Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 25 / Monday, February 8, 2010 / Notices 6253 

the facts do not appear to warrant a 

hearing. If any interested party desires 

an opportunity for oral comment, they 

should notify FRA, in writing, before 

the end of the comment period and 

specify the basis for their request. 

All communications concerning these 

proceedings should identify the 

appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver 

Petition Docket Number FRA–2010– 

0009) and may be submitted by any of 

the following methods: 

• Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Operations Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

Communications received within 45 

days of the date of this notice will be 

considered by FRA before final action is 

taken. Comments received after that 

date will be considered as far as 

practicable. All written communications 

concerning these proceedings are 

available for examination during regular 

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

above facility. All documents in the 

public docket are also available for 

inspection and copying on the Internet 

at the docket facility’s Web site at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of any written 

communications and comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

document (or signing the document, 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 (65 FR 

19477) or at http://www.dot.gov/ 

privacy.html. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 2, 

2010. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2613 Filed 2–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard; Hyundia-Kia America 

Technical Center, Inc. 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the Hyundai-Kia Motors Corporation 

(HATCI) petition for exemption of the 

Hyundai VI vehicle line in accordance 

with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from 

Vehicle 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 49 CFR part 

541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2011 Model Year (MY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carlita Ballard, International Policy, 

Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, 

NHTSA, W43–439, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Ms. Ballard’s phone number is (202) 

366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493– 

2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated September 11, 2009, 

Hyundai requested an exemption from 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 

541) for the Hyundai VI vehicle line, 

beginning with MY 2011. The petition 

requested an exemption from partsmarking requirements 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 Section § 543.5(a), a 

manufacturer may petition NHTSA to 

grant exemptions for one of its vehicle 

lines per model year. Hyundai 

petitioned the agency to grant an 

exemption for its VI vehicle line 

beginning with MY 2011. In its petition, 

Hyundai provided a detailed 

description and diagram of the identity, 

design, and location of the components 

of the antitheft device for the new 

vehicle line. Hyundai will install its 

passive Smart-key Immobilizer device 

and alarm system (audible and visual) 

on the VI vehicle line as standard 

equipment. According to Hyundai, the 

Smart-key immobilizer device allows 

the driver/operator to access and 

operate the vehicle by using a valid FOB 

key and that no other actions by 

mechanical key or a remote control unit 

are necessary. Hyundai further states 

that the immobilizer is automatically 

activated when the electronic key code 

of the FOB key is removed from the 

smart-key immobilizer control unit. The 

audible and visual alarm system is 

automatically activated when the 

electronic key code of the FOB key is 

removed from the smart-key 

immobilizer control unit, all vehicle 

doors and the hood are closed, and all 

the doors are locked. If the device is 

armed and unauthorized entry is 

attempted, the vehicle’s horn will sound 

and the hazard lamps will flash. 

Hyundai stated that its Smart-key 

immobilizer device also features passive 

vehicle access, trunk access and door 

locking. Specifically, Hyundai stated 

that if a valid FOB key is in the range 

defined by this device, the device will 

automatically detect and authenticate 

the FOB via wireless communication 

between the FOB key and the Smart-key 

immobilizer unit. If communication is 

authenticated, the device will allow 

passive accessibility to the doors and/or 

trunk, and/or passive locking of all the 

doors. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of 543.6, Hyundai 

provided information on the reliability 

and durability of the device. Hyundai 

conducted component tests and onvehicle tests for the Smart-key 

immobilizer system and the alarm 

system in accordance with the EEC, 

UNECE, Korea standard and Hyundai 

in-house standard. Specifically, 

Hyundai provided approval numbers for 

all tests performed 

In support of its belief that its 

antitheft device will be as effective as 

compliance with the parts marking 

requirements in reducing and deterring 

vehicle theft, Hyundai referenced and 

provided an April 2006 report by JP 

Research, Inc., which concluded that 

antitheft devices were consistently 

much more effective in reducing thefts 

when compared to parts marking. The 

JP Research report showed that of the 24 

vehicle lines studied, those with 

antitheft devices installed were 70% 

more effective than parts marking in 

deterring theft. Hyundai also provided 

theft data on other manufacturer’s 

vehicle lines (Lincoln Town Car, 

Chrysler Town and Country, Mazda 

MX–5 Miata and Mazda 3) that have 

been exempted from the theft 

prevention standard. Hyundai stated 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

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