The Crittenden Automotive Library

Exemption From Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

Exemption From Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

Mark R. Rosekind
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
29 September 2016

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66833-66842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22061]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this rulemaking action, NHTSA is finalizing procedures for
obtaining an exemption from the vehicle theft prevention standard for
vehicles equipped with immobilizers.
An immobilizer is an anti-theft device that combines microchip and
transponder technology with engine and fuel immobilizer components that
can prevent vehicles from starting unless a verified code is received
by the transponder. This final rule streamlines the exemption procedure
for immobilizer-equipped vehicles by adding performance criteria for
immobilizers. The 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. After this final rule, it would be sufficient for a
manufacturer seeking the exemption of some of its vehicles to provide
data showing that the device meets the performance criteria, as well as
a statement that the device is durable and reliable. Adopting these
performance criteria for immobilizers bring the U.S. anti-theft
requirements more into line with those of Canada.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective November 28, 2016.
Petitions for Reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received not later than November 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket and notice number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For technical issues: Mr. Hisham Mohamed, Office of Consumer
Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington,
DC 20590 (Telephone: (202) 366-0307) (Fax: (202) 493-2990).
For legal issues: Mr. Ryan Hagen, 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
A. Effectiveness of Immobilizers in Reducing or Deterring Theft
B. U.S. Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council
C. Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114
III. Proposed Rule
IV. Overview of Comments
V. Response to Comments and Differences Between the Final Rule and
NPRM
VI. Costs, Benefits, and Compliance Date
VII. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

I. Executive Summary

This rulemaking action amends 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 criteria, which roughly correlate with the types of qualities
for which petitioners have been submitting testing and technical design
details under existing procedures, use the same four performance
requirements from the Transport Canada standard. 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.

[[Page 66834]]

Adopting these 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
U.S. 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 here. This would reduce the amount of material
that manufacturers would need to submit to obtain an exemption because
manufacturers would only be required to indicate and demonstrate that
the immobilizer met the performance criteria and was durable and
reliable to be eligible for an exemption.
This final rule allows manufacturers to obtain an exemption from
the theft prevention standards by complying with any of the four
performance criteria currently accepted by Transport Canada. The
adoption of the performance criteria for immobilizers would bring 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.
Additionally, two of the performance criteria added by this rule are
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) standards, which
will allow for greater global harmonization.
We are retaining 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 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 of 6,000 pounds 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 that 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.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The Secretary of Transportation's responsibilities under the
Theft Act have been delegated to NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR 1.95.
\2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 vehicle lines
to inscribe or affix vehicle identification numbers or symbols on
certain components of new vehicles and replacement parts.\3\ The agency
refers to this requirement as the parts marking requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ 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 the existing part 543, manufacturers choose how they wish to
demonstrate to the agency that the anti-theft device they are
installing in a 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
anti-theft 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 anti-theft device satisfies the factors listed in Sec. 543.6.

A. Effectiveness of Immobilizers in Reducing or Deterring Theft

Nearly 700,000 motor vehicle thefts took place in the U.S. in 2013,
causing a loss of mobility and economic hardship to those affected.\4\
The estimated value of motor vehicles stolen in 2011 was $4.1 billion,
averaging $5,972 per stolen vehicle.\5\ Of the vehicles stolen in the
United States, nearly 45 percent are never recovered.\6\ While the
number of motor vehicle thefts fell 3.3 percent from 2012 to 2013,
vehicle theft remains an ongoing problem in the U.S.\7\ According to
the FBI, a motor vehicle was stolen every 45 seconds in 2013.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/property-crime/motor-vehicle-theft-topic-page/mvtheftmain_final.pdf (last accessed February 10, 2016).
\5\ Id.
\6\ http://www.nhtsa.gov/Vehicle+Safety/Vehicle-Related+Theft/Theft+Prevention (last accessed February 10, 2016).
\7\ https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/property-crime/motor-vehicle-theft-topic-page
(last accessed February 10, 2016).
\8\ http://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/newtsm/VehicleTheftPrevention/11539-VehicleTheftPrevention-FactSheet.pdf
(last accessed February 10, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 66835]]

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.\9\ 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).\10\ 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ See http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/theft-losses-decline-by-half-when-cars-are-equipped-with-immobilizing-antitheft-devices (last accessed February 10, 2016).
\10\ 77 FR 1974 (January 12, 2012).
\11\ 76 FR 68262 (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).\12\ 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.\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ 77 FR 20486 (April 4, 2012).
\13\ 76 FR 41558 (July 14, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 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.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/irc/us-canada-rcc-joint-forward-plan.pdf (last accessed February 10,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

