[Federal Register: September 15, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 178)]
[Notices]
[Page 54601-54603]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15se05-82]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft
Prevention Standard; Mazda
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of Mazda Motor
Corporation (Mazda) for an exemption in accordance with Sec.
543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention
Standard, for the Mazda 3 vehicle line beginning with model year (MY)
2006. This petition is granted because the agency has determined that
the antitheft
[[Page 54602]]
device to be placed on the line as standard equipment is likely to be
as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective September 1,
2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's phone number
is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated June 21, 2005, Mazda
Motor Corporation (Mazda), requested exemption from the parts-marking
requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the
Mazda 3 vehicle line beginning with MY 2006. 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 Sec. 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines per year.
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 its petition, Mazda provided a detailed description and diagram
of the identity, design, and location of the components of the
antitheft device for the new vehicle line. The antitheft device is a
transponder-based electronic immobilizer system. Mazda will install its
antitheft device as standard equipment on its Mazda 3 vehicle line
beginning with MY 2006.
In order to ensure the reliability and durability of the device,
Mazda conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Mazda
provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and stated its belief
that the device is reliable and durable since it has complied with
Mazda's specified requirements for each test. The components of the
immobilizer device are tested in climatic, mechanical and chemical
environments. All keys and key cylinders should meet unique strength
tests against attempts of mechanical overriding. The tests conducted
were for thermal shock, high temperature exposure, low-temperature
exposure, thermal cycling, humidity temperature cycling, random
vibration, dust, water, connector and lead/lock strength, chemical
resistance, electromagnetic field, power line variations, DC stresses,
electrostatic discharge, transceiver/key strength and transceiver
mounting strength. Mazda's antitheft device is activated when the
driver/operator turns off the engine using the properly coded ignition
key. When the ignition key is turned to the ``ON'' position, the
transponder (located in the head of the key) transmits a code to the
powertrain's electronic control module. Mazda stated that encrypted
communications exist between the immobilizer system control function
and the powertrain's electronic control module. The vehicle's engine
can only be started if the transponder code matches the code previously
programmed into the powertrain's electronic control module. If the code
does not match, the engine will be disabled. Mazda stated that there
are approximately 18 x 1018 different codes and at the time
of manufacture, each transponder is hard-coded with a unique code.
Mazda also stated that its immobilizer system incorporates a light-
emitting diode (LED) that provides information as to when the system is
``unset''. When the ignition is initially turned to the ``ON''
position, the LED illuminates continuously for three seconds to
indicate the proper ``unset'' state of the device. When the ignition is
turned to ``OFF'' position, a flashing LED indicates the ``set'' state
of the system. The integration of the set/unset device (transponder)
into the ignition key prevents any inadvertent activation of the
system.
Mazda believes that it would be very difficult for a thief to
defeat this type of electronic immobilizer system. Mazda believes that
its proposed device is reliable and durable because it does not have
any moving parts, nor does it require a separate battery in the key.
Any attempt to slam-pull the ignition lock cylinder, for example, will
have no effect on a thief's ability to start the vehicle. If the
correct code is not transmitted to the electronic control module there
is no way to mechanically override the system and start the vehicle.
Furthermore, Mazda stated that drive-away thefts are virtually
eliminated with the sophisticated design and operation of the
electronic engine immobilizer system which makes conventional theft
methods (i.e., hot-wiring or attacking the ignition-lock cylinder)
ineffective.
Mazda reported that in MY 1996, the proposed system was installed
on certain U.S. Ford vehicles as standard equipment (i.e. on all Ford
Mustang GT and Cobra models, Ford Taurus LX, SHO and Sable LS models).
In MY 1997, the immobilizer system was installed on the Ford Mustang
vehicle line as standard equipment. When comparing 1995 model year
Mustang vehicle thefts (without immobilizer), with MY 1997 Mustang
vehicle thefts (with immobilizer), data from the National Insurance
Crime Bureau showed a 70% reduction in theft. (Actual National Crime
Information Center reported thefts were 500 for MY 1995 Mustang, and
149 thefts for MY 1997 Mustang.)
Mazda's proposed device, as well as other comparable devices that
have received full exemptions from the parts-marking requirements, lack
an audible or visible alarm. Therefore, these devices cannot perform
one of the functions listed in 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3), that is, to call
attention to unauthorized attempts to enter or move the vehicle.
However, theft data have indicated a decline in theft rates for vehicle
lines that have been equipped with devices similar to that which Mazda
proposes. In these instances, the agency has concluded that the lack of
a visual or audio alarm has not prevented these antitheft devices from
being effective protection against theft.
On the basis of this comparison, Mazda has concluded that the
proposed antitheft device is no less effective than those devices
installed on lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption
from the parts-marking requirements.
Based on the evidence submitted by Mazda, the agency believes that
the antitheft device for the Mazda vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR 541).
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.
As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the
agency finds that Mazda has provided adequate reasons for its belief
that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. 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 its vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements
of 49 CFR Part 541.
If Mazda decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should
formally notify the agency. If such a
[[Page 54603]]
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.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
Issued on: September 9, 2005.
Roger A. Saul,
Director, Office of Crashworthiness Standards.
[FR Doc. 05-18339 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P