Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft Prevention Standard; Toyota, 4396-4398 [2012-1836]

Download as PDF 4396 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2012 / Notices • 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 by March 12, 2012 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. 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 comment (or signing the comment, 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78), or online at https://www.dot.gov/ privacy.html. Issued in Washington, DC, on January 24, 2012. Ron Hynes, Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative Operations. [FR Doc. 2012–1863 Filed 1–26–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–06–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration [Docket Number FRA–2011–0088] tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document dated January 4, 2012, the Valley Railroad Company (VALE) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR Part 215. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA–2011–0088. Specifically, VALE seeks a waiver of compliance from the Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards, 49 CFR 215.303, which requires stenciling on restricted freight cars, for 13 freight cars. The list of these 13 cars is contained in the Exhibit A of the petition letter, which is available in the same docket as this notice. As information, VALE also requested Special Approval to continue in service of the same cars in accordance with 49 CFR 215.203(c). These cars are more than 50 years from their original construction date and, therefore, are restricted per 49 CFR 215.203(a), unless VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jan 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 VALE receives a Special Approval from FRA. The petition states that VALE is a non-insular, nongeneral system railroad located at 1 Railroad Avenue, Essex, Connecticut 06426. VALE exercises complete control of the operation and maintenance of the freight cars that are the subject of this petition. All 13 cars are over the age of 50 years. Since VALE has owned each of these cars, their use has been restricted. The cars have not been interchanged in regular freight operations with other railroads while under the petitioner’s ownership. These 13 cars will be used for historical display, operated for motion pictures, and special events. The cars will not be used for revenue freight service and will not be interchanged in regular freight operations with other railroads. The maximum load that each car would be permitted to carry, if any, is stated in Exhibit A (mentioned above). The petitioner states that it will perform and conduct required service and shop inspections, and maintain the cars in compliance with all applicable regulations with the exception of the conditions that are the subject of this petition. A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12–140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since 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 and may be submitted by any of the following methods: • Web site: https:// 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. PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 • 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 by March 12, 2012 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. 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 comment (or signing the comment, 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78), or online at https://www.dot.gov/ privacy.html. Issued in Washington, DC, on January 24, 2012. Ron Hynes, Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative Operations. [FR Doc. 2012–1858 Filed 1–26–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–06–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft Prevention Standard; Toyota National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. AGENCY: This document grants in full the petition of Toyota Motor North America, Inc’s., (Toyota) petition for an exemption of the Prius 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 model year (MY) 2013. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, W43–443, 1200 SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2012 / Notices 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 September 30, 2011, Toyota requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Prius vehicle line beginning with MY 2013. Toyota will offer both a hatchback and wagon model (Prius v) to the Prius passenger car vehicle line. The petition has been filed 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 an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Toyota provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the Prius vehicle line. Toyota stated that the Prius vehicle line will be equipped with a passive engine immobilizer device as standard equipment beginning with the 2013 model year. According to Toyota, the Prius vehicle line will offer a ‘‘smart key system’’ (keyless entry and push button start) and a ‘‘conventional key’’ entry system. Key components of the smart key system will include an engine immobilizer, certification electronic control unit (ECU), power source HV ECU, door control receiver, electrical key, power switch, transmission control ECU, electronic control module (ECM) and security indicator. The Prius v wagon will additionally include an ID code box component; however, the basic antitheft functionality and immobilization features will be the same. Toyota will also offer an audible and visual alarm as optional equipment on the Prius vehicle line. Toyota’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 vehicle is equipped with a smart key system that allows the driver to press the ‘‘ON’’ button located on the instrument panel to start the vehicle. The correct key has to be recognized by the ECM in order for the vehicle to start. According to Toyota, once the driver has pushed the ‘‘ON’’ button, the certification ECU verifies the key. When the key is verified, the certification ECU and transmission control ECU receive confirmation of the valid key and allows the ECM to start the engine. On the Prius v model, the certification ECU, VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jan 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 transmission control ECU and ID code box receive confirmation of the valid key and then the ID code box allows the ECM to start the engine. Toyota also stated that with the smart key system, the immobilizer is activated when the power button is pushed from the ‘‘ON’’ status to any other ignition status and the correct key is verified by the ECU. The device’s security indicator will provide the immobilizer status for the Prius vehicle line. When the immobilizer is activated, the indicator flashes continuously. When the immobilizer is not activated, the indicator is turned off. The device is deactivated when the doors are unlocked and the device recognizes the key code from the smart key system. Toyota also stated that there will be position switches installed in the vehicle to protect the hood and doors. Specifically, the position switches in the hood will trigger the antitheft device when they sense inappropriate opening of the hood. The position switches in the doors will trigger the antitheft device when they sense opening of the doors are being attempted without the use of a key, wireless switch or smart entry system. In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Toyota provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Toyota conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Toyota provided a detailed list of the tests conducted (i.e., high and low temperature, strength, impact, vibration, electro-magnetic interference, etc.). Toyota stated that it believes that its device is reliable and durable because it complied with its own specific design standards and the device is installed in other vehicle lines for which the agency has granted a parts-marking exemption. As an additional measure of reliability and durability, Toyota stated that its vehicle key cylinders are covered with casting cases to prevent the key cylinder from easily being broken. There are so many key cylinder combinations and key plates for its gutter keys that it would be very difficult to unlock the doors without using a valid key. To provide comparison, Toyota referenced NHTSA published theft rate data for the Prius vehicle line. Toyota stated that the average theft rate for the Prius for MY 2009 is 0.33 thefts per thousand vehicles produced. Toyota further stated that the Prius vehicle line has been equipped with an immobilizer since MY 2001. Toyota compared its proposed device with other devices NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4397 motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-marking requirements (i.e., Toyota Camry and Corolla, Lexus LS and GS vehicle lines). The Toyota Camry and Corolla and Lexus LS and GS vehicle lines have all been granted parts-marking exemptions by the agency. The theft rates for the Toyota Camry, Toyota Corolla, Lexus LS and Lexus GS vehicle lines using an average of three model years’ data, are 1.5734, 2.013, 0.9718 and 0.6780 respectively. Therefore, Toyota has concluded that the antitheft device proposed for its Prius vehicle line is no less effective than those devices in the lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption from the partsmarking requirements. Toyota believes that installing the immobilizer as standard equipment reduces the theft rate and expects the Prius to experience comparable effectiveness ultimately being more effective than parts-marking labels. Based on the evidence submitted by Toyota, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Prius 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). 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, based upon substantial evidence, that 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 Toyota has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the Toyota Prius vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Toyota provided about its device. The agency concludes that the device will provide four or five of the 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 Toyota’s petition for exemption for the Toyota Prius vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1 4398 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 18 / Friday, January 27, 2012 / Notices tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Appendix A–1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted, and a general description of the antitheft device are necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. If Toyota decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts). NHTSA notes that if Toyota 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. In drafting part 543, the agency did not intend 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 23, 2012. Christopher J. Bonanti, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 2012–1836 Filed 1–26–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:14 Jan 26, 2012 Jkt 226001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket No. PHMSA–2012–0015; Notice No. 12–1] Safety Advisory Notice: Return of Radioactively Contaminated Tissue Holders Purchased From Bed Bath and Beyond Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Safety Advisory Notice. AGENCY: PHMSA has been notified that Bed Bath and Beyond sold a number of tissue holders in the United States, identified as the Dual Ridge Metal tissue holder, model number DR9M, that emit low levels of radiation. PHMSA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission believe that there is no immediate danger to the public; however, PHMSA is advising persons in possession of the contaminated tissue holders that they should arrange with Bed Bath and Beyond for their safe return. Any person in possession of this item should call Bed Bath and Beyond at 1–(800) 462– 3966 to obtain information about the proper return procedures. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rick Boyle, Acting Chief, Sciences Branch, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, (202) 366–2993, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 11, 2012, PHMSA was advised that Bed Bath and Beyond sold Dual Ridge Metal tissue holders model number DR9M, that were contaminated with the radioisotope Cobalt-60 during their manufacture in India. At this time, it has been verified that at least 220 tissue holders, sold in some of the more than 200 affected Bed Bath and Beyond stores in the United States, are radioactively contaminated. The highest identified radioactivity level on the surface of the tissue holders was approximately 20 mrem/hr, however most of the tissue holders showed much lower levels. A person who spends eight hours in close contact with one of these tissue holders (such as having the tissue on a bedside table next to the bed) could possibly get a maximum yearly dose of about 500–700 mrem. While no unnecessary radiation exposure is desirable, the dose from the tissue holders is not expected to cause any appreciable health effects. To put this into perspective, a person living in the United States receives a radioactive exposure of about 360 mrem/year from SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 naturally-occurring background radiation. Bed Bath and Beyond has posted notices on its web site: https:// www.bedbathandbeyond.com/ tissueholdernotice.asp, its facebook pages, and in its stores, and has been actively working with state Radiation Control Programs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to identify and remove all of the contaminated tissue holders. Information on radiation exposure can be found on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Web site at: https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/ radiation/around-us/doses-dailylives.html. Recommended Action A person in possession of this item should call Bed Bath and Beyond at 1(800) 462–3966 to obtain information about the proper return procedures. If a person possessing the identified tissue holders experiences difficulties when attempting to obtain return directions or assistance from Bed Bath and Beyond, they should contact PHMSA at the contact number provided in this notice. Issued in Washington, DC, on January 23, 2012. R. Ryan Posten, Deputy Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. [FR Doc. 2012–1714 Filed 1–26–12; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–60–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board Release of Waybill Data The Surface Transportation Board has received a request from Sidley Austin LLP on behalf of Norfolk Southern Railway Company (WB484–2—1/18/12), for permission to use certain data from the Board’s 2000–2010 Carload Waybill Samples. A copy of the request may be obtained from the Office of Economics. The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file their objections with the Director of the Board’s Office of Economics within 14 calendar days of the date of this notice. The rules for release of waybill data are codified at 49 CFR 1244.9. E:\FR\FM\27JAN1.SGM 27JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 18 (Friday, January 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4396-4398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1836]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft 
Prevention Standard; Toyota

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 Toyota Motor 
North America, Inc's., (Toyota) petition for an exemption of the Prius 
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 
model year (MY) 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, W43-
443, 1200

[[Page 4397]]

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 September 30, 2011, 
Toyota requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of 
the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Prius vehicle 
line beginning with MY 2013. Toyota will offer both a hatchback and 
wagon model (Prius v) to the Prius passenger car vehicle line. The 
petition has been filed 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 an 
exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Toyota 
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, 
and location of the components of the antitheft device for the Prius 
vehicle line. Toyota stated that the Prius vehicle line will be 
equipped with a passive engine immobilizer device as standard equipment 
beginning with the 2013 model year. According to Toyota, the Prius 
vehicle line will offer a ``smart key system'' (keyless entry and push 
button start) and a ``conventional key'' entry system. Key components 
of the smart key system will include an engine immobilizer, 
certification electronic control unit (ECU), power source HV ECU, door 
control receiver, electrical key, power switch, transmission control 
ECU, electronic control module (ECM) and security indicator. The Prius 
v wagon will additionally include an ID code box component; however, 
the basic antitheft functionality and immobilization features will be 
the same. Toyota will also offer an audible and visual alarm as 
optional equipment on the Prius vehicle line. Toyota'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 vehicle is equipped with a smart key system that allows the 
driver to press the ``ON'' button located on the instrument panel to 
start the vehicle. The correct key has to be recognized by the ECM in 
order for the vehicle to start. According to Toyota, once the driver 
has pushed the ``ON'' button, the certification ECU verifies the key. 
When the key is verified, the certification ECU and transmission 
control ECU receive confirmation of the valid key and allows the ECM to 
start the engine. On the Prius v model, the certification ECU, 
transmission control ECU and ID code box receive confirmation of the 
valid key and then the ID code box allows the ECM to start the engine.
    Toyota also stated that with the smart key system, the immobilizer 
is activated when the power button is pushed from the ``ON'' status to 
any other ignition status and the correct key is verified by the ECU. 
The device's security indicator will provide the immobilizer status for 
the Prius vehicle line. When the immobilizer is activated, the 
indicator flashes continuously. When the immobilizer is not activated, 
the indicator is turned off. The device is deactivated when the doors 
are unlocked and the device recognizes the key code from the smart key 
system.
    Toyota also stated that there will be position switches installed 
in the vehicle to protect the hood and doors. Specifically, the 
position switches in the hood will trigger the antitheft device when 
they sense inappropriate opening of the hood. The position switches in 
the doors will trigger the antitheft device when they sense opening of 
the doors are being attempted without the use of a key, wireless switch 
or smart entry system.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Toyota 
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed 
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Toyota 
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Toyota provided a 
detailed list of the tests conducted (i.e., high and low temperature, 
strength, impact, vibration, electro-magnetic interference, etc.). 
Toyota stated that it believes that its device is reliable and durable 
because it complied with its own specific design standards and the 
device is installed in other vehicle lines for which the agency has 
granted a parts-marking exemption. As an additional measure of 
reliability and durability, Toyota stated that its vehicle key 
cylinders are covered with casting cases to prevent the key cylinder 
from easily being broken. There are so many key cylinder combinations 
and key plates for its gutter keys that it would be very difficult to 
unlock the doors without using a valid key.
    To provide comparison, Toyota referenced NHTSA published theft rate 
data for the Prius vehicle line. Toyota stated that the average theft 
rate for the Prius for MY 2009 is 0.33 thefts per thousand vehicles 
produced. Toyota further stated that the Prius vehicle line has been 
equipped with an immobilizer since MY 2001. Toyota compared its 
proposed device with other devices NHTSA has determined to be as 
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would 
compliance with the parts-marking requirements (i.e., Toyota Camry and 
Corolla, Lexus LS and GS vehicle lines). The Toyota Camry and Corolla 
and Lexus LS and GS vehicle lines have all been granted parts-marking 
exemptions by the agency. The theft rates for the Toyota Camry, Toyota 
Corolla, Lexus LS and Lexus GS vehicle lines using an average of three 
model years' data, are 1.5734, 2.013, 0.9718 and 0.6780 respectively. 
Therefore, Toyota has concluded that the antitheft device proposed for 
its Prius vehicle line is no less effective than those devices in the 
lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption from the 
parts-marking requirements. Toyota believes that installing the 
immobilizer as standard equipment reduces the theft rate and expects 
the Prius to experience comparable effectiveness ultimately being more 
effective than parts-marking labels.
    Based on the evidence submitted by Toyota, the agency believes that 
the antitheft device for the Prius 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 parts-marking requirements of part 
541, either in whole or in part, if it determines, based upon 
substantial evidence, that 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 Toyota has provided adequate reasons for its belief 
that the antitheft device for the Toyota Prius vehicle line is likely 
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as 
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention 
Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information 
Toyota provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide four or five of 
the 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.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full 
Toyota's petition for exemption for the Toyota Prius vehicle line from 
the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes 
that 49 CFR part 541,

[[Page 4398]]

Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft 
Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains 
publication requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543 
petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product 
nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted, 
and a general description of the antitheft device are necessary in 
order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted 
from the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If Toyota decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should 
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must 
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and 
541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Toyota 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. 
In drafting part 543, the agency did not intend 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 23, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-1836 Filed 1-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P