[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35191-35193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12425]


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

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 of a high-theft line, the Mazda 
6, from the parts-marking requirements of the Federal motor vehicle 
theft prevention standard. The Mazda 6 vehicle line will replace the 
current 626 line. 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 the Theft Prevention Standard. Mazda requested 
confidential treatment for some of the information submitted in support 
of its petition. In a letter to Mazda dated January 24, 2002 and April 
4, 2002, the agency addressed its request for confidential treatment.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of 
Planning 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 December 27, 2001, Mazda 
Motor Corporation (Mazda), requested exemption from the parts-marking 
requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the 
Mazda 6 vehicle line beginning with MY 2003. 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.
    Section 33106(b)(2)(D) of Title 49, United States Code, authorized 
the Secretary of Transportation to grant an exemption from the parts-
marking requirements for not more than one additional line of a 
manufacturer for MYs 1997--2000. However, it does not address the 
contingency of what to do after model year 2000 in the absence of

[[Page 35192]]

a decision under section 33103(d). 49 U.S.C. 33103(d)(3) states that 
the number of lines for which the agency can grant an exemption is to 
be decided after the Attorney General completes a review of the 
effectiveness of antitheft devices and finds that antitheft devices are 
an effective substitute for parts-marking. The Attorney General has not 
yet made a finding and has not decided the number of lines, if any, for 
which the agency will be authorized to grant an exemption. Upon 
consultation with the Department of Justice, we determined that the 
appropriate reading of section 33103(d) is that the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may continue to grant parts-
marking exemptions for not more than one additional model line each 
year, as specified for model years 1997-2000 by 49 U.S.C. 
33106(b)(2)(C). This is the level contemplated by the Act for the 
period before the Attorney General's decision. The final decision on 
whether to continue granting exemptions will be made by the Attorney 
General at the conclusion of the review pursuant to section 
330103(d)(3).
    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. Mazda 
requested confidential treatment for some of the information submitted 
in support of its petition. In a letter to Mazda dated January 24, 
2002, the agency addressed its request for confidential treatment.
    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, a transponder based electronic engine immobilizer 
antitheft system as standard equipment on its 6 carline beginning with 
MY 2003.
    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.
    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 start position, the transponder (located 
in the head of the key) transmits a code to 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 
quintillion different codes and at the time of manufacture, each 
transponder is hard-coded with a unique code. Additionally, Mazda 
stated that encrypted communications exist between the immobilizer 
system control function and the powertrain's electronic control module.
    Mazda also stated that its immobilizer system incorporates a light-
emitting diode (LED) that provides information to the driver/operator 
as to the ``set'' and ``unset'' condition of the device. When the 
ignition is initially turned to the ``ON'' position, a 3-second 
continuous LED indicates the proper ``unset'' state of the device. When 
the ignition is turned to ``OFF'', a flashing LED indicates the ``set'' 
state of the device and provides visual information that the vehicle is 
protected by the immobilizer system. Mazda states that the integration 
of the setting/unsetting device (transponder) into the ignition key 
prevents any inadvertent activation of the device.
    Mazda believes that it would be very difficult for a thief to 
defeat this type of electronic immobilizer system. Mazda believes that 
its new device is reliable and durable because it does not have any 
moving parts, nor does it require a separate battery in the key. If the 
correct code is not transmitted to the electronic control module 
(accomplished only by having the correct key), 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 reemphasized 
that any attempt to slam-pull the ignition-lock cylinder will have no 
effect on the thief's ability to start the vehicle.
    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 NCIC 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 542.6(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 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; 
attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons; 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. This 
confidential information included a description of reliability and 
functional tests conducted by Mazda for the antitheft device and its 
components.
    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 decision is made, the line must 
be fully marked according to the requirements

[[Page 35193]]

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: May 13, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 02-12425 Filed 5-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P