Exemption From Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard |
|---|
|
Christopher J. Bonanti
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
January 17, 2014
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3153-3162]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00683]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 543
[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0007]
RIN 2127-AL08
Exemption From Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this rulemaking action, NHTSA proposes to amend its
procedures for obtaining an exemption from the vehicle theft prevention
standard for vehicles equipped with immobilizers. NHTSA proposes to
simplify the exemption procedure for immobilizer-equipped vehicles by
adding performance criteria for immobilizers. The adoption of the
proposed performance criteria for immobilizers would have the effect of
bringing the U.S. anti-theft requirements more into line with those of
Canada. This harmonization of U.S. and Canadian requirements is being
undertaken pursuant to ongoing bilateral regulatory cooperation
efforts.
DATES: Comments to this proposal must be received on or before March
18, 2014. In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, NHTSA is also
seeking comment on amendments to an information collection. See the
Paperwork Reduction Act section under Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
below. Please submit all comments relating to the information
collection requirements to NHTSA and to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section on or
before March 18, 2014. Comments to OMB are most useful if submitted
within 30 days of publication.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in
the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
Fax: 202-493-2251.
Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
You may call the Docket Management Facility at 202-366-9826.
Comments regarding the proposed information collection should be
submitted to NHTSA through one of the preceding methods and a copy
should also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.
Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
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 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues: Mr. Hisham
Mohamed,
[[Page 3154]]
Office of Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Washington, DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 366-0098) (Fax: (202)
366-7002). For legal issues: Mr. Thomas Healy, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 366-2992) (Fax: (202) 366-3820).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Background
III. Effectiveness of Immobilizers in Reducing or Deterring Theft
IV. U.S. Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council
V. Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114
VI. Agency Proposal
VII. Costs, Benefits, and the Proposed Compliance Date
VIII. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
IX. Public Participation
I. Executive Summary
This rulemaking action proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption
from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, by adding performance criteria
for immobilizers. The agency has granted many exemptions from the theft
prevention standard to vehicle lines on the basis that they were
equipped with immobilizers. In support of petitions for these
exemptions, manufacturers have provided a substantial amount of data
seeking to demonstrate the effectiveness of immobilizers in reducing
motor vehicle theft.
The proposed criteria, which roughly correlate with the types of
qualities for which petitioners have been submitting testing and
technical design details under existing procedures, closely follow the
immobilizer performance requirements in the anti-theft standard of
Canada. For those performance requirements, the Canadian standard also
sets forth tests that manufacturers of vehicles to be sold in Canada
must certify to Canadian authorities that they have conducted.
Adopting the proposed performance criteria would simplify the
exemption process for manufacturers who installed immobilizers meeting
those criteria. Currently, in their petitions for exemption, vehicle
manufacturers describe the testing that they have conducted on the
immobilizer device and aspects of design of the immobilizer that
address the areas of performance which the agency has determined are
important to gauge the effectiveness of the immobilizer in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft. Adding performance criteria for
immobilizers as another means of qualifying for an exemption from the
theft prevention standard will allow manufacturers that are installing
immobilizers as standard equipment for a line of motor vehicles in
compliance with Canadian theft prevention standards to more easily gain
an exemption. This proposal would reduce the amount of material that
manufacturers would need to submit to obtain an exemption because
manufacturers would only be required to indicate that the immobilizer
met the proposed performance criteria, was certified to the Canadian
standard and was durable and reliable in addition to the statutorily
required information to be eligible for an exemption.
The adoption of the proposed performance criteria for immobilizers
would have the effect of bringing the U.S. anti-theft requirements more
into line with those of Canada. This harmonization of U.S. and Canadian
requirements is being undertaken pursuant to ongoing bilateral
regulatory cooperation efforts.
We are proposing to retain the current criteria for gaining an
exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard. Therefore,
manufacturers would still be able to petition the agency to install
other anti-theft devices as standard equipment in a vehicle line to
obtain an exemption from the theft prevention standard. While NHTSA has
granted many petitions for exemption from the theft prevention standard
for vehicle lines equipped with an immobilizer type anti-theft device,
we note that a manufacturer is not required to install an immobilizer
in order to gain an exemption. We note also that this proposal would
not increase the number of exemptions from the theft prevention
standard available to a manufacturer.
II. Background
The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act (the Theft Act), 49
U.S.C. 33101 et seq., directs NHTSA \1\ to establish theft prevention
standards for light duty trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles
(MPVs) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds (lb)
or less and passenger cars. The Theft Act also allows NHTSA to exempt
one vehicle line per model year per manufacturer from the theft
prevention standard if the vehicle is equipped with an anti-theft
device that the agency ``decides is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
[theft prevention] standard.'' 49 U.S.C. 33106(b). The statute states
than in order to obtain an exemption, manufacturers must file a
petition that describes the anti-theft device in detail, states the
reason that the manufacturer believes that the device will be effective
in reducing or deterring theft, and contains additional information
that NHTSA determines is necessary to decide whether the anti-theft
device ``is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor
vehicle theft as compliance with the [theft prevention] standard.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Secretary of Transportation's responsibilities under the
Theft Act have been delegated to NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR 1.95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to the Theft Act, NHTSA issued 49 CFR Part 541, Federal
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, which requires manufacturers
of vehicles identified by the agency as likely high-theft car lines to
inscribe or affix vehicle identification numbers (VINs) or symbols on
certain components of new vehicles and replacement parts. The agency
refers to this requirement as the parts marking requirement. Part 541
requires the following major parts to be marked: The engine, the
transmission, the hood, the right and left front fenders, the right and
left front doors, the right and left rear door (four-door models), the
sliding or cargo doors, the decklid, tailgate or hatchback (whichever
is present), the front and rear bumpers, and the right and left quarter
panels. The right and left side assemblies must be marked on MPVs and
the cargo box must be marked on light duty trucks.