C. 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 (May 1998); United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97) in effect
August 8, 2007, 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 in
effect on February 10, 2009; 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 (in effect March 30, 2011).
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 into Canada motor vehicles manufactured in the U.S. that are not
equipped with an immobilizer meeting CMVSS No. 114. In such cases, an
immobilizer that complies with CMVSS No. 114, usually an aftermarket
device, 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 that 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.\15\ 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

[[Page 66836]]

performance requirements without the environmental and durability
requirements contained in CAN/ULC-S338-98, ECE R97, and ECE R116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Rule

The agency proposed 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. NHTSA proposed 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 the proposal, manufacturers would be required to state
and demonstrate that the immobilizer device they are installing in the
vehicle line meets the proposed performance criteria 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).\16\ 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.\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.
\17\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prior to this final rule, NHTSA had 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
anti-theft device, a manufacturer is not required to install an
immobilizer in order to gain an exemption. The agency proposed 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 the proposal. Thus, manufacturers will continue to be
eligible for an exemption from the parts marking requirements for only
one vehicle line per model year.
NHTSA proposed only the fourth set of performance criteria for
immobilizers contained in CMVSS No. 114 for inclusion in part 543. The
agency proposed to adopt only this one set of performance criteria
because of the factors articulated by Transport Canada discussed in
Section C above. Furthermore, the agency proposed adopting only this
one set of performance criteria as the simplest way to harmonize anti-
theft regulations between the U.S. and Canada. In the proposed rule,
NHTSA anticipated the possibility that 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. The agency sought comment on whether it should
consider including all four performance criteria.
In its proposal, NHTSA tentatively concluded that immobilizers
meeting the proposed performance criteria are likely to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts marking requirements in part 541. 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.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For these reasons, the agency 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.
The proposed performance criteria for immobilizers included
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). Further, 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. Additionally, 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 also proposed definitions for
``immobilizer'' and ``accessory mode.''
The agency plans on ensuring that immobilizer devices that
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 the
performance criteria of CMVSS No. 114. Manufacturers must be ready to

[[Page 66837]]

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.\19\ NHTSA believes that it can rely on the information that
manufacturers have kept to provide 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. The NPRM proposed that manufacturers
submit the documentation provided to Transport Canada regarding their
certification to CMVSS No. 114 to NHTSA as part of a manufacturer's
petition for exemption. 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, if requested, when certifying their
vehicles under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Motor Vehicle Safety Act. R.S.C., ch. 16 section 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 did 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 keeping to provide to Transport Canada, and that they
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 did not include specifications
that address the durability and reliability of immobilizers because the
agency was concerned about the limitations such specifications could
pose to immobilizer designs. 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.\20\
Because the agency believes that it is possible for the durability and
reliability of an immobilizer to impact its effectiveness, we
tentatively decided to retain this criterion of eligibility as part of
the proposed performance criteria. We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency stated it believes 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.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ 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 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.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ 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 and demonstrate that
their immobilizer device conforms to the performance criteria, 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 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. As proposed, we 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. NHTSA would continue to 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.

IV. Overview of Comments

NHTSA received two comments on the proposed rule. Commenters were
generally supportive of the proposal because it allows for improved
harmonization with Canada, but expressed concerns about the
documentation required to obtain an exemption and allowing for more
compliance options similar to Transport Canada's CMVSS No. 114.
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) expressed a
procedural concern with the information manufacturers must provide to
NHTSA in order to obtain an exemption under the proposed regulation.
Specifically, the Alliance noted that in order to comply with Canadian
law, manufacturers must certify as complying with all applicable
CMVSSs--but manufacturers do not routinely provide compliance data to
Transport Canada to prove compliance. Because of this, the Alliance
suggested that manufacturers only be required to submit a statement
that the immobilizer meets the performance requirements noted in the
proposal. The Alliance suggested that this statement would eliminate
the proposal's requirement to submit the same documentation that
demonstrates compliance with CMVSS No. 114.
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota) submitted a comment
stating

[[Page 66838]]

that it agrees with the comments submitted by the Alliance and that it
believes immobilizers conforming to any of the four enumerated
standards in CMVSS No. 114 should be acceptable to obtain an exemption
under part 543. Toyota suggests that allowing manufacturers to obtain
an exemption by complying with any of the four accepted standards would
allow for greater harmonization between the United States and Canada,
as well as increase manufacturer flexibility.

V. Response to Comments and Differences Between the Final Rule and NPRM

A. Manufacturers Seeking an Exemption Via Compliance With Performance
Criteria Will Be Required To Submit Data Demonstrating Compliance With
Standards

Transport Canada has a certification process that is similar to
NHTSA's ``self-certification process.'' Under Canada's Motor Vehicle
Safety Act, the responsibility rests with the vehicle manufacturer or
importer to certify that all new vehicles offered for sale in Canada
comply with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of
manufacture. Manufacturers or importers certify this by displaying the
national safety mark. As a prerequisite to obtaining permission to use
the national safety mark, a manufacturer must maintain records
demonstrating completion of certification testing. While certification
test documentation may not be requested by Transport Canada for every
new or imported vehicle in Canada, the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety
Act requires such records be available should Transport Canada request
them.
NHTSA believes that providing only a statement of compliance with
CMVSS No. 114 is insufficient to justify an exemption from the theft
prevention standard. Moreover, the data NHTSA will require is data
manufacturers should be keeping in order to facilitate any compliance
verification requests from Transport Canada.
The agency currently receives petitions for exemptions from
manufacturers that present justification for receiving an exemption.
This application includes an explanation of 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 persons to
enter or operate a vehicle by unauthorized entrants, and ensure the
reliability and durability of the device. On those grounds, the agency
can evaluate the justification and grant or deny the exemption. This
rule seeks to streamline the exemption process by using compliance with
certain standards in lieu of submitting separate justifications for
exemptions under Part 543. Requiring manufacturers to provide the
recordkeeping information required by the Transport Canada to
demonstrate CMVSS No. 114 compliance, should Transport Canada ask for
the data, allows NHTSA to ensure anti-theft devices installed on
vehicles meet the same level of performance as would be expected of an
anti-theft device requested through the prior exemption process.
Therefore, the agency is finalizing the proposed requirement that
manufacturers submit compliance data kept for Transport Canada
compliance in order to prove compliance with CMVSS No. 114 standards.

B. Manufacturers Seeking an Exemption Via Compliance With Performance
Criteria May Comply With Any of the Four Criteria in CMVSS No. 114

We sought comments on whether adding the standards in CAN/ULC-S338-
98,\23\ ECE R97, and ECE R116 to the agency's accepted performance
criteria would better accomplish the agency's goal of harmonizing the
process for obtaining an exemption with the Canadian theft prevention
standard. After reconsideration of the proposal and reviewing public
comments, NHTSA has decided to accept anti-theft devices compliant with
any of the four performance criteria allowed under CMVSS No. 114 for
exemptions under part 543. Manufacturers will be required to submit
statements similar to the ones they are currently submitting as part of
their exemption applications to demonstrate that immobilizers certified
to any of the four standards are durable and reliable. The agency
proposed what it believed to be the simplest method of harmonization
with Canada; however, after evaluating stakeholder response to this
issue, we believe that finalizing all four performance criteria will
simplify compliance and promote harmonization between the United States
and Canada.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ NHTSA was notified that ULC posted a withdrawal for CAN/
ULC-S338-98 on December 22, 2015. The comment period for this
withdrawal closed on January 20, 2016. See: https://www.scc.ca/en/standards/work-programs/ulc/standard-for-automobile-theft-deterrent-equipment-and-systems-electronic-immobilization (last accessed
February 10, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We proposed Transport Canada's fourth performance criteria because
Transport Canada determined that the three other standards were
developed for aftermarket immobilizers and had the potential to
restrict the design of immobilizers. Finalizing all four performance
criteria will provide additional flexibility by allowing OEMs and
aftermarket manufacturers to elect the performance criteria most
appropriate for their device. It will also improve harmonization with
the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) immobilizer
performance criteria by allowing manufacturers the option of complying
with one of two ECE standards and receiving an exemption from the theft
prevention standard.
Further, NHTSA believes allowing all four performance standards
will be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts marking requirements in part 541. Since 2007,
when Transport Canada began requiring OEMs to install immobilizers
meeting one of the four performance criteria for most vehicles, theft
in Canada has decreased more than 50 percent.\24\ As discussed in the
proposal, the agency believes that based on the effectiveness of
immobilizers certified to any of the performance criteria in Canada,
the regulations finalized today are consistent with the Theft Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ See ``actual incidents'' of ``total theft of motor
vehicle'' at http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a01?lang=eng (last
accessed February 10, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The agency has modified the regulatory text to reflect the
inclusion of all four performance criteria. As a result of doing so,
NHTSA has moved the originally proposed criteria from C.R.C, c.
1038.114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention (in effect March 30,
2011) to appendix A of part 543.

