Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 70265 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 8955] 

Determination and Certification 

Regarding Assistance to Fiji 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On October 24, 2014, the 

Deputy Secretary of State took the 

following action: ‘‘Pursuant to the 

authority vested in me as Deputy 

Secretary of State, including by section 

7008 of the Department of State, Foreign 

Operations, and Related Programs 

Appropriations Act, 2014 (Div. K, Pub. 

L. 113–76), as carried forward by the 

Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 

2014 (Pub. L. 113–64), and similar 

provisions in prior year Acts, Executive 

Order 12163, as amended, and State 

Department Delegation of Authority No. 

245–1, I hereby determine and certify 

that, subsequent to the termination of 

assistance to the Government of Fiji 

after that country’s December 2006 

military coup, a democratically elected 

government has taken office in Fiji. 

‘‘This Determination and Certification 

shall be reported to Congress and 

published in the Federal Register.’’ 

(Signed William J. Burns, Deputy 

Secretary of State) 

This Determination and Certification 

has been reported to Congress. 

Dated: October 29, 2014. 

J. Paul Reid, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, 

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27933 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Federal Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard; Mazda Motor Corporation 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the Mazda Motor Corporation’s (Mazda) 

petition for an exemption of the 

(confidential) 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 (Theft Prevention 

Standard). Mazda also requested 

confidential treatment for specific 

information in its petition. The agency 

will address Mazda’s request for 

confidential treatment by separate letter. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2016 model year (MY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Deborah Mazyck, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, W43–443, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 

20590. Ms. Mazyck’s phone number is 

(202) 366–4139. Her fax number is (202) 

493–2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated August 1, 2014, Mazda 

requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard for the Mazda 

(confidential) vehicle line beginning 

with MY 2016. 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 49 CFR 543.5(a), a 

manufacturer may petition NHTSA to 

grant an exemption 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 (confidential) 

vehicle line. Mazda stated that its MY 

2016 (confidential) vehicle line will be 

equipped with a passive, transponder 

based, electronic engine immobilizer 

antitheft device as standard equipment. 

Key components of its antitheft device 

will include a powertrain control 

module (PCM), immobilizer control 

module, security indicator light, coil 

antenna, transmitter with transponder 

key (transponder key), low frequency 

(LF) antenna, radio frequency (RF) 

antenna and low frequency unit (LFU). 

The device will not provide any visible 

or audible indication of unauthorized 

vehicle entry (i.e., flashing lights or 

horn alarm) as standard equipment. 

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. 

The integration of the set/unset device 

(transponder key) into the immobilizer 

system prevents any inadvertent 

actuation of the system. Mazda stated 

that the antitheft device is deactivated 

when the ignition is initially engaged by 

pressing the ‘‘Engine Start’’ pushbutton 

while simultaneously depressing the 

brake pedal. Activation of the device 

occurs when the operator disengages the 

ignition by pressing the ‘‘Engine Start’’ 

pushbutton when the vehicle is parked. 

Mazda further stated that there are 

two methods of initiating the antitheft 

device operation process. The first 

process is used when the transponder 

key can be detected. Specifically, the 

immobilizer control unit sends a signal 

to the transponder key using its LF 

antenna to request a transponder code. 

The transponder code is then sent 

through the RF receiver back to the 

immobilizer control unit to authenticate 

the code and determine its validity. The 

second process is used when the 

transponder key cannot be detected by 

the immobilizer control unit (i.e., 

discharged battery). For this process, 

communication between the 

transponder key and the immobilizer 

control unit begins when the 

transponder key is passed over the coil 

antenna located in the ‘‘Engine Start’’ 

pushbutton. The immobilizer control 

module then communicates with the 

transponder key to determine key 

validity. Mazda stated that if the code 

from the transponder key matches with 

the code from the immobilizer control 

module by either process, the 

immobilizer control module compares 

its code with the code from the PCM 

when the ‘‘Engine Start’’ pushbutton is 

pressed and the brake pedal is 

depressed simultaneously. Mazda stated 

that the vehicle’s engine can only be 

started if the code from the immobilizer 

control module matches the code 

previously programmed into the PCM. If 

the codes do not match, the engine will 

not start. 

Mazda also stated that the 

immobilizer device incorporates a lightemitting diode (LED) indicator which 

provides information on the status of 

the antitheft device. Specifically, when 

the ignition is initially engaged, the LED 

illuminates continuously for 3 seconds 

to indicate the ‘‘unset’’ state of the 

system. When the ignition is 

disengaged, a flashing LED indicates the 

‘‘set’’ state of the device, providing a 

visual confirmation that the vehicle is 

protected by the immobilizer device. 

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 

provided a detailed list of the tests 

conducted (i.e., electromagnetic 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
70266 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 

radiation, electric conduction, and 

climatic, mechanical and chemical 

environments) and believes that the 

device is reliable and durable since it 

complied with its own specified 

requirements for each test. Mazda also 

stated that its device is extremely 

reliable and durable because it does not 

have any moving parts, and that any 

attempt to slam-pull the ignition will 

have no effect on a thief’s ability to start 

the vehicle without the correct code 

being transmitted to the electronic 

control modules. 

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, Mazda also compared its 

device to other similar devices 

previously granted exemptions by the 

agency. Mazda stated that its antitheft 

device has features similar to the Ford 

Motor Company’s (Ford) Passive AntiTheft System (PATS). The PATS 

antitheft device was previously 

approved for exemption from the 

requirements of Part 541 and installed 

on the Mazda Tribute, (manufactured by 

Ford), the Ford Focus, the Ford Five 

Hundred and the Ford Taurus X vehicle 

lines. The agency granted in full the 

petition for the Mazda Tribute vehicle 

line beginning with model year 2010, 

(see 73 FR 40447, July 14, 2008), the 

Ford Focus vehicle line beginning with 

model year 2006, (see 71 FR 7824, 

February 14, 2006), the Ford Five 

Hundred beginning with model year 

2007 (see 71 FR 52206, September 1, 

2006), and the Ford Taurus X vehicle 

line beginning with model year 2008, 

(see 72 FR 20400, April 24, 2007). The 

agency notes the average theft rate for 

the Mazda Tribute and Ford Focus 

vehicle lines using three MYs’ data 

(2010-preliminary 2012) are 1.560 and 

0.14216 respectively. Current theft rate 

data is not available for the Ford Five 

Hundred and the Taurus X vehicle lines 

because they are no longer being 

produced. 

Mazda also 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. Specifically, Mazda 

stated that its device was installed on 

certain MY 1996 

Ford vehicles as standard equipment, 

(i.e., all Ford Mustang GT, Cobra, 

Taurus LX, SHO and Sable LS models). 

In MY 1997, Mazda installed its 

immobilizer device on the entire Ford 

Mustang vehicle line as standard 

equipment. When comparing 1995 

model year Mustang vehicle thefts 

(without immobilizers) with MY 1997 

Mustangs vehicle thefts (with 

immobilizers), Mazda referenced the 

National Crime Information Center’s 

theft information which showed that 

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. The 

agency notes that current theft rate data 

for MYs 2010 through preliminary 2012 

are 2.2392, 1.7365 and 2.2115 

respectively for the Ford Mustang 

vehicle line. Additionally, Mazda 

referenced a July 2000 HLDI news 

release which reported that when 

comparing theft loss data before and 

after equipping vehicle with passive 

immobilizer devices, the data showed 

an average theft reduction of 

approximately 50% for vehicle with 

immobilizer devices. 

Mazda stated that it believes that 

since its device is functionally 

equivalent to other comparable 

manufacturer’s devices that have 

already been granted parts-marking 

exemptions by the agency, along with 

the evidence of reduced theft rates for 

vehicle lines equipped with similar 

devices and advanced technology of 

transponder electronic security, the 

Mazda immobilizer device will have the 

potential to achieve the level of 

effectiveness equivalent to those vehicle 

already exempted by the agency. The 

agency agrees that the device is 

substantially similar to devices installed 

on other vehicle lines for which the 

agency has already granted exemptions. 

Based on the supporting evidence 

submitted by Mazda on its device, the 

agency believes that the antitheft device 

for the (confidential) 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 541). 

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 Mazda (confidential) 

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 Mazda provided about its 

device. 

The agency concludes that the device 

will provide the 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. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full Mazda’s petition 

for exemption for the Mazda 

(confidential) 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 partsmarking 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 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 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 227 / Tuesday, November 25, 2014 / Notices 70267 

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. 

Under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.95 

R. Ryan Posten, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27887 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Final Decision on Proposed 

Airport Access Restriction 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The FAA has completed its 

review of the application for an airport 

noise and access restriction submitted 

by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) 

for the Los Angeles International 

Airport (LAX). The FAA determined 

that the application does not provide 

substantial evidence that the proposed 

restriction meets three of the six 

statutory conditions for approval under 

the Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 

1990 (ANCA). The FAA’s decision was 

signed on November 7, 2014, and 

transmitted to LAWA on November 8, 

2014. 

DATES: Effective date: November 25, 

2014. The effective date of the FAA’s 

decision on the application for a 

mandatory noise and access restriction 

at LAX is November 7, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Byers, Airport Planning and 

Environmental Division, APP–400, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591. Email address: 

jim.byers@faa.gov; telephone: 202–267– 

3007. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

Notice also announces the availability of 

the FAA’s final agency order 

disapproving the proposed access 

restriction at http://faa.gov/airports/

environmental/airport_noise/part_161/. 

The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of 

1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the 

Act’’ or ‘‘ANCA’’) provides notice, 

review, and approval requirements for 

airports seeking to impose noise or 

access restrictions on Stage 3 aircraft 

operations that become effective after 

October 1, 1990. 49 U.S.C. 47521 et seq. 

ANCA established a 180-day review 

period for the application. Under 14 

CFR 161.313(c)(4)(ii), the review period 

starts on the date of receipt of the 

complete application, which was May 

22, 2014. 

On January 30, 2013, the FAA 

received an application from LAWA 

under Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, 14 CFR part 161, seeking 

the FAA’s review of a proposed Stage 3 

aircraft noise and access restriction at 

LAX. The FAA reviewed the application 

in accordance with 14 CFR 161.313(a), 

and determined it to be incomplete in 

the areas of Noise Exposure Maps 

(NEMs); Noise Study Area; Technical 

Data Supporting Noise Impact Analysis; 

and Cost Benefit Analysis. The FAA 

sent notice of this decision to LAWA on 

March 1, 2013. On March 15, 2013, the 

FAA provided LAWA with additional 

information regarding the types of 

information and analysis required to 

complete the application. 

On March 28, 2013, LAWA stated its 

intent to revise the Part 161 application 

and resubmit it for further review. On 

July 5, 2013, FAA received a 

‘‘Supplemental Analysis’’ from LAWA. 

The FAA reviewed the Supplemental 

Analysis and determined that the 

application continued to be incomplete 

in the areas of Airport Noise Study Area 

and Noise Contours; Technical Data 

Supporting Noise Impact Analysis; and 

Cost Benefit Analysis. The FAA sent 

notice of this decision to LAWA on 

August 2, 2013. On August 20, 2013, 

LAWA stated its intent to supplement 

the Part 161 application and resubmit it 

to the FAA. On May 12, 2014, FAA 

received LAWA’s supplemented 

application, followed by an errata sheet 

on May 22, 2014. On June 10, 2014, 

FAA determined LAWA’s application to 

be complete. On June 27, 2014, the FAA 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register announcing its determination 

that LAWA’s application was complete 

and inviting public comments. 79 FR 

36577. The FAA received 21 separate 

comments, which the FAA considered 

during its evaluation of the LAWA 

application. 

By law, the FAA may only approve a 

noise or access restriction affecting the 

operations of Stage 3 aircraft if the 

applicant demonstrates, by substantial 

evidence, that each of six statutory 

conditions have been met. These six 

statutory conditions of approval are: 

• Condition 1: The restriction is 

reasonable, nonarbitrary, and 

nondiscriminatory; 

• Condition 2: The restriction does 

not create an undue burden on interstate 

or foreign commerce; 

• Condition 3: The proposed 

restriction maintains safe and efficient 

use of the navigable airspace; 

• Condition 4: The proposed 

restriction does not conflict with any 

existing Federal statute or regulation; 

• Condition 5: The applicant has 

provided adequate opportunity for 

public comment on the proposed 

restriction; and 

• Condition 6: The proposed 

restriction does not create an undue 

burden on the national aviation system. 

The FAA evaluated LAWA’s 

application under the provisions of 

ANCA and 14 CFR 161.317 and 

determined that the application satisfies 

the requirements under Condition 3, 

Condition 5, and Condition 6. However, 

the application does not satisfy the 

requirements under Condition 1, 

Condition 2, or Condition 4. Therefore, 

in accordance with the requirements set 

forth in ANCA, the FAA disapproved 

the application on November 7, 2014. 

Questions may be directed to the 

individual named above under the 

heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on November 

17, 2014. 

Elliott Black, 

Director, Office of Airport Planning and 

Programming. 

[FR Doc. 2014–27815 Filed 11–24–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Random Drug and Alcohol Testing 

Percentage Rates of Covered Aviation 

Employees for the Period of January 1, 

2015, Through December 31, 2015 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The FAA has determined that 

the minimum random drug and alcohol 

testing percentage rates for the period 

January 1, 2015, through December 31, 

2015, will remain at 25 percent of 

safety-sensitive employees for random 

drug testing and 10 percent of safetysensitive employees for random alcohol 

testing. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Vicky Dunne, Office of Aerospace 

Medicine, Drug Abatement Division, 

Program Policy Branch (AAM–820), 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., Room 806, 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES