[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41557-41558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17715]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard; Mazda

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Mazda Motor Corporation 
(Mazda) petition for an exemption of the CX-5 vehicle line in 
accordance with 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention 
Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has determined 
that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard 
equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor 
vehicle theft as compliance with the parts marking requirements of the 
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2013 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West 
Building, W43-439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
Ms. Ballard's telephone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is 
(202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated April 7, 2011, Mazda 
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for its MY 2013 CX-5 vehicle 
line.
    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 vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Mazda 
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, 
and location of the components of the antitheft device for the new 
vehicle line. Mazda will install a passive transponder-based, 
electronic immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment on its 
CX-5 vehicle line beginning with MY 2013. Major components of the 
antitheft device will include a powertrain control module, an 
immobilizer control module, a security light, coil antenna, transmitter 
with transponder, LF antenna and a FR receiver. The device will not 
provide any visible or audible indication of unauthorized vehicle entry 
(i.e., flashing lights or horn alarm).
    Mazda stated that activation of the immobilization device occurs 
when the ignition is turned to the ``OFF'' position and since the 
transponder is integrated into the immobilizer device, any inadvertent 
activation of the device is prevented. Additionally, Mazda stated that 
when the ignition is turned to the ``ON'' position, a code is 
transmitted from the transponder to the immobilizer control module. 
Mazda further stated that if the code from the transponder matches with 
the code programmed in the immobilizer control unit, the vehicle's 
engine can be started, and if the codes do not match, the engine will 
be disabled. Mazda also stated that it is very difficult to defeat this 
type of electronic engine immobilizer device because there are no 
moving parts and there is a separate battery located in the key. 
Additionally, Mazda stated that the immobilizer device will incorporate 
a LED indicator that will provide information about the ``set'' and 
``unset'' condition of the device. Mazda stated that when the ignition 
is turned to the ``ON'' position, the LED illuminates continuously for 
3 seconds to indicate the ``unset'' state of the device and when the 
ignition is in the ``OFF'' position, the flashing LED indicates the 
``set'' state of the device confirming that the vehicle is protected by 
the immobilizer. Mazda's submission is considered a complete petition 
as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements 
contained in Sec.  543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.  
543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.5, 
Mazda 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. Specifically, Mazda stated that 
the components of the immobilization device were tested in climatic, 
mechanical and chemical environments, and for its immunity to various 
electromagnetic radiation and electric conduction. Mazda stated that 
the antitheft device and operation of the electronic engine immobilizer 
system makes conventional theft methods ineffective, (i.e., hot-wiring 
and attacking the ignition lock cylinder). Mazda also stated that there 
is no way to start the vehicle by mechanically overriding the device 
and that successful key duplication would be virtually impossible.
    Mazda provided data on the effectiveness of other similar antitheft 
devices installed on vehicle lines in support of its belief that its 
device will be at least as effective as those comparable devices. 
Specifically, Mazda stated that this device was installed on certain MY 
1996 Ford vehicles as standard equipment, (i.e., all Ford Mustang GT, 
Cobra, Taurus LX, SHO and Sable LS models). In MY 1997, Mazda installed 
its immobilizer device on the entire Ford Mustang vehicle line as 
standard equipment. When comparing 1995 model year Mustang vehicle 
thefts (without immobilizers) with MY 1997 Mustangs vehicle thefts 
(with immobilizers), Mazda referenced the National Crime Information 
Center`s (NCIC) theft information which showed that there was a 70% 
reduction in theft

[[Page 41558]]

experienced when comparing MY 1997 Mustang vehicle thefts (with 
immobilizers) to MY 1995 Mustang vehicle thefts (without immobilizers). 
Mazda also stated that the Highway Loss Data Institute's (HLDI) 
September 1997 Theft Loss Bulletin reported an overall theft loss 
decrease of approximately 50% for both the Ford Mustang and Taurus 
models upon installation of an antitheft immobilization device. 
Additionally, Mazda referenced a July 2000 International Institute for 
Highway Safety news release which reported that when comparing theft 
loss data before and after equipping vehicles with passive immobilizer 
devices, the data showed an average theft reduction of approximately 
50% for vehicles with immobilizer devices.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Mazda, the agency 
believes that the antitheft device for the Mazda CX-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 part 541).
    The agency also notes that the device will provide four of the five 
types of performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): promoting activation; 
preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized 
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; 
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants 
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part 
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon 
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely 
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as 
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency 
finds that Mazda has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the 
antitheft device for its new vehicle line is likely to be as effective 
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the 
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 
part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Mazda provided 
about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Mazda's 
petition for exemption for the Mazda CX-5 vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with MY 2013 
vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1, 
identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention 
Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains publication 
requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. 
Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, 
the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a 
general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to 
notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the 
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If Mazda decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must 
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must 
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and 
541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Mazda wishes in the future to modify the device 
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a 
petition to modify the exemption.
    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 anti-theft 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: July 8, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-17715 Filed 7-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P