Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Hyundia-Kia America Technical Center, Inc., 1447-1449 [2010-236]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices
incorporate health IT and the market for
health IT records exchanges develops,
we anticipate that we will develop more
detailed information about the
reasonable costs for obtaining medical
records through health IT.
Consequently, we will periodically
review the uniform national rate for
reimbursing all non-federal medical
providers for the reasonable costs of
supplying health IT medical records.
When we revise the uniform national
rate, we will publish another notice in
the Federal Register.
Dated: January 4, 2010.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner of Social Security.
[FR Doc. 2010–225 Filed 1–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 34658]
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Alaska Railroad Corporation—
Construction and Operation
Exemption—Rail Line Between North
Pole and Delta Junction, AK
By petition filed on July 6, 2007,
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), a
Class III rail carrier incorporated in, and
owned by, the State of Alaska, seeks an
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502 from
the prior approval requirements of 49
U.S.C. 10901 for authority to construct
and operate approximately 80 miles of
new main line track, referred to as the
Northern Rail Extension (NRE), in the
State of Alaska. The proposed NRE
would extend southeasterly from Mile
20 on ARRC’s existing Eielson Branch
near the community of North Pole
(located just south of Fairbanks) to the
southern side of the community of Delta
Junction.
In a decision served on October 4,
2007, the Board instituted a proceeding
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). The Board’s
Section of Environmental Analysis
(SEA) has conducted an environmental
review of the proposed construction and
alternatives. A detailed Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
prepared by SEA together with eight
cooperating agencies 1 was issued for
public review and comment on
February 2, 2009. SEA then prepared a
Final EIS that was issued on September
1 U.S. Department of Defense Alaskan Command,
Bureau of Land Management, Federal Transit
Administration, Federal Railroad Administration,
U.S. Air Force 354th Fighter Wing Command from
Eielson Air Force Base, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, and State of Alaska
Department of Natural Resources.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Jan 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
18, 2009. The Final EIS considered all
the comments received on the Draft EIS,
reflects SEA’s further independent
analysis, and sets forth SEA’s preferred
rail alignments and final recommended
environmental mitigation measures.
After considering the entire record,
including both the transportation
aspects of the petition and the potential
environmental issues, we granted the
requested construction and operation
exemption in a decision served on
January 6, 2010, permitting ARRC to
build any of the preferred rail
alignments set out in the decision,
subject to compliance with the
environmental mitigation measures
listed in Appendix 1 of the decision.
Vice Chairman Mulvey dissented with a
separate expression. Petitions to reopen
must be filed by February 5, 2010.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at
www.stb.dot.gov.
Decided: January 5, 2010.
By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice
Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner
Nottingham. Vice Chairman Mulvey
dissented with a separate expression.
Kulunie L. Cannon,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2010–217 Filed 1–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Receipt of Noise Compatibility
Program Update and Request for
Review for Modesto City-County
Airport, Modesto, CA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice, correction.
SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) published a
notice in the Federal Register on
December 18, 2009. (74 FR 67305). This
action corrects an error in a date in that
document. The notice announced that
the FAA is reviewing a proposed noise
compatibility program update that was
submitted for Modesto City-County
Airport under the provisions of 49
U.S.C. 47501 et seq. (the Aviation Safety
and Noise Abatement Act) and 14 CFR
Part 150 by City of Modesto.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Camille Garibaldi, Telephone number:
(650) 876–2778, extension 613.
Correction
In Notice document (Federal Register
Doc. E9–30186) published on December
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1447
18, 2009 (74 FR 67305) make the
following correction:
On page 67305 in the second column,
in the fourth line of the third paragraph
under the heading SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION; the date December 6, 2009,
is corrected to read, December 9, 2009.
Issued in Hawthorne, California on
December 29, 2009.
Mark A. McClardy,
Manager, Airports Division, AWP–600,
Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2010–114 Filed 1–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
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 petition of Hyundai-Kia Motors
Corporation (HATCI) in accordance
with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR part 543,
Exemption from the Theft Prevention
Standard, for the Kia Amanti vehicle
line beginning with model year (MY)
2009. 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. HATCI
requested confidential treatment for its
information and attachments submitted
in support of its petition. In a letter
dated January 30, 2008, the agency
denied HATCI’s request for confidential
treatment. Subsequently, HATCI
requested reconsideration of the
determination. In a letter dated
September 25, 2008, the agency granted
the petitioner’s request for
reconsideration of confidential
treatment of the indicated areas of its
petition.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with model
year (MY) 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah Mazyck, International Policy,
Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs,
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck’s
telephone number is (202) 366–0846.
