma Railroad Company (SKO); 

Palouse River & Coulee City Railroad, 

Inc. (PRCC); Timber Rock Railroad, Inc. 

(TIBR); Stillwater Central Railroad, Inc. 

(SLWC); Eastern Idaho Railroad, Inc. 

(EIRR); Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad, 

Inc. (K&O); Pennsylvania Southwestern 

Railroad, Inc. (PSWR); Great Northwest 

Railroad, Inc. (GNR); Kaw River 

Railroad, Inc. (KRR); Mission Mountain 

Railroad, Inc. (MMT); Appalachian & 

Ohio Railroad, Inc. (AO); Mississippi 

Southern Railroad, Inc. (MSRR); and 

Yellowstone Valley Railroad, Inc. 

(YVRR). 

Applicant states that: (1) The rail lines 

operated by SKO, PRCC, TIBR, SLWC, 

EIRR, K&O, PSWR, GNR, KRR, MMT, 

AO, MSRR, and YVRR do not connect