[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 97 (Monday, May 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28548-28549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9666]


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

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 5 vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 
2009. 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.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of 
International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number 
is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated March 8, 2007, Mazda 
Motor Corporation (Mazda), requested an exemption from the parts-
marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) 
for the Mazda 5 vehicle line beginning with MY 2009. The petition 
requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR 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 has 
petitioned the agency to grant an exemption for its Mazda 5 vehicle 
line beginning with MY 2009. 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. Mazda will 
install its passive antitheft device as standard equipment on its 5 
vehicle line. 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's antitheft device is activated when the driver/operator 
turns off the engine using a 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 an immobilizer control 
module which then communicates with 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 module. If the 
code does not match, the engine will be disabled. Mazda stated that 
communications between the immobilizer system control function and the 
powertrain's electronic control module are encrypted with 18 trillion 
different codes, and each transponder is hard coded with a unique code 
at the time of manufacture. Mazda also stated that its immobilizer 
system incorporates a light-emitting diode (LED) that provides 
information as to when the system is ``set and ``unset''. When the 
ignition is initially turned to the ``ON'' position, a three-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 system and provides a visual confirmation that the vehicle 
is protected by the immobilizer system. The integration of the setting/
unsetting device (transponder) into the ignition key prevents any 
inadvertent activation of the system.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 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 also 
provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the 
device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its 
specified requirements for each test. The components of the immobilizer 
device are tested in climatic, mechanical and chemical environments, 
and, immunity

[[Page 28549]]

to various electromagnetic radiation. Mazda stated that for 
reliability/durability purposes, its key and key cylinders must also 
meet unique strength tests against attempts of mechanical overriding. 
The tests conducted were for thermal shock, high temperature exposure, 
low-temperature exposure, thermal cycle, humidity temperature cycling, 
functional, 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 also stated that its 
device is reliable and durable because it does not have any moving 
parts, nor does it require a separate battery in the key. Therefore, 
Mazda believes that any attempt to slam-pull the ignition lock cylinder 
will have no effect on a thief's ability to start the vehicle, and 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.
    Additionally, 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 also provided additional data from the July 2000 
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) news release to support 
its belief in the reliability of its device. The IIHS news release 
showed an average theft reduction of about fifty percent for vehicles 
equipped with immobilizer systems.
    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 part 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.
    Based on the evidence submitted by Mazda, the agency believes that 
the antitheft device for the Mazda 5 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 part 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.
    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 part 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.
    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 under 49 CFR parts 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. Part 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, part 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 part 
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 15, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E7-9666 Filed 5-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P