Her fax number is (202) 493–2290.
E:\FR\FM\11JAN1.SGM
11JAN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
1448
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: In a petition
dated October 22, 2007, Hyundai-Kia
America Technical Center, Inc., on
behalf of Kia Motors Corporation (Kia)
requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541)
for the Kia Amanti vehicle line
beginning with MY 2009. The petition
requested an exemption from partsmarking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,
Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard, based on the
installation of an antitheft device as
standard equipment for an entire
vehicle line.
Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may
petition NHTSA to grant an exemption
for one of its vehicle lines per year.
HATCI’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.
HATCI’s petition provided a detailed
description and diagram of the identity,
design, and location of the components
of the antitheft device for the Amanti
vehicle line. Although HATCI has
requested confidential treatment of
specific details of the system’s
operation, design, effectiveness and
durability, NHTSA is, for the purposes
of this petition, disclosing the following
general information. HATCI will install
its passive antitheft device as standard
equipment on its Amanti vehicle line
beginning with MY 2009. The antitheft
device to be installed on the MY 2009
Kia is a transponder-based immobilizer
system. Features of the antitheft device
will include a passive immobilizer
consisting of an EMS (engine control
unit), SMARTRA 3 (immobilizer unit),
an antenna coil and transponder.
Additionally, the Kia Amanti will have
a standard alarm system which will
monitor all the doors and the hood of
the vehicle. The audible and visual
alarms are activated when an
unauthorized person attempts to enter
or move the vehicle by unauthorized
means.
HATCI stated that the device is
automatically activated by removing the
key from the ignition switch and locking
the vehicle door. In order to arm the
device, the key must be removed from
the ignition switch, all of the doors and
hood must be closed and the driver’s
door must be locked with the ignition
key or all doors must be locked with the
keyless entry. When the device is
armed, the visual (flashing hazard
lamps) and audible (horn sound) alarm
system will be triggered if unauthorized
entry is attempted through the doors,
trunk or the hood. The device is
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Jan 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
disarmed when the driver’s door is
unlocked with the transponder key or
keyless entry.
HATCI stated that the antitheft device
has been installed as standard
equipment on the Kia Azera which was
previously approved for exemption from
Part 541. There is currently no available
theft rate data for Kia vehicle lines that
have been installed with similar
devices. However, HATCI submitted
data on the effectiveness of various
antitheft devices to support its belief
that its device will be at least effective
as comparable devices installed on other
vehicle lines previously granted
exemptions by the agency. HATCI
further stated that it believes that the
General Motors, Ford and Isuzu devices
contain components that are
functionally and operationally similar to
its device. HATCI also stated that the
theft data from the National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) show a clear
reduction in vehicle thefts after the
introduction of the GM and Ford
devices. Therefore, HATCI believes that
its device will be at least as effective as
those devices that have been installed
on lines previously granted exemptions
by the agency. HATCI provided theft
rate data for the Chevrolet Camaro and
Pontiac Firebird vehicle lines showing a
substantial reduction in theft rates
comparing the lines between pre- and
post-introduction of the Pass-Key
device. HATCI also provided ‘‘percent
reduction’’ data for theft rates between
pre- and post-production years for the
Ford Taurus and Mustang, and
Oldsmobile Toronado and Riviera
vehicle lines normalized to the threeyear average of the Camaro and Firebird
pre-introduction data. HATCI stated that
the data shows a dramatic reduction of
theft rates due to the introduction of
devices substantially similar to the Kia
immobilizer device. Specifically, the
Taurus, Mustang, Riviera and Toronado
vehicle lines showed a 63, 70, 80 and
58 percent theft rate reduction
respectively between pre- and postintroduction of immobilizer devices as
standard equipment on these vehicle
lines.
In addressing the specific content
requirements of 543.6, HATCI provided
information on the reliability and
durability of its proposed device. In
support of the reliability and durability
of the device, HATCI stated that the
engine control unit of the device carries
out a check of the ignition key by
special encryption algorithm with the
immobilizer unit and the transponder.
