Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mazda Motor Corporation |
|---|
Topics: Mazda
|
Raymond R. Posten
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
12 May 2021
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26137-26140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09983]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; Mazda Motor Corporation
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Mazda Motor Corporation
(Mazda) petition for exemption from the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard (theft prevention standard) for its confidential
vehicle line beginning in model year (MY) 2023. The 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. Mazda also
requested confidential treatment for specific information in its
petition. Therefore, no confidential information provided for purposes
of this notice has been disclosed.
[[Page 26138]]
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2023 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, NRM-310, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is
(202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331, the Secretary
of Transportation (and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) by delegation) is required to promulgate a theft
prevention standard to provide for the identification of certain motor
vehicles and their major replacement parts to impede motor vehicle
theft. NHTSA promulgated regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft
prevention standard) to require parts-marking for specified passenger
motor vehicles and light trucks. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106,
manufacturers that are subject to the parts-marking requirements may
petition NHTSA, by delegation, for an exemption for a line of passenger
motor vehicles equipped with an antitheft device as standard equipment
that NHTSA decides is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements. In accordance with this statute, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR
part 543, which establishes the process through which manufacturers may
seek an exemption from the theft prevention standard.
49 CFR 543.5 provides general submission requirements for petitions
and states that each manufacturer may petition NHTSA for an exemption
of one vehicle line per model year. Among other requirements,
manufacturers must identify whether the exemption is sought under
section 543.6 or section 543.7. Under section 543.6, a manufacturer may
request an exemption by providing specific information about the
antitheft device, its capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner
believes the device to be as effective at reducing and deterring theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements. Section 543.7
permits a manufacturer to request an exemption under a more streamlined
process if the vehicle line is equipped with an antitheft device (an
``immobilizer'') as standard equipment that complies with one of the
standards specified in that section.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 CFR 543.7 specifies that the manufacturer must include a
statement that their entire vehicle line is equipped with an
immobilizer that meets one of the following standards:
(1) The performance criteria (subsections 8 through 21) of
C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention (in
effect March 30, 2011), as excerpted in appendix A of [part 543];
(2) National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, Automobile
Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization
(May 1998);
(3) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE)
Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97), Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval
of Vehicle Alarm System (VAS) and Motor Vehicles with Regard to
Their Alarm System (AS) in effect August 8, 2007; or
(4) UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116), Uniform Technical
Prescriptions Concerning the Protection of Motor Vehicles Against
Unauthorized Use in effect on February 10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 543.8 establishes requirements for processing petitions for
exemption from the theft prevention standard. As stated in section
543.8(a), NHTSA processes any complete exemption petition. If NHTSA
receives an incomplete petition, NHTSA will notify the petitioner of
the deficiencies. Once NHTSA receives a complete petition the agency
will process it and, in accordance with section 543.8(b), will grant
the petition if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence,
the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of part 541.
Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to issue its decision either to
grant or to deny an exemption petition not later than 120 days after
the date on which a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA does not make
a decision within the 120-day period, the petition shall be deemed to
be approved and the manufacturer shall be exempt from the standard for
the line covered by the petition for the subsequent model year.\2\
Exemptions granted under part 543 apply only to the vehicle line or
lines that are subject to the grant and that are equipped with the
antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based, and are
effective for the model year beginning after the model year in which
NHTSA issues the notice of exemption, unless the notice of exemption
specifies a later year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 543.8(f) and (g) apply to the manner in which NHTSA's
decisions on petitions are to be made known. Under section 543.8(f), if
the petition is sought under section 543.6, NHTSA publishes a notice of
its decision to grant or deny the exemption petition in the Federal
Register and notifies the petitioner in writing. Under section
543.8(g), if the petition is sought under section 543.7, NHTSA notifies
the petitioner in writing of the agency's decision to grant or deny the
exemption petition.
This grant of petition for exemption considers Mazda Motor
Corporation's (Mazda) petition for its confidential vehicle line
beginning in MY 2023. Mazda's petition is granted under 49 U.S.C. 33106
and 49 CFR 543.8(c), which state that if the Secretary of
Transportation (NHTSA, by delegation) does not make a decision about a
petition within 120 days of the petition submission, the petition shall
be deemed to be approved and the manufacturer shall be exempt from the
standard for the line covered by the petition for the subsequent model
year. Separately, based on the information provided in Mazda's
petition, NHTSA has determined that the antitheft device to be placed
on its vehicle 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.
I. Specific Petition Content Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6
Pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention, Mazda petitioned for an exemption for its specified vehicle
line from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention
standard, beginning in MY 2023. Mazda petitioned under 49 CFR 543.6,
Petition: Specific content requirements, which, as described above,
requires manufacturers to provide specific information about the
antitheft device installed as standard equipment on all vehicles in the
line for which an exemption is sought, the antitheft device's
capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner believes the device to be
as effective at reducing and deterring theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements.
More specifically, section 543.6(a)(1) requires petitions to
include a statement that an antitheft device will be installed as
standard equipment on all vehicles in the line for which the exemption
is sought. Under section 543.6(a)(2), each petition must list each
component in the antitheft system, and include a diagram showing the
location of each of those components within the vehicle. As required by
section 543.6(a)(3), each petition must include an explanation of the
means and process by which the device is activated and functions,
including any aspect of the device designed to: (1) Facilitate or
encourage its activation by motorists; (2) attract attention to the
efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means
other than a key; (3) prevent defeating or circumventing the device by
an unauthorized person attempting to enter a vehicle by means
[[Page 26139]]
other than a key; (4) prevent the operation of a vehicle which an
unauthorized person has entered using means other than a key; and (5)
ensure the reliability and durability of the device.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to providing information about the antitheft device and
its functionality, petitioners must also submit the reasons for their
belief that the antitheft device will be effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft, including any theft data and other data
that are available to the petitioner and form a basis for that
belief,\4\ and the reasons for their belief that the agency should
determine that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541 in reducing
and deterring motor vehicle theft. In support of this belief, the
petitioners should include any statistical data that are available to
the petitioner and form the basis for the petitioner's belief that a
line of passenger motor vehicles equipped with the antitheft device is
likely to have a theft rate equal to or less than that of passenger
motor vehicles of the same, or a similar, line which have parts marked
in compliance with part 541.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4).
\5\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections describe Mazda's petition information
provided pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention. To the extent that specific information in Mazda's petition
is subject to a properly filed confidentiality request, that
information was not disclosed as part of this notice.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 49 CFR 512.20(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Mazda's Petition for Exemption
In a petition dated November 26, 2020, Mazda requested an exemption
from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard
for its confidential vehicle line beginning with MY 2023.
In its petition, Mazda provided a detailed description and diagram
of the identity, design, and location of the components of the
antitheft device for the confidential vehicle line. Mazda stated that
its MY 2023 confidential vehicle line will be installed with a passive,
transponder based, electronic engine immobilizer antitheft device as
standard equipment. Key components of its antitheft device will include
a powertrain control module (PCM), immobilizer control module, security
indicator light, coil antenna, transmitter with transponder key
(transponder key), low frequency (LF) antenna, radio frequency (RF)
receiver and a low frequency unit (LFU). The device will not provide
any visible or audible indication of unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e.,
flashing lights or horn alarm) as standard equipment; however, Mazda
stated that its device will incorporate a security indicator light
which will provide a visual confirmation on the protection status of
the antitheft device.
Pursuant to section 543.6(a)(3), Mazda explained that there are two
methods of initiating the antitheft device operation process.
Specifically, Mazda stated that the immobilizer system monitors two
codes: (1) The transponder code, which the immobilizer control module
checks with the transponder located in the transmitter; and (2) the
immobilizer code, which the immobilizer control module checks with the
powertrain's electronic control module. Mazda also stated that there
are two means of checking the transponder code: (1) When the
immobilizer control module communicates with the transmitter which
includes a transponder by LF antenna and receives a reply of
transmitter in the RF receiver; and (2) when the immobilizer control
module communicates with the transponder by coil antenna which is
located in the push button start. If the transponder code matches with
the immobilizer control module by either method mentioned above, and
the ignition is turned to the ON position, the immobilizer control
module checks the powertrain's electronic control module with
immobilizer code. Mazda further stated that the vehicle's engine can
only be started if the immobilizer code matches the code previously
programmed into the immobilizer control module. If the immobilizer code
does not match, the engine will be disabled. Communications between the
immobilizer system control function and the powertrain's electronic
control module are encrypted. Mazda also stated that there are more
than 15 x 10 \6\ different transponder codes, and each transponder is
hard coded with a unique code at the time of manufacture.
As required in section 543.6(a)(3)(v), Mazda provided information
on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure
reliability and durability of the device, Mazda conducted tests based
on its own specified standards. Mazda provided a detailed list of the
tests conducted (i.e., low/high temperature exposure operation, high
temperature endurance, thermal cycling, thermal shock resistance,
thermal shock endurance, humidity temperature cycling, high temperature
and humidity endurance, water, dust, vibration, connector and lead/lock
strength, chemical resistance, electromagnetic field, power line
variations, DC stresses, electrostatic discharge and push button start
strength) and stated that it believes the device is reliable and
durable since it complied with its own specified requirements for each
test. Additionally, Mazda stated that its device is extremely reliable
and durable because it is computer-based and does not rely on any
mechanical or moving parts. Mazda further stated that any attempt to
slam-pull its vehicle's ignition will have no effect on a thief's
ability to start the vehicle without the correct code being transmitted
to the electronic control modules.
Mazda provided data from the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI),
National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) on the effectiveness of other similar antitheft
devices installed on vehicle lines in support of its belief that its
device will be at least as effective as those comparable devices.
Specifically, Mazda stated that its device was installed on certain MY
1996 Ford vehicles as standard equipment, (i.e., all Ford Mustang GT
and Cobra models, Ford Taurus LX, and SHO models and Ford Sable LS
models). In MY 1997, Mazda installed its immobilizer device on the
entire Ford Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment. When comparing
1995 model year Mustang vehicle thefts (without immobilizers) with MY
1997 Mustang vehicle thefts (with immobilizers), Mazda referenced the
National Crime Information Center's (NCIC) theft information which
showed that there was a 70% reduction in theft experienced when
comparing MY 1997 Mustang vehicle thefts (with immobilizers) to MY 1995
Mustang vehicle thefts (without immobilizers). Mazda recognized that
NHTSA requested data for vehicle sets that are as similar as possible
to the vehicle for which the petition is written; \7\ however, Mazda
stated that there is no comparable data for a Mazda vehicle of the same
body style before and after the implementation of an immobilizer
system, because all of Mazda's similar vehicles have been equipped with
a standard immobilizer from the onset of manufacture. In light of these
considerations, Mazda stated that the NCIC and HLDI data provided
supported its belief that the immobilizer system described in its
petition will prove to be as, if not more effective,
[[Page 26140]]
than the parts marking requirements of part 541 in reducing vehicle
theft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 85 FR 55368 (Sep. 8, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Decision To Grant the Petition
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.8(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 that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541 or if deemed
approved under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d). As discussed above, in this case,
Mazda's petition is granted under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
However, separately, NHTSA also finds that Mazda has provided
adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for its
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. This conclusion is based on the
information Mazda provided about its antitheft device. NHTSA believes,
based on Mazda's supporting evidence, that the antitheft device
described for its 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.
The agency concludes that Mazda's antitheft device will provide
four types of performance features listed in section 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.
The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies
those lines that are exempted from the theft prevention standard for a
given model year. 49 CFR 543.8(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 Mazda decides not to use the exemption for its requested vehicle
line, the manufacturer must formally notify the agency. If such a
decision is made, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR
541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement
parts).
NHTSA notes that if a manufacturer to which an exemption has been
granted wishes in the future to modify the device on which the
exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify
the exemption. Section 543.8(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, section 543.10(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 the
exemption.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that
section 543.10(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 a manufacturer with an exemption 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby announces a grant in
full of Mazda's petition for exemption for the confidential vehicle
line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning
with its MY 2023 vehicles.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2021-09983 Filed 5-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P