VI. Costs, Benefits, and Compliance Date

This rule amends 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. Additionally, since two of the accepted performance criteria added
by this rule

[[Page 66839]]

are ECE standards, manufacturers could potentially pay less for
immobilizer devices if they are able to order higher volumes of parts
due to harmonization with Canadian and ECE standards.
Adding the 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 rule improves the effectiveness of the anti-theft devices
chosen by manufacturers.
If the rule encourages more manufacturers to install immobilizers
meeting CMVSS No. 114 on vehicles sold in the United States, it could
result in cost savings 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 compliance date will be 60 days after the date of issuance of
the publication of this final rule.

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.
This 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 changes would be so
minimal that preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not
required. This rule 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 rule would result in a reduction in motor vehicle thefts if
immobilizers meeting the 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 rule pursuant to a regulatory cooperation
agreement between the United States and Canada. This rule would more
closely harmonize vehicle theft regulations in the United States with
those in Canada.

National Environmental Policy Act

We have reviewed this rule 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 rule under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and certifies that this rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule amends 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 rule 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 rule 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 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

[[Page 66840]]

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 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 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 rule 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.
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 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. This rule would
not change the information that manufacturers would need to 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 Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information): Currently,
nineteen manufacturers have one or more car lines exempted. We expect
that within the three year period covered by this clearance, twelve
manufacturers would apply for an exemption per year: Nine under the
current process and three under the performance criteria. Based on
another analysis of the exemption information NHTSA has received, as
well as the comments the agency received, NHTSA has made a minor
adjustment to the estimates provided in the NPRM. In comparison to the
estimates provided in the NPRM, the agency believes that one more
manufacturer will use the new process within the next three years. The
agency thinks it is likely that more manufacturers will migrate to the
new process over time, however, because many manufacturers have product
plans covering the next three years that might not happen until the
agency renews its collection in three years. NHTSA anticipates
reevaluating this assessment during its next renewal of this
collection.
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 rule would be 2300
hours. The burden for applying for an exemption under the current
process is estimated to be 226 hours x 9 respondents = 2034 hours. The
burden for apply for an exemption under the performance criteria is
estimated to be 20 hours x 3 respondents = 60 hours.

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. For the reasons discussed in this notice, the agency has
determined that the simplest way to harmonize part 543 with Canadian
theft prevention regulations was to adopt all four performance criteria
discussed above.

Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211 \25\ 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 rule and
explain why the regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ 66 FR 28355 (May 18, 2001).

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

[[Page 66841]]

This rule amends 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 rule would not have any significant adverse energy
effects. Accordingly, this 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.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 543

Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Tires.

In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR chapter V as
follows.

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, definitions for
``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. In Sec. 543.5, revise paragraphs (b)(2), (6), and (7) and add
paragraphs (b)(8) and (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, submission of the
information required in that section.
(9) Specify and segregate any part of the information or data
submitted that the petitioner requests be withheld from public
disclosure in accordance with part 512, Confidential Business
Information, of this chapter.

Sec. Sec. 543.7 through 543.9 [Redesignated as Sec. Sec. 543.8
through 543.10]

0
4. Redesignate Sec. Sec. 543.7 through 543.9 as Sec. Sec. 543.8
through 543.10.

0
5. Add a new Sec. 543.7 to read as follows:

Sec. 543.7 Petitions based on performance criteria.

A petition submitted under this section must include:
(a) A statement that the entire line of vehicles is equipped with
an immobilizer, as standard equipment, that meets one of the following:
(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 this part;
(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.
(b) Compliance documentation kept to demonstrate the basis for
certification with the performance criteria specified in paragraph (a)
of this section.
(c) A statement that the immobilizer device is durable and
reliable.

0
6. Amend newly 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. Newly 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.

0
8. Add appendix A to part 543 to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 543--Performance Criteria (Subsections 8 Through 21)
of C.R.C, c. 1038.114 (in Effect March 30, 2011)

In order to be eligible for an exemption under Sec.
543.7(a)(1), the entire vehicle line must be equipped with an
immobilizer meeting the following criteria:
(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this appendix, 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.

[[Page 66842]]

(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 (9) of this appendix, 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 (8)(ii) of this appendix:
(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 (1).
(11) The immobilization system's conformity to paragraph (10) of
this appendix shall be demonstrated by testing that is carried out
without damaging the vehicle.
(12) Paragraph (10)(i) of this appendix 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 (14) of
this appendix;
(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 (13) of this
appendix, 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.

Note: C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection and Rollaway
Prevention (in effect March 30, 2011). See: SOR/2011-69 March, 2011
``Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Theft
Prevention and Rollaway Prevention--Standard 114)'' 2011-03-30
Canada Gazette Part II, Vol 145, No. 7.

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 8, 2016, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
Mark R. Rosekind,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-22061 Filed 9-28-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P