NHTSA promulgated Part 543 to establish the process for submitting
petitions for exemption from the parts marking requirements in the
theft prevention standard. A manufacturer may petition the agency for
an exemption from the parts marking requirements for one vehicle line
per model year if the manufacturer installs an anti-theft device as
standard equipment on the entire line. In order to be eligible for an
exemption, Part 543 requires manufacturers to submit a petition
explaining how the anti-theft device will promote activation, attract
attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a
vehicle by means other than a key, prevent defeat or circumvention of
the device by unauthorized persons, prevent operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants, and ensure the reliability and durability of the
device. Based on the materials in the petition, NHTSA decides whether
to grant the petition in whole or in part or to deny it.
Under existing Part 543, manufacturers choose how they wish to
demonstrate to the agency that the anti-theft device they are
installing in a
[[Page 3155]]
vehicle line meets the factors listed in Sec. 543.6. Manufacturers
provide differing levels of detail in their exemption petitions.
Manufacturers typically provide engineering diagrams of the immobilizer
device, a description of how the device functions, and testing to show
that the device is durable and reliable in their petitions for
exemption. Manufacturers also describe how the design of the
immobilizer satisfies the factors listed in Sec. 543.6.
III. Effectiveness of Immobilizers in Reducing or Deterring Theft
More than 700,000 motor vehicle thefts took place in the U.S. in
2011, causing a loss of mobility and economic hardship to those
affected.\2\ The Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) 2011 Uniform
Crime Report (UCR) reveals that, in the U.S., vehicle theft remains the
nation's number one property crime.\3\ The estimated value of motor
vehicles stolen in 2011 was $4.3 billion averaging $6,089 per stolen
vehicle.\4\ Although the estimated number of motor vehicle thefts
declined 3.3 percent from 2010, 35.0 percent from 2007, and 42.6
percent from 2002, vehicle theft remains an ongoing problem in the U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/property-crime/motor-vehicle-theft. (as seen
on September 28, 2012).
\3\ The UCR--data compiled from monthly law enforcement reports
or individual crime incident records transmitted directly to the FBI
or to centralized agencies that then report to the FBI.
\4\ Nearly 73 percent of all motor vehicles reported stolen in
2010 were passenger cars. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/property-crime/motor-vehicle-theft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An immobilizer is a type of anti-theft device based on microchip
and transponder technology and combined with engine and fuel
immobilizer components. When activated, an immobilizer device disables
the vehicle's electrical or fuel systems at several points and prevents
the vehicle from starting unless the correct code is received by the
transponder.
NHTSA is aware of several sources of information demonstrating the
effectiveness of immobilizer devices in reducing motor vehicle theft.
In the 1980s, General Motors Corporation (GM) used an early generation
of microchip devices, which later developed into the rolling code
transponder device, which is currently installed in GM as well as many
other vehicles. According to the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI),
immobilizer devices are up to 50 percent effective in reducing vehicle
theft.\5\ The September 1997 Theft Loss Bulletin from the HLDI reported
an overall theft decrease of approximately 50 percent for both the Ford
Mustang and Taurus lines upon installation of an immobilizer device.
Ford Motor Company claimed that its MY 1997 Mustang vehicle line (with
an immobilizer) led to a 70 percent reduction in theft compared to its
MY 1995 Mustang (without an immobilizer).\6\ Chrysler Corporation
informed the agency that the inclusion of an immobilizer device as
standard equipment on the MY 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee resulted in a 52
percent net average reduction in vehicle thefts.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See http://www.iihs.org/news/2000/hldi_news_071900.pdf.
\6\ 77 FR 1974, Thursday, January 12, 2012.
\7\ 76 FR 68262, Thursday, November 3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation informed the agency that the theft
rate for its MY 2000 Eclipse vehicle line (with an immobilizer device)
was almost 42 percent lower than that of its MY 1999 Eclipse (without a
immobilizer device).\8\ Mazda Motor Corporation reported that a
comparison of theft loss data showed an average theft reduction of
approximately 50 percent after an immobilizer device was installed as
standard equipment in a vehicle line.\9\ In general, the agency has
granted many petitions for exemptions for installation of
immobilization-type devices. Manufacturers have provided the agency
with a substantial amount of information attesting to the reduction of
thefts for vehicle lines resulting from the installation of
immobilization devices as standard equipment on those lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 77 FR 20486, Wednesday, April 4, 2012.
\9\ 76 FR 41558, Thursday, July 14, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council
On February 4, 2011, the U.S. and the Canadian governments created
a United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), composed
of senior regulatory, trade and foreign affairs officials from both
governments. In recognition of the two countries' $1 trillion annual
trade and investment relationship, the RCC is working together to
promote economic growth, job creation and benefits to consumers and
businesses through increased regulatory transparency and
coordination.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/irc/us-canada_rcc_joint_action_plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RCC has stated that regulatory cooperation can spur economic
growth in each country; fuel job creation; lower costs for consumers,
producers, and governments; and particularly help small and medium-
sized businesses. The U.S. and Canada intend to eliminate unnecessary
burdens on cross-border trade, reduce costs, foster cross-border
investment and promote certainty for businesses and the public by
coordinating, simplifying and ensuring the compatibility of
regulations, where feasible.
