6254 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Notices 

that it believes that this data supports 

the conclusion of the JP Research report 

that the installation of antitheft devices 

is at least as effective as complying with 

the parts marking requirements in 

reducing and deterring theft. Theft rates 

for the Lincoln Town Car, Chrysler 

Town and Country, Mazda MX–5 Miata 

and Mazda 3 all are below the median 

theft rate of 3.5826. Hyundai also 

compared the theft rates for its Azera 

model which has been installed with an 

antitheft device as standard equipment 

since (MY 2006) and was granted an 

exemption from the theft prevention 

standard in MY 2008 to the overall theft 

rate reported by NHTSA for model years 

(MYs’) 2006 and 2007. The theft rate for 

the MY 2006 Hyundai Azera was 0.7758 

which was comparatively lower than 

the overall theft rate of 2.08 for MY 

2006. The theft rate for the MY 2007 

Azera was 1.8003, also comparatively 

lower than the overall theft rate of 1.86 

for MY 2007. Conclusively, Hyundai 

stated that it believes the data indicate 

that installation of antitheft devices are 

effective in reducing thefts. 

Based on the supporting evidence 

submitted by Hyundai on the device, 

the agency believes that the antitheft 

device for the VI vehicle line 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). 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. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 

CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a 

petition for exemption from the partsmarking requirements of part 541, either 

in whole or in part, if it determines that, 

based upon supporting 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 Hyundai has provided 

adequate reasons for its belief that the 

antitheft device for the Hyundai VI 

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 part 541). 

This conclusion is based on the 

information Hyundai provided about its 

device. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full Hyundai’s petition 

for an exemption for the MY 2011 VI 

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 with respect 

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 Hyundai decides not to use the 

exemption for this vehicle line, it must 

formally notify the agency. If such a 

decision is made, the vehicle 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 Hyundai 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: February 2, 2010. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2595 Filed 2–5–10; 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; 

Mazda 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA). 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the petition of Mazda Motor Corporation 

(Mazda) of the Mazda2 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 the 

2011 model year. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rosalind Proctor, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, West Building, 

W43–302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor’s 

telephone number is (202) 366–0846. 

Her fax number is (202) 493–2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated September 24, 2009, 

Mazda requested an exemption from the 

parts-marking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) 

for the MY 2011 Mazda2 vehicle line. 

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 vehicle line per model 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 Mazda2 

vehicle line. Mazda will install its 

passive transponder-based, electronic 

immobilizer antitheft device as standard 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Notices 6255 

equipment on its Mazda2 vehicle line 

beginning with MY 2011. Major 

components of the antitheft device will 

include a powertrain control module, an 

immobilizer control module, a security 

light, transceiver and a transponder 

ignition key. Mazda stated that the 

integration of the transponder into the 

ignition key prevents any inadvertent 

activation of the device. When the 

ignition is turned to the ‘‘ON’’ position 

a code is transmitted from the 

transponder to the immobilizer control 

module. If the transponder code 

matches the code programmed in the 

immobilizer control module, the 

vehicle’s engine can be started. If the 

transponder code does not match, the 

engine will be disabled. Activation of 

the immobilization device occurs when 

the ignition is turned to the ‘‘OFF’’ 

position. 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 stated that the antitheft device 

to be installed on the Mazda2 vehicle 

line is based on the design of the 

immobilizer device installed on the 

Ford Mustang GT, Cobra, Taurus LX, 

SHO and Sable LS models beginning 

with the 1996 model year. The device 

will provide protection against 

unauthorized use (i.e., starting and 

engine fueling), but the device will not 

provide any visible or audible 

indication of unauthorized vehicle entry 

(i.e., flashing lights or horn alarm). 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of 543.6, Mazda 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. 

Specifically, Mazda stated that the 

components of the immobilization 

device are tested in climatic, 

mechanical and chemical environments, 

and that the device is also tested for its 

immunity to various electromagnetic 

radiation and electric conduction. 

Mazda stated that the design and the 

operation of the electronic engine 

immobilizer device makes conventional 

theft methods such as hot-wiring or 

attacking the ignition lock cylinder 

ineffective, and virtually eliminates 

drive-away thefts. Mazda also stated 

that there is no way to start the vehicle 

by mechanically overriding the device 

and that successful key duplication is 

virtually impossible. 

There is currently no available theft 

rate data published by the agency for the 

Mazda2 vehicle line. However, Mazda 

provided data on the effectiveness of 

other similar antitheft devices installed 

on vehicle lines in support of its belief 

that its device will be at least as 

effective as those comparable devices. 

Mazda stated that according to National 

Crime Information Center’s (NCIC) theft 

information, there was a 70% reduction 

in theft experienced when comparing 

MY 1997 Mustang vehicle thefts (with 

immobilizers) to MY 1995 Mustang 

vehicle thefts (without immobilizers). 

Mazda also stated that the Highway Loss 

Data Institute’s (HLDI) September 1997 

Theft Loss Bulletin reported an overall 

theft loss decrease of approximately 

50% for both the Ford Mustang and 

Taurus models upon installation of an 

antitheft immobilization device. 

Additionally, Mazda stated that 

supportively, a July 2000 International 

Institute for Highway Safety news 

release reported that when comparing 

theft loss data before and after 

equipping vehicles with passive 

immobilizer devices, the data showed 

an average theft reduction of 

approximately 50% for vehicles with 

immobilizer devices. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

Mazda, the agency believes that the 

antitheft device for the Mazda2 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 part 541). 

The agency also notes 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. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 

CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a 

petition for exemption from the partsmarking 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 Mazda has provided adequate 

reasons for its belief that the antitheft 

device for the Mazda2 vehicle line 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). 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 the Mazda2 vehicle 

line from the parts-marking 

requirements of 49 CFR part 541, 

beginning with the 2011 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 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 must 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 anti-theft 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: February 2, 2010. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2599 Filed 2–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES