Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft Prevention Standard; Mazda, 54601-54603 [05-18339]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Notices Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope: Description: Application of American Eagle Airlines, Inc. and Executive Airlines, Inc. d/b/a American Eagle, in response to the Department’s notice of August 23, 2005 on streamlining regulatory procedures for licensing U.S. and foreign air carriers, requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property to correspond to U.S.-Mexico routes for which American Eagle Airlines, Inc. holds authority by exemption. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. 05–18331 Filed 9–14–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–62–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending August 26, 2005 The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application. Docket Number: OST–2005–22204. Date Filed: August 22, 2005. Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association. Subject: Mail Vote 452—Resolution 010s; TC3 Japan, Korea-South East Asia; Special Passenger Amending Resolution between China (excluding Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR) and Japan. Intended effective date: 1 September 2005. Docket Number: OST–2005–22205. Date Filed: August 22, 2005. Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association. Subject: Composite Expedited Resolution 002ad (Memo 1260); Composite Expedited Resolution 024e (Memo 1261); Composite Expedited Resolutions 017b and 017c (Memo 1262). Intended effective date: 1 October 2005. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. 05–18332 Filed 9–14–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–62–P VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:03 Sep 14, 2005 Jkt 205001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA–2005– 22174] Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation. ACTION: Emergency Federal Register notice. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation has submitted the following emergency processing public information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This notice announces that the Information Collection Requested (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. Comments should be directed to the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725– 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer. DATES: OMB approval has been requested by September 1, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Complete copies of this request for collection of information may be obtained at no charge from Donna Glassbrenner, Ph.D., Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6125, NPO– 121, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Glassbrenner’s telephone number is (202) 366–3962. Please identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its Docket Number above. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats. OMB Control Number: New. Affected Public: Motorists in passenger vehicles at gas stations, fast food restaurants, and other types of sites frequented by children during the time in which the survey is conducted. Form Number: NHTSA 1010. Abstract: The National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats is being conducted to respond to the Section 14(i) of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act of 2000. The Act directs the Department of Transportation to PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 54601 reduce the deaths and injuries among children in the 4-to-8 year old age group that are caused by failure to use a booster seat by 25 percent. Conducting the National Survey of the Use of Booster Seats will provide the Department with invaluable information on who is and is not using booster seats, helping the Department better direct its outreach programs to ensure that children are protected to the greatest degree possible when they ride in motor vehicles. Emergency approval is requested for the survey in order to obtain this important survey data as soon as possible, saving more children and helping to comply with the TREAD Act requirement. Estimated Annual Burden: 320 hours. Number of Respondents: Approximately 4,800 adult motorists will respond to survey questions about the children in their vehicle. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department’s estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Issued on: September 1, 2005. Joseph Carra, Associate Administrator for the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, NHTSA. [FR Doc. 05–18292 Filed 9–14–05; 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 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. AGENCY: 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 3 vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 2006. This petition is granted because the agency has determined that the antitheft E:\FR\FM\15SEN1.SGM 15SEN1 54602 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Notices 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 September 1, 2006. 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 exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Mazda 3 vehicle line beginning with MY 2006. 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. 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. 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 antitheft device is a transponder-based electronic immobilizer system. Mazda will install its antitheft device as standard equipment on its Mazda 3 vehicle line beginning with MY 2006. In order to ensure the reliability and durability of the device, Mazda conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Mazda provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and stated its belief that the device is reliable and durable since it has complied with Mazda’s specified requirements for each test. The components of the immobilizer device are tested in climatic, mechanical and chemical environments. All keys and key cylinders should meet unique strength tests against attempts of mechanical overriding. The tests conducted were for thermal shock, high temperature exposure, low-temperature exposure, thermal cycling, humidity temperature cycling, random vibration, dust, water, connector and lead/lock VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:03 Sep 14, 2005 Jkt 205001 strength, chemical resistance, electromagnetic field, power line variations, DC stresses, electrostatic discharge, transceiver/key strength and transceiver mounting strength. 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 the powertrain’s electronic control module. Mazda stated that encrypted communications exist between the immobilizer system control function and 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 powertrain’s electronic control module. If the code does not match, the engine will be disabled. Mazda stated that there are approximately 18 × 1018 different codes and at the time of manufacture, each transponder is hard-coded with a unique code. Mazda also stated that its immobilizer system incorporates a lightemitting diode (LED) that provides information as to when the system is ‘‘unset’’. When the ignition is initially turned to the ‘‘ON’’ position, the LED illuminates continuously for three seconds to indicate the proper ‘‘unset’’ state of the device. When the ignition is turned to ‘‘OFF’’ position, a flashing LED indicates the ‘‘set’’ state of the system. The integration of the set/unset device (transponder) into the ignition key prevents any inadvertent activation of the system. Mazda believes that it would be very difficult for a thief to defeat this type of electronic immobilizer system. Mazda believes 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 electronic engine immobilizer system which makes conventional theft methods (i.e., hot-wiring or attacking the ignition-lock cylinder) ineffective. 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, PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 National Crime Information Center 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 E:\FR\FM\15SEN1.SGM 15SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 178 / Thursday, September 15, 2005 / Notices 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. Section 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. Issued on: September 9, 2005. Roger A. Saul, Director, Office of Crashworthiness Standards. [FR Doc. 05–18339 Filed 9–14–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Docket No. AB–55 (Sub-No. 658X)] CSX Transportation, Inc.— Abandonment Exemption—in Hall County, GA On August 26, 2005, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT), filed with the Board a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to abandon a 0.85-mile portion of its Southern Region, Atlanta Division, Gainesville Midland Subdivision, between milepost GGM 39.2 and the end of the track, milepost GGM 40.05, in Hall County, GA. The line traverses VerDate Aug<18>2005 15:03 Sep 14, 2005 Jkt 205001 U.S. Postal Service Zip Code 30501 and is within the station of Gainesville, GA. The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in CSXT’s possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it. The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.— Abandonment—Goshen, 360 I.C.C. 91 (1979). By issuance of this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by December 14, 2005. Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,200 filing fee. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25). All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than October 5, 2005. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $200 filing fee. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(27). All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No. AB–55 (Sub-No. 658X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423– 0001; and (2) Louis E. Gitomer, Esq., Ball Janik, LLP, 1455 F Street, NW., Suite 225, Washington, DC, 20005. Replies to the petition are due on or before October 5, 2005. Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board’s Office of Public Services at (202) 565–1592 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board’s Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565–1539. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.] An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary), prepared by SEA, will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 54603 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at www.stb.dot.gov. Decided: September 8, 2005. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. 05–18351 Filed 9–14–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915–01–P DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Advisory Committee on CARES Business Plan Studies; Cancellation of Meeting The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Public Law 92–463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina has forced the cancellation of the Advisory Committee on CARES Business Plan Studies meeting previously scheduled for Thursday, September 29, 2005, from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m., at the VA Gulf Coast Veterans Health Care System, Building 17, Recreation Hall, 400 Veterans Avenue, Biloxi, MS. The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on proposed business plans at those VA facility sites identified in May 2004 as requiring further study by the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Series (CARES) Decision document. For additional information regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Jay Halpern, Designated Federal Officer, (00CARES), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20024 by phone at (202) 273–5994, or by e-mail at jay.halpern@va.gov. Dated: September 9, 2005. E. Philip Riggin, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. 05–18290 Filed 9–14–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320–01–M E:\FR\FM\15SEN1.SGM 15SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54601-54603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18339]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Sec.  
543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention 
Standard, for the Mazda 3 vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 
2006. This petition is granted because the agency has determined that 
the antitheft