The RCC has further stated that while the U.S. and Canadian
regulatory systems are very similar in the objectives they seek to
achieve, there is value in enhancing the mechanisms in place to foster
cooperation in designing regulations or to ensure alignment in their
implementation or enforcement. Unnecessary regulatory differences and
duplicative actions hinder cross-border trade and investment and
ultimately impose a cost on our citizens, businesses and economies.
Given the integrated nature of the two countries' economies, greater
alignment and better mutual reliance in regulatory approaches would
lead to lower costs for consumers and businesses, create more efficient
supply chains, increase trade and investment, generate new export
opportunities and create jobs on both sides of the border.
On December 7, 2011, the RCC established an initial Joint Action
Plan that identified 29 initiatives where the U.S. and Canada will seek
greater alignment in their regulatory approaches. The Joint Action Plan
highlights the areas and initiatives which were identified for initial
focus. These areas include agriculture and food, transportation, health
and personal care products and workplace chemicals, environment and
cross-sectoral issues. One of the topics for regulatory cooperation
identified in the transportation area is to pursue greater
harmonization of existing motor vehicle standards. Theft prevention is
one of the harmonization opportunities identified by the Motor Vehicles
Working Group.
V. Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114
In addition to the theft and rollaway prevention requirements
included in the U.S. version of the standard, CMVSS No. 114 requires
the installation of an immobilization system for all new passenger
vehicles, MPVs and trucks certified to the standard with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or less with some exceptions.
CMVSS No. 114 contains four different sets of requirements for
immobilizers. The four sets of requirements are National Standard of
Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and
Systems: Electronic Immobilization; United Nations
[[Page 3156]]
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); UN/ECE
Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116), Uniform Technical Prescriptions
Concerning the Protection of Motor Vehicles Against Unauthorized Use;
and a set of requirements derived from the CAN/ULC 338-98 standard and
ECE R97 developed by Transport Canada to increase manufacturer design
flexibility. Vehicles certified to CMVSS No. 114 must be equipped with
an immobilizer meeting one of these four sets of requirements. Used
motor vehicles imported into Canada must also be equipped with
immobilizers meeting CMVSS No. 114. This requirement makes it more
difficult to import motor vehicles manufactured in the U.S. that are
not equipped with an immobilizer meeting CMVSS No. 114 into Canada. In
such cases, an immobilizer that complies with CMVSS No. 114 must be
added to the vehicle before it can be imported into Canada.
CAN/ULC-S338-98 contains design specifications, activation and
deactivation requirements, durability tests, and tests to assess the
resistance to physical attack for immobilizers. ECE R97 and ECE R116
contain design specifications, activation and deactivation
requirements, durability tests, and tests to assess the resistance to
physical attack for immobilizers similar to those contained in CAN/ULC-
S338-98. The fourth set of requirements for immobilizers in CMVSS No.
114 contains design specifications, activation and deactivation
requirements, and requirements testing the ability of the immobilizer
to resist deactivation by physical attack derived from the other
standards. The fourth set of requirements, however, does not include
the environmental tests and durability requirements which are included
in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE R97 and ECE R116.
In adopting the fourth set of performance requirements for
immobilizers contained in CMVSS No. 114, Transport Canada stated that
some of the environmental and durability requirements for immobilizers
contained in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE R97, and ECE R116 were developed for
aftermarket immobilizers and should not be applied to immobilizers that
are installed as original equipment on a vehicle.\11\ Transport Canada
also stated that those three standards contained requirements specific
to particular immobilizer designs, had the potential to restrict the
design of immobilizers, and had the potential to prevent the
introduction of new and emerging technologies such as keyless vehicle
technologies, key-replacement technologies and remote starting systems.
Transport Canada stated that for these reasons it established a set of
performance requirements without the environmental and durability
requirements contained in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE R97, and ECE R116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See SOR/2007-246 November, 2007 ``Regulations Amending the
Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Theft Protection and Rollaway
Prevention--Standard 114)'' 2007-11-14 Canada Gazette Part II, Vol.
141, No. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Agency Proposal
The agency is proposing to include performance criteria for
immobilizers in Part 543 so that manufacturers may more easily apply
for exemptions from the parts marking requirements for vehicles lines
with immobilizers conforming to CMVSS No. 114. The agency is planning
to add performance criteria to Part 543 to make our theft prevention
standards more in line with those of Canada. In order to be eligible
for an exemption under this proposal manufacturers would be required to
state that the immobilizer device they are installing in the vehicle
line meets the proposed performance criteria, has been certified to the
Canadian standard and is durable and reliable.
The agency believes that adding performance criteria from CMVSS No.
114 to Part 543 is the simplest way to make our anti-theft regulations
more in line with that standard and to reduce the burden to
manufacturers, who are already installing immobilizers in compliance
with that standard, of applying for an exemption from the parts marking
requirements. The agency could not add performance requirements for
immobilizers as part of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention, since doing so would
require a determination that the additional requirements would be
consistent with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(Motor Vehicle Safety Act).\12\ Further, the agency is unable to issue
a theft prevention standard under the Theft Act to require the
installation of immobilizers because that Act limits the agency's
standard setting authority to issuing standards that require parts
marking.\13\ Manufacturers are allowed to install immobilizers in lieu
of parts marking, but under an exemption from the theft standard, not
as a compliance alternative included in the theft standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.
\13\ See 49 U.S.C. 33101(11) (defining ``vehicle theft
prevention standard'' as a performance standard for identifying
major vehicle parts by affixing numbers or symbols to those parts).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, NHTSA has not formally or informally adopted any
technical performance criteria for anti-theft devices. While NHTSA has
granted many petitions for exemption from the parts marking
requirements for vehicle lines equipped with an immobilizer type anti-
theft device, a manufacturer is not required to install an immobilizer
in order to gain an exemption. The agency is planning to retain the
current exemption process so that manufacturers would still be able to
gain an exemption for installing anti-theft devices that do not conform
to the proposed performance criteria for immobilizers. The number of
exemptions available to manufacturers would not increase as a result of
this proposal. Thus, manufacturers will continue to be eligible for an
exemption from the parts marking requirements for only one vehicle line
per model year.
The agency has tentatively decided to propose only the fourth set
of performance criteria for immobilizers contained in CMVSS No. 114 for
inclusion in Part 543. The agency is proposing to adopt only this one
set of performance criteria because of the factors articulated by
Transport Canada discussed above. Furthermore, the agency has
tentatively concluded that adopting only this one set of performance
criteria is the simplest way to harmonize anti-theft regulations
between the U.S. and Canada. The agency does note that, should this
proposal be made final, vehicles equipped with immobilizers meeting the
performance criteria in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE R97, or ECE R116 would
still be able to obtain an exemption from the theft prevention standard
via a petition filed under the current exemption procedures. We seek
comment on whether adding the performance criteria in CAN/ULC-S338-98,
ECE R97 and ECE R116 to Part 543 in addition to the performance
criteria proposed below would better accomplish the agency's goal of
harmonizing the process for obtaining an exemption with the Canadian
theft prevention standard. We also seek comment on the number of
manufacturers that are complying with CMVSS No. 114 by installing
immobilizers that conform to the requirements in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE
R97 or ECE R116 in their vehicles.
The agency has tentatively concluded that immobilizers meeting the
proposed performance criteria are likely to be as
[[Page 3157]]
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts marking requirements in Part 541. As stated above, the
agency has granted numerous exemptions from the theft prevention
standard for vehicle lines equipped with immobilizers based on data
submitted by manufacturers indicating that immobilizers were as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with that standard. Several studies have also indicated that
immobilizers designed to meet technical performance criteria are
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft. Studies in
Australia and Canada on the effectiveness of immobilization systems
(which meet CAN/ULC-S338-98 or ECE R97 and ECE R116) have shown reduced
incidence of theft compared to vehicles that were not equipped with
immobilizers.\14\ For these reasons, the agency has concluded that
establishing performance criteria for immobilizers as a means of
getting an exemption from the theft prevention standard is consistent
with 49 U.S.C. 33106 of the Theft Act. That section requires the agency
to determine that an anti-theft device is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts
marking requirements in Part 541 in order to grant an exemption from
those requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Principles for Compulsory Immobilizer Schemes, prepared
for the National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council by MM Starrs
Pty Ltd., ISBN 1 876704 17 9, Melbourne, Australia, October 2002;
Matthew J Miceli ``A Report on Fatalities and Injuries as a Result
of Stolen Motor Vehicles (1999-2001),'' prepared for The National
Committee to Reduce Auto Theft Project 6116 and Transport
Canada, December 10, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed performance criteria for immobilizers include
specifications for when the immobilizer should arm after the disarming
device is removed from the vehicle. The performance criteria state
that, when armed, the immobilizer should prevent the vehicle from
moving more than three meters under its own power by inhibiting the
operation of at least one of the vehicle's electronic control units
(ECU). The performance criteria state that, when armed, the immobilizer
should not disable the vehicle's brake system. During the disarming
process, the immobilizer should send a code to the inhibited ECU to
allow the vehicle to move under its own power. The immobilizer should
be configured so that disrupting the device's normal operating voltage
cannot disarm the immobilizer. The performance criteria state that the
immobilizer must have a minimum capacity for 50,000 code variants and
shall not be capable of processing more than 5,000 codes within 24
hours unless the immobilizer uses rolling or encrypted codes. The
performance criteria state that it shall not be possible to replace the
immobilizer without the use of software. In order to satisfy the
performance criteria, the immobilizer in a vehicle must be designed so
that it is not possible to disarm it using common tools within five
minutes.
In order to promote understanding of the new terms used in the
regulatory text, the agency is also proposing definitions for
``immobilizer'' and ``accessory mode.'' We seek comment on these
definitions.
