Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mazda Motor Corporation |
|---|
Topics: Mazda
|
Raymond R. Posten
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
November 13, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 219 (Friday, November 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70291-70292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28814]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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's
(Mazda) petition for an exemption of the (confidential) vehicle line in
accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has
determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (Theft Prevention Standard). Mazda also requested confidential
treatment for specific information in its petition. For purposes of
this document the confidential information has been redacted until
released by the manufacturer.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2017 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-
439, 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: In a petition dated June 18, 2015, Mazda
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Mazda (confidential) vehicle line beginning
with MY 2017. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard
equipment for the entire vehicle line.
Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. 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 2017
(confidential) vehicle line will be equipped 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)
antenna and 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 light-emitting diode (LED)
indicator which will provide a visual confirmation on the protection
status of the antitheft device.
Mazda's submission is considered a complete petition as required by
49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in
Sec. 543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec. 543.6.
In addressing the specific content requirements of Sec. 543.6,
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., electromagnetic
radiation, electric conduction, and climatic, mechanical and chemical
environments) and believes that 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.
According to Mazda, there are two methods of initiating the
antitheft device operation process. The first process is used when the
transponder key can be detected. Specifically, the immobilizer control
unit sends a signal to the transponder key using its LF antenna to
request a transponder code. The transponder code is then sent through
the RF receiver back to the immobilizer control unit to authenticate
the code and determine its validity. The second process is used when
the transponder key cannot be detected by the immobilizer control unit
(i.e., discharged battery). For this process, communication between the
transponder key and the immobilizer control unit begins when the
transponder key is passed over the coil antenna located in the ``Engine
Start'' pushbutton. The immobilizer control module then communicates
with the transponder key to determine key validity. Mazda stated that
if the code from the transponder key matches with the code from the
immobilizer control module by either process, the immobilizer control
module compares its code with the code from the powertrain electronic
control module when the ``Engine Start'' pushbutton is pressed and the
brake pedal is depressed simultaneously. Mazda stated
[[Page 70292]]
that the vehicle's engine can only be started if the immobilizer code
matches the code previously programmed into the immobilizer control
module.
Mazda stated that activation of the device occurs when the operator
disengages the ignition by pressing the ``Engine Start'' pushbutton
when the vehicle is parked, and that the integration of the set/unset
device (transponder key) into the immobilizer system prevents any
inadvertent activation of the system. Deactivation occurs when the
ignition is initially engaged by pressing the ``Engine Start''
pushbutton while simultaneously depressing the brake pedal.
Mazda provided data 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 also stated that
the Highway Loss Data Institute's (HLDI) September 1997 Theft Loss
Bulletin reported an overall theft loss decrease of approximately 50%
for both the Ford Mustang and Taurus models upon installation of an
antitheft immobilization device. The agency notes that the theft rate
data for MYs' 2010 through 2012 are 2.2392, 1.7365 and 2.2115
respectively for the Ford Mustang vehicle line. Preliminary theft data
for MY 2013 show that the theft rate for the Ford Mustang vehicle line
is 2.8190, which is still below the median theft rate. Additionally,
Mazda referenced a July 2000 Highway Loss Data Institute news release
which compared theft loss data before and after equipping vehicles with
passive immobilizer devices. The data showed an average theft reduction
of approximately 50% for vehicles installed with immobilizer devices.
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Mazda on its device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the (confidential)
vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements
of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). The agency
concludes that the device will provide four of the five types of
performance listed in Sec. 543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;
preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants;
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines 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. The agency
finds that Mazda has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Mazda (confidential) vehicle line is likely to
be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information
Mazda provided about its device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Mazda's
petition for exemption for the Mazda (confidential) vehicle line from
the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes
that 49 CFR part 541, appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are
exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49
CFR 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the
disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the
release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for
which the petition is granted and a general description of the
antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement
agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. As a condition to the
formal granting of Mazda's petition for exemption from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541 for the MY 2017 (confidential)
vehicle line, the agency fully expects Mazda to notify the agency of
the nameplate for the vehicle line prior to its introduction into the
United States Commerce for sale.
If Mazda decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and
541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Mazda wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.7(d) states that a part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Sec. 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Sec.
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-28814 Filed 11-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P