[[Page 54602]]

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 September 1, 
2006.

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 exemption from the parts-marking 
requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the 
Mazda 3 vehicle line beginning with MY 2006. 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 Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant 
exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines per year.
    Mazda's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 
49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in 
Sec.  543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    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 antitheft device is a 
transponder-based electronic immobilizer system. Mazda will install its 
antitheft device as standard equipment on its Mazda 3 vehicle line 
beginning with MY 2006.
    In order to ensure the reliability and durability of the device, 
Mazda conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Mazda 
provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and stated its belief 
that the device is reliable and durable since it has complied with 
Mazda's specified requirements for each test. The components of the 
immobilizer device are tested in climatic, mechanical and chemical 
environments. All keys and key cylinders should meet unique strength 
tests against attempts of mechanical overriding. The tests conducted 
were for thermal shock, high temperature exposure, low-temperature 
exposure, thermal cycling, humidity temperature cycling, 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'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 the 
powertrain's electronic control module. Mazda stated that encrypted 
communications exist between the immobilizer system control function 
and 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 powertrain's electronic control module. If the code 
does not match, the engine will be disabled. Mazda stated that there 
are approximately 18 x 1018 different codes and at the time 
of manufacture, each transponder is hard-coded with a unique code. 
Mazda also stated that its immobilizer system incorporates a light-
emitting diode (LED) that provides information as to when the system is 
``unset''. When the ignition is initially turned to the ``ON'' 
position, the LED illuminates continuously for three seconds to 
indicate the proper ``unset'' state of the device. When the ignition is 
turned to ``OFF'' position, a flashing LED indicates the ``set'' state 
of the system. The integration of the set/unset device (transponder) 
into the ignition key prevents any inadvertent activation of the 
system.
    Mazda believes that it would be very difficult for a thief to 
defeat this type of electronic immobilizer system. Mazda believes 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 
electronic engine immobilizer system which makes conventional theft 
methods (i.e., hot-wiring or attacking the ignition-lock cylinder) 
ineffective.
    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 National Crime 
Information Center 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 parts-marking 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 parts-marking 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 54603]]

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. Section 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, Sec.  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 Sec.  
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: September 9, 2005.
Roger A. Saul,
Director, Office of Crashworthiness Standards.
[FR Doc. 05-18339 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P