The agency plans on ensuring that immobilizer devices which
manufacturers are installing to obtain an exemption conform with the
proposed performance criteria by requiring manufacturers to state that
they have certified the immobilizer installed on the vehicle to CMVSS
No. 114. Manufacturers must provide Transport Canada with evidence that
the immobilizer complies with CMVSS No. 114, along with all other
applicable Canadian Standards, prior to certifying the vehicle under
the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act.\15\ NHTSA believes that it can
rely on the information that manufacturers have provided to Transport
Canada regarding their certification to CMVSS No. 114 to ensure that
immobilizers manufacturers install in order to obtain an exemption
conform to the proposed performance criteria. Therefore, we are
proposing to require manufacturers to submit the documentation provided
to Transport Canada regarding their certification to CMVSS No. 114 to
NHTSA as part of the petition. We do not believe that requiring this
information as part of the petition would place a burden on
manufacturers because they are already compiling this information to
provide to Transport Canada when certifying their vehicles under the
Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Motor Vehicle Safety Act. R.S.C., ch. 16 Sec. 5(1)(e)
(1993) (Can.). The Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires a
manufacturer to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable
Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards before the vehicles can be
sold in Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed regulatory text does not include a requirement that
manufacturers provide a detailed description of the immobilizer device
as part of the petition because we believe that the documentation that
manufacturers are providing to Transport Canada, and would be required
to provide to NHTSA, describes the immobilizer device in sufficient
detail for the agency to be able to determine whether the device
satisfies the performance criteria.
The proposed performance criteria do not include specifications
that address the durability and reliability of immobilizers because the
agency is concerned about the impacts of such specifications on
immobilizer design. Part 543 currently requires manufacturers to
explain how the design of their immobilizer device ensures that it is
durable and reliable in order to be eligible for an exemption.\16\
Because the agency believes that it is possible for the durability and
reliability of an immobilizer to impact its effectiveness, we have
tentatively decided to retain this criterion of eligibility as part of
the proposed performance criteria. We have tentatively concluded that
requiring manufacturers to submit a statement regarding the durability
and reliability of the immobilizer is the best way to ensure that
immobilizers are durable and reliable without impacting the ability of
manufacturers to create new immobilizer systems. We believe
manufacturers will submit statements similar to the ones they are
currently submitting as part of their exemption applications to
demonstrate that their immobilizers are durable and reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek comment on our decision to require manufacturers to submit
a statement on the durability and reliability of the device as part of
an application for exemption from the theft prevention standard. We
also seek comment on the impact that our adoption of the durability and
environmental resistance performance criteria in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE
R97 and ECE R116 might have on the introduction of new and emerging
immobilizer and ignition technologies.
The agency believes that the proposed performance criteria are
consistent with the following anti-theft device attributes that are
currently contained in Part 543:
The specification in the proposed performance criteria
that the immobilizer arm after the disarming device is removed from the
vehicle will facilitate activation of the immobilizer by the driver and
prevent unauthorized persons who have entered the vehicle by means
other than a key from operating the vehicle.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3)(i), (iv) (stating that the
application for exemption must include an explanation of how the
anti-theft device facilitates activation by the driver and prevents
unauthorized persons who have entered the vehicle by means other
than a key from operating the vehicle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The specification in the proposed performance criteria
that the immobilizer have certain code
[[Page 3158]]
processing capabilities and be resistant to physical attack will ensure
that the immobilizer is designed to prevent defeat or circumvention by
persons entering the vehicle by means other than a key.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3)(iii)(iv) (stating that the
application for exemption must include an explanation of how the
anti-theft device prevents defeat or circumvention of the device by
an someone without the vehicle's key and prevents unauthorized
persons who have entered the vehicle by means other than a key from
operating the vehicle).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed performance criteria correspond to the aspects of
performance of immobilizer devices that manufacturers now qualitatively
describe in their exemption petitions. Manufacturers are currently
demonstrating the effectiveness of immobilizers by describing the
testing the immobilizer has been subjected to, how the immobilizer is
activated, how the immobilizer interacts with the key to allow the
vehicle to start and the encryption of electronic communications
between the key and the immobilizer. These characteristics correspond
to performance criteria in the proposal for how the immobilizer must
arm, preventing the vehicle from moving under its own power, how the
immobilizer must disarm to allow the driver to start the vehicle, the
minimum number of code variants that the immobilizer is able to
process, and the immobilizer's resistance to manipulation and physical
attack. The proposed performance criteria simplify the process for
applying for an exemption because manufacturers would no longer need to
describe how the immobilizer achieves these aspects of performance.
Instead, manufacturers would only need to state that their immobilizer
device conforms to the performance criteria, is certified to the
Canadian standard and is durable and reliable.
In order to allow manufacturers to more easily apply for an
exemption from the theft prevention standard and to reduce the burden
to the agency in processing exemption petitions we have tentatively
decided that we will notify manufacturers of decisions to grant or deny
exemption petitions by notifying them of the agency's decision in
writing. Under this proposal the agency would not publish notices of
our decisions to grant or deny exemption petitions from the theft
prevention standard based on the manufacturer having satisfied the
performance criteria in the Federal Register. Should this proposal
become final the agency would inform the public and law enforcement
that a particular vehicle line has an exemption based on satisfaction
of the performance criteria by updating the list of exempt vehicle
lines in Appendix A-I to Part 541. We seek comment on our decision not
to publish notices of our decisions to grant or deny exemption
petitions from the theft prevention standard based on the manufacturer
having satisfied the performance criteria in the Federal Register.
VII. Costs, Benefits, and the Proposed Compliance Date
Today's proposed rule would amend Part 543 to add performance
criteria for immobilizers that are contained in CMVSS No. 114. Because
the agency is retaining the current exemption process as a means of
gaining an exemption from the theft prevention standard, the addition
of performance criteria to Part 543 would result in no costs to
manufacturers. Manufacturers would not be required to make any changes
to products in order to retain eligibility for an exemption.
The agency cannot quantify the benefits of this rulemaking. The
agency does, however, expect some benefits to accrue from making the
exemption process in Part 543 more closely harmonized with CMVSS No.
114. Adding the proposed performance criteria would allow manufacturers
that are installing immobilizers as standard equipment for a line of
motor vehicles in compliance with CMVSS No. 114 to more easily gain an
exemption from the parts marking requirements. The agency believes this
would reduce the cost to manufacturers of applying for an exemption
from the parts marking requirements. Adding performance criteria to
Part 543 would also result in a reduction in vehicle theft in cases for
which the proposed rule improves the effectiveness of the anti-theft
devices chosen by manufacturers.
If the proposed rule encourages more manufacturers to install
immobilizers meeting CMVSS No. 114 on vehicles sold in the United
States, it could result in cost saving to consumers seeking to import
used vehicles into Canada. Importing used vehicles that already comply
with CMVSS No. 114 into Canada saves consumers from having to pay to
have an aftermarket immobilizer installed in the vehicle.
The agency proposes an effective date of 60 days after the date of
issuance of the final rule, should one be issued, so that manufacturers
would be eligible for an exemption for installing an immobilizer
meeting the proposed performance criteria as soon as possible.
VIII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking
document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under
E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' It is not considered to
be significant under E.O. 12866 or the Department's regulatory policies
and procedures.
Today's proposed rule would amend Part 543 to add performance
criteria for immobilizers that are contained in CMVSS No. 114 to allow
manufacturers who are installing immobilizers in compliance with that
standard to more easily obtain an exemption from the theft prevention
standard.
The agency concludes that the impacts of the proposed changes would
be so minimal that preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not
required. This proposal would not result in any costs to manufacturers
because the current exemption process would be left in place.
Manufacturers would not be required to make any changes to current
vehicles to retain eligibility for an exemption. It is also possible
that this proposal would result in a reduction in motor vehicle thefts
if immobilizers meeting the proposed performance criteria are more
effective than current designs.
Executive Order 13609: Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation
The policy statement in section 1 of Executive Order 13609
provides, in part:
The regulatory approaches taken by foreign governments may
differ from those taken by U.S. regulatory agencies to address
similar issues. In some cases, the differences between the
regulatory approaches of U.S. agencies and those of their foreign
counterparts might not be necessary and might impair the ability of
American businesses to export and compete internationally. In
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory
cooperation can identify approaches that are at least as protective
as those that are or would be adopted in the absence of such
cooperation. International regulatory cooperation can also reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements.
NHTSA is issuing this proposal pursuant to a regulatory cooperation
agreement between the United States and Canada. This proposal would
more closely harmonize vehicle theft
[[Page 3159]]
regulations in the United States with those in Canada.
NHTSA requests public comment on whether there are any ``regulatory
approaches taken by foreign governments'' concerning the subject matter
of this rulemaking, beyond those already mentioned in this notice,
which the agency should consider.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have reviewed this proposal for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' 13 CFR 121.105(a). No regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
NHTSA has considered the effects of the proposed rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this proposed rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This proposal would amend Part 543 to add performance
criteria for immobilizers that are contained in CMVSS No. 114 to allow
manufacturers who are installing immobilizers in compliance with that
standard to more easily obtain an exemption from the theft prevention
standard. This proposal would not significantly affect any entities
because it would leave in place the current exemption process so that
manufacturers would not need to make any changes to products to retain
eligibility for an exemption. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that
this proposal would have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies
whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties
file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is
consistent with that requirement.
Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. There is no
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or
pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in
court. NHTSA has considered whether this rulemaking would have any
retroactive effect. This proposed rule does not have any retroactive
effect.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of a proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995).
Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of the UMRA generally requires NHTSA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows NHTSA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
agency publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
This proposed rule is not anticipated to result in the expenditure
by state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector in excess of $100 million annually. The cost impact of
this proposed rule is expected to be $0. Therefore, the agency has not
prepared an economic assessment pursuant to the Unfunded Mandate Reform
Act.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
et. seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. This proposal would
decrease the materials that a manufacturer would need to submit to the
agency to obtain an exemption from the vehicle theft prevention
standard in certain instances.
In compliance with the PRA, we announce that NHTSA is seeking
comment on a revision of a currently approved collection.
Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Title: 49 CFR Part 543, Petitions for Exemption from the Vehicle
Theft Prevention Standard.
Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
OMB Control Number: 2127-0542.
Form Number: The collection of this information uses no standard
form.
Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the date of
approval.
Summary of the Collection of Information:
This collection consists of information that motor vehicle
manufacturers must submit in support of an application for an exemption
from the vehicle theft prevention standard. Manufacturers wishing to
apply for an exemption from the parts marking requirement because they
have installed immobilizers meeting the proposed performance criteria
would be required to submit a statement that the entire line of
vehicles is equipped with an immobilizer, as standard equipment, that
meets the performance criteria contained in that section, a statement
that the immobilizer has been certified to the Canadian theft
prevention standard, documentation provided to Transport Canada to
demonstrate that the immobilizer was certified to the Canadian theft
prevention standard, and a statement that the immobilizer device is
durable and reliable. The proposed rule would not change the
information that manufacturers would need to
[[Page 3160]]
submit if seeking an exemption in accordance with the current process
used for petitions seeking an exemption based on the installation of
immobilizers.
Description of the Need for the Information and Use of the
Information:
The information is needed to determine whether a vehicle line is
eligible for an exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard.
Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information):
Currently, nineteen manufacturers have one or more car lines
exempted. We expect, should this proposal be made final, that twelve
manufacturers would apply for an exemption per year: Ten under the
current process and two under the proposed performance criteria.
Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting From the Collection of Information:
We estimate that the burden for applying for an exemption under
this proposal would be 2300 hours. The burden for applying for an
exemption under the current process is estimated to be 226 hours x 10
respondents = 2260 hours. The burden for apply for an exemption under
the proposed performance criteria is estimated to be 20 hours x 2
respondents = 40 hours
Comments are invited on:
Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Department, including
whether the information will have practical utility.
Whether the Department's estimate for the burden of the
information collection is accurate.
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.
A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication. Send comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: NHTSA Desk Officer. PRA comments are
due within 30 days following publication of this document in the
Federal Register.
The agency recognizes that the collection of information contained
in today's final rule may be subject to revision in response to public
comments.
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards
are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based or design-specific
technical specification and related management systems practices.''
They pertain to ``products and processes, such as size, strength, or
technical performance of a product, process or material.''
Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus
standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). If NHTSA does not use available
and potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards, we are
required by the Act to provide Congress, through OMB, an explanation of
the reasons for not using such standards.
We are not aware of any technical performance criteria for
immobilizers issued by voluntary consensus standards bodies in the
United States. National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, Automobile
Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization is the
only voluntary consensus standard of which the agency is aware that
contains performance criteria for immobilizers. The performance
criteria in the proposal are substantially similar to those contained
in that standard. For the reasons discussed in this notice, the agency
has tentatively determined that the simplest way to harmonize Part 543
with Canadian theft prevention regulations was to adopt only the
performance criteria for immobilizers proposed below.
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 \19\ applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866,
and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a
significant energy action. If the regulatory action meets either
criterion, we must evaluate the adverse energy effects of the proposed
rule and explain why the proposed regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal would amend Part 543 to add performance criteria for
immobilizers that are contained in CMVSS No. 114 to allow manufacturers
who are installing immobilizers in compliance with that standard to
more easily obtain an exemption from the theft prevention standard.
Therefore, this proposed rule would not have any significant adverse
energy effects. Accordingly, this proposed rulemaking action is not
designated as a significant energy action.
Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that
isn't clear?
Would a different format (grouping and order of sections,
use of headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or
diagrams?
What else could we do to make the rule easier to
understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments on this proposal.
Privacy Act
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the
[[Page 3161]]
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
organization, 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 you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
IX. Public Participation
How do I prepare and submit comments?
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket
number of this document in your comments. Your comments must not be
more than 15 pages long.\20\ We established this limit to encourage you
to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may
attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no
limit on the length of the attachments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See 49 CFR 553.21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please submit your comments by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern
Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: (202) 493-2251.
If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe)
file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using an Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agency to search
and copy certain portions of your submissions.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Optical character recognition (OCR) is the process of
converting an image of text, such as a scanned paper document or
electronic fax file, into computer-editable text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet
the information quality standards set forth in the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and DOT Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we
encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments.
OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/DataQualityGuidelines.pdf.
How can I be sure that my comments were received?
If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to
notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed,
stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon
receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by
mail.
How do I submit confidential business information?
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment
containing information claimed to be confidential business information,
you should include a cover letter setting forth the information
specified in our confidential business information regulation.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See 49 CFR 512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, you should submit a copy, from which you have deleted
the claimed confidential business information, to the Docket by one of
the methods set forth above.
Will the agency consider late comments?
We will consider all comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated above under DATES. To the extent
possible, we will also consider comments received after that date.
Therefore, if interested persons believe that any new information the
agency places in the docket affects their comments, they may submit
comments after the closing date concerning how the agency should
consider that information for the final rule.
If a comment is received too late for us to consider in developing
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.
How can I read the comments submitted by other people?
You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 543
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
Chapter V as set forth below.
PART 543--EXEMPTION FROM VEHICLE THEFT PREVENTION STANDARD
0
1. The authority citation for part 543 of title 49 is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 33101, 33102, 33103, 33104 and 33105;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
0
2. Amend Sec. 543.4 by adding, in alphabetical order, the following
definitions of Accessory mode and Immobilizer in paragraph (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 543.4 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Accessory mode means the ignition switch setting in which certain
electrical systems (such as the radio and power windows) can be
operated without the operation of the vehicle's propulsion engine.
Immobilizer means a device that, when activated, is intended to
prevent a motor vehicle from being powered by its own propulsion
system.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 543.5 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(6), and (b)(7).
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(8), and (b)(9) to read as follows:
Sec. 543.5 Petition: General requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Be submitted in three copies to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
* * * * *
(6) Identify whether the exemption is sought under Sec. 543.6 or
Sec. 543.7.
(7) If the exemption is sought under Sec. 543.6, set forth in full
the data, views, and arguments of the petitioner supporting the
exemption, including the information specified in that section.