The engine can only be started if the
results of the ignition key check and
algorithm are equal. Additionally, Kia
conducted tests based on its own
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
specified standards for reliability and
durability. HATCI 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.
Based on the confidential material
submitted by HATCI, the agency
believes that the antitheft device for the
Amanti 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). Based on the information HATCI
provided about the device, 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.
As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and
49 CFR part 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the
agency finds that HATCI has provided
adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device will reduce and deter
theft.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full HATCI’s petition
for exemption for the Amanti 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 parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard.
If Kia 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 Kia 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
E:\FR\FM\11JAN1.SGM
11JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2010 / Notices
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: January 5, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
You may see all the comments online
through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: https://
www.regulations.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and/or Room
W12–140 on the ground level of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone may search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT’s dockets by
the name of the individual submitting
the comment (or of the person signing
the comment, if submitted on behalf of
an association, business, labor union, or
other entity). You may review DOT’s
complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register (65 FR 19477, Apr. 11,
2000). This statement is also available at
https://Docketinfo.dot.gov.
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT
ACTION: Notice of final disposition.
Background
On October 29, 2009, FMCSA
published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from
forty-one individuals and requested
comments from the public (74 FR
55890). The public comment period
closed on November 30, 2009, and no
comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility
of the forty-one applicants and
determined that granting the
exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by complying with the current
regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its
decision to exempt forty-one
individuals from its rule prohibiting
persons with insulin-treated diabetes
mellitus (ITDM) from operating
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. The exemptions
will enable these individuals to operate
CMVs in interstate commerce.
DATES: The exemptions are effective
January 11, 2010. The exemptions
expire on January 11, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs, (202) 366–4001,
fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA, Room
W64–224, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590–
0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to
Diabetes Mellitus and Driving
Experience of the Applicants
The Agency established the current
standard for diabetes in 1970 because
several risk studies indicated that
diabetic drivers had a higher rate of
crash involvement than the general
population. The diabetes rule provides
that ‘‘A person is physically qualified to
drive a commercial motor vehicle if that
person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes
mellitus currently requiring insulin for
control’’ (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
FMCSA established its diabetes
exemption program, based on the
Agency’s July 2000 study entitled ‘‘A
Report to Congress on the Feasibility of
a Program to Qualify Individuals with
Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to
[FR Doc. 2010–236 Filed 1–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA–2009–0289]
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Qualification of Drivers; Exemption
Applications; Diabetes
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Jan 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1449
Operate in Interstate Commerce as
Directed by the Transportation Act for
the 21st Century.’’ The report concluded
that a safe and practicable protocol to
allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441)
Federal Register Notice in conjunction
with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR
67777) Federal Register Notice provides
the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
These forty-one applicants have had
ITDM over a range of 1 to 41 years.
These applicants report no
hypoglycemic reaction that resulted in
loss of consciousness or seizure, that
required the assistance of another
person, or resulted in impaired
cognitive function without warning
symptoms in the past 5 years (with one
year of stability following any such
episode). In each case, an
endocrinologist has verified that the
driver has demonstrated willingness to
properly monitor and manage his/her
diabetes, received education related to
diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no
other disqualifying conditions,
including diabetes-related
complications. Each meets the vision
standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
The qualifications and medical
condition of each applicant were stated
and discussed in detail in the October
29, 2009, Federal Register Notice;
therefore, they will not be repeated in
this notice.
Basis for Exemption Determination
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315,
FMCSA may grant an exemption from
the diabetes standard in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to
achieve an equivalent or greater level of
safety than would be achieved without
the exemption. The exemption allows
the applicants to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these
exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the
applicants’ ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists’
medical opinion related to the ability of
the driver to safely operate a CMV while
using insulin.
Consequently, FMCSA finds that in
each case exempting these applicants
from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level
of safety equal to that existing without
the exemption.
Conditions and Requirements
The terms and conditions of the
exemption will be provided to the
E:\FR\FM\11JAN1.SGM
11JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1447-1449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-236]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the 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 petition of Hyundai-Kia
Motors Corporation (HATCI) in accordance with Sec. 543.9(c)(2) of 49
CFR part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard, for the Kia
Amanti vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 2009. 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.
HATCI requested confidential treatment for its information and
attachments submitted in support of its petition. In a letter dated
January 30, 2008, the agency denied HATCI's request for confidential
treatment. Subsequently, HATCI requested reconsideration of the
determination. In a letter dated September 25, 2008, the agency granted
the petitioner's request for reconsideration of confidential treatment
of the indicated areas of its petition.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
model year (MY) 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's telephone number is
(202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.
[[Page 1448]]
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: In a petition dated October 22, 2007,
Hyundai-Kia America Technical Center, Inc., on behalf of Kia Motors
Corporation (Kia) requested an exemption from the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the
Kia Amanti vehicle line beginning with MY 2009. 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 an entire vehicle line.
Under Sec. 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an
exemption for one of its vehicle lines per year. HATCI'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.
HATCI's petition provided a detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device for the Amanti vehicle line. Although HATCI has requested
confidential treatment of specific details of the system's operation,
design, effectiveness and durability, NHTSA is, for the purposes of
this petition, disclosing the following general information. HATCI will
install its passive antitheft device as standard equipment on its
Amanti vehicle line beginning with MY 2009. The antitheft device to be
installed on the MY 2009 Kia is a transponder-based immobilizer system.
Features of the antitheft device will include a passive immobilizer
consisting of an EMS (engine control unit), SMARTRA 3 (immobilizer
unit), an antenna coil and transponder. Additionally, the Kia Amanti
will have a standard alarm system which will monitor all the doors and
the hood of the vehicle. The audible and visual alarms are activated
when an unauthorized person attempts to enter or move the vehicle by
unauthorized means.
HATCI stated that the device is automatically activated by removing
the key from the ignition switch and locking the vehicle door. In order
to arm the device, the key must be removed from the ignition switch,
all of the doors and hood must be closed and the driver's door must be
locked with the ignition key or all doors must be locked with the
keyless entry. When the device is armed, the visual (flashing hazard
lamps) and audible (horn sound) alarm system will be triggered if
unauthorized entry is attempted through the doors, trunk or the hood.
The device is disarmed when the driver's door is unlocked with the
transponder key or keyless entry.
HATCI stated that the antitheft device has been installed as
standard equipment on the Kia Azera which was previously approved for
exemption from Part 541. There is currently no available theft rate
data for Kia vehicle lines that have been installed with similar
devices. However, HATCI submitted data on the effectiveness of various
antitheft devices to support its belief that its device will be at
least effective as comparable devices installed on other vehicle lines
previously granted exemptions by the agency. HATCI further stated that
it believes that the General Motors, Ford and Isuzu devices contain
components that are functionally and operationally similar to its
device. HATCI also stated that the theft data from the National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) show a clear reduction in vehicle thefts
after the introduction of the GM and Ford devices. Therefore, HATCI
believes that its device will be at least as effective as those devices
that have been installed on lines previously granted exemptions by the
agency. HATCI provided theft rate data for the Chevrolet Camaro and
Pontiac Firebird vehicle lines showing a substantial reduction in theft
rates comparing the lines between pre- and post-introduction of the
Pass-Key device. HATCI also provided ``percent reduction'' data for
theft rates between pre- and post-production years for the Ford Taurus
and Mustang, and Oldsmobile Toronado and Riviera vehicle lines
normalized to the three-year average of the Camaro and Firebird pre-
introduction data. HATCI stated that the data shows a dramatic
reduction of theft rates due to the introduction of devices
substantially similar to the Kia immobilizer device. Specifically, the
Taurus, Mustang, Riviera and Toronado vehicle lines showed a 63, 70, 80
and 58 percent theft rate reduction respectively between pre- and post-
introduction of immobilizer devices as standard equipment on these
vehicle lines.
In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, HATCI
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. In support of the reliability and durability of the device,
HATCI stated that the engine control unit of the device carries out a
check of the ignition key by special encryption algorithm with the
immobilizer unit and the transponder. The engine can only be started if
the results of the ignition key check and algorithm are equal.
Additionally, Kia conducted tests based on its own specified standards
for reliability and durability. HATCI 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.
Based on the confidential material submitted by HATCI, the agency
believes that the antitheft device for the Amanti 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). Based on the information HATCI
provided about the device, the agency concludes that the device will
provide the five types of performance listed in Sec. 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.
As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR part 543.6(a)(4) and (5),
the agency finds that HATCI has provided adequate reasons for its
belief that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full HATCI's
petition for exemption for the Amanti 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 parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
If Kia 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 Kia 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
[[Page 1449]]
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: January 5, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-236 Filed 1-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P