(8) If the exemption is sought under Sec. 543.7, a statement that
the entire line
[[Page 3162]]
of vehicles is equipped with an immobilizer, as standard equipment,
that meets the performance criteria contained in that section and has
been certified to C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection and Rollaway
Prevention, documentation provided to Transport Canada to show the
basis for certification to C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection and
Rollaway Prevention, a statement that the immobilizer device is durable
and reliable, and reasons for the petitioner's belief that the
immobilizer will be effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft.
(9) Specify and segregate any part of the information or data
submitted which the petitioner requests be withheld from public
disclosure in accordance with part 512, Confidential Business
Information, of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
4. Redesignate Sec. Sec. 543.7 through 543.9 as Sec. Sec. 543.8
through 543.10.
Sec. Sec. 543.7 through 543.9 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 543.8
through 543.10]
0
5. Add new section Sec. 543.7 to read as follows:
Sec. 543.7 Technical performance criteria for immobilizers.
(a) In order to be eligible for an exemption under this section,
the entire vehicle line must be equipped with an immobilizer meeting
the following criteria:
(1) Subject to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, an immobilization
system shall arm automatically within a period of not more than 1
minute after the disarming device is removed from the vehicle, if the
vehicle remains in a mode of operation other than accessory mode or on
throughout that period.
(2) If the disarming device is a keypad or biometric identifier,
the immobilization system shall arm automatically within a period of
not more than 1 minute after the motors used for the vehicle's
propulsion are turned off, if the vehicle remains in a mode of
operation other than accessory mode or on throughout that period.
(3) The immobilization system shall arm automatically not later
than 2 minutes after the immobilization system is disarmed, unless:
(i) Action is taken for starting one or more motors used for the
vehicle's propulsion;
(ii) Disarming requires an action to be taken on the engine start
control or electric motor start control, the engine stop control or
electric motor stop control, or the ignition switch; or
(iii) Disarming occurs automatically by the presence of a disarming
device and the device is inside the vehicle.
(4) If armed, the immobilization system shall prevent the vehicle
from moving more than 3 meters (9.8 feet) under its own power by
inhibiting the operation of at least one electronic control unit and
shall not have any impact on the vehicle's brake system except that it
may prevent regenerative braking and the release of the parking brake.
(5) During the disarming process, a code shall be sent to the
inhibited electronic control unit in order to allow the vehicle to move
under its own power.
(6) It shall not be possible to disarm the immobilization system by
interrupting its normal operating voltage.
(7) When the normal starting procedure requires that the disarming
device mechanically latch into a receptacle and the device is
physically separate from the ignition switch key, one or more motors
used for the vehicle's propulsion shall start only after the device is
removed from that receptacle.
(8)(i) The immobilization system shall have a minimum capacity of
50,000 code variants, shall not be disarmed by a code that can disarm
all other immobilization systems of the same make and model; and
(ii) Subject to paragraph (a)(9), it shall not have the capacity to
process more than 5,000 codes within 24 hours.
(9) If an immobilization system uses rolling or encrypted codes, it
may conform to the following criteria instead of the criteria set out
in paragraph (a)(8)(ii) of this section:
(i) The probability of obtaining the correct code within 24 hours
shall not exceed 4 per cent; and
(ii) It shall not be possible to disarm the system by re-
transmitting in any sequence the previous 5 codes generated by the
system.
(10) The immobilization system shall be designed so that, when
tested as installed in the vehicle neither the replacement of an
original immobilization system component with a manufacturer's
replacement component nor the addition of a manufacturer's component
can be completed without the use of software; and it is not possible
for the vehicle to move under its own power for at least 5 minutes
after the beginning of the replacement or addition of a component
referred to in this paragraph.
(11) The immobilization system's conformity to paragraph (a)(10) of
this section shall be demonstrated by testing that is carried out
without damaging the vehicle.
(12) Paragraph (a)(10) does not apply to the addition of a
disarming device that requires the use of another disarming device that
is validated by the immobilization system.
(13) The immobilization system shall be designed so that it can
neither be bypassed nor rendered ineffective in a manner that would
allow a vehicle to move under its own power, or be disarmed, using one
or more of the tools and equipment listed in paragraph(a)(14);
(i) Within a period of less than 5 minutes, when tested as
installed in the vehicle; or
(ii) Within a period of less than 2.5 minutes, when bench-tested
outside the vehicle.
(14) During a test referred to in paragraph (a)(13) of this
section, only the following tools or equipment may be used: scissors,
wire strippers, wire cutters and electrical wires, a hammer, a slide
hammer, a chisel, a punch, a wrench, a screwdriver, pliers, steel rods
and spikes, a hacksaw, a battery operated drill, a battery operated
angle grinder; and a battery operated jigsaw.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend redesignated Sec. 543.8 by revising paragraph (f) and adding
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 543.8 Processing an exemption petition.
* * * * *
(f) If the petition is sought under Sec. 543.6, NHTSA publishes a
notice of its decision to grant or deny an exemption petition in the
Federal Register, and notifies the petitioner in writing of the
agency's decision.
(g) If the petition is sought under Sec. 543.7 NHTSA notifies the
petitioner in writing of the agency's decision to grant or deny an
exemption petition.
* * * * *
0
7. Redesignated Sec. 543.9 is revised to read as follows
Sec. 543.9 Duration of exemption.
Each exemption under this part continues in effect unless it is
modified or terminated under Sec. 543.10, or the manufacturer ceases
production of the exempted line.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 10, 2014 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2014-00683 Filed 1-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P