[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 219 (Friday, November 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70291-70292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28814]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard; Mazda Motor Corporation

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's 
(Mazda) petition for an exemption of the (confidential) vehicle line in 
accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle 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 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard (Theft Prevention Standard). Mazda also requested confidential 
treatment for specific information in its petition. For purposes of 
this document the confidential information has been redacted until 
released by the manufacturer.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2017 model year (MY).

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated June 18, 2015, Mazda 
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard for the Mazda (confidential) vehicle line beginning 
with MY 2017. 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 49 CFR 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant 
an exemption 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 
(confidential) vehicle line. Mazda stated that its MY 2017 
(confidential) vehicle line will be equipped with a passive, 
transponder based, electronic engine immobilizer antitheft device as 
standard equipment. Key components of its antitheft device will include 
a powertrain control module (PCM), immobilizer control module, security 
indicator light, coil antenna, transmitter with transponder key 
(transponder key), low frequency (LF) antenna, radio frequency (RF) 
antenna and low frequency unit (LFU). The device will not provide any 
visible or audible indication of unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e., 
flashing lights or horn alarm) as standard equipment however, Mazda 
stated that its device will incorporate a light-emitting diode (LED) 
indicator which will provide a visual confirmation on the protection 
status of the antitheft device.
    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.  543.6, 
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 
provided a detailed list of the tests conducted (i.e., electromagnetic 
radiation, electric conduction, and climatic, mechanical and chemical 
environments) and believes that the device is reliable and durable 
since it complied with its own specified requirements for each test. 
Additionally, Mazda stated that its device is extremely reliable and 
durable because it is computer-based and does not rely on any 
mechanical or moving parts. Mazda further stated that any attempt to 
slam-pull its vehicle's ignition will have no effect on a thief's 
ability to start the vehicle without the correct code being transmitted 
to the electronic control modules.
    According to Mazda, there are two methods of initiating the 
antitheft device operation process. The first process is used when the 
transponder key can be detected. Specifically, the immobilizer control 
unit sends a signal to the transponder key using its LF antenna to 
request a transponder code. The transponder code is then sent through 
the RF receiver back to the immobilizer control unit to authenticate 
the code and determine its validity. The second process is used when 
the transponder key cannot be detected by the immobilizer control unit 
(i.e., discharged battery). For this process, communication between the 
transponder key and the immobilizer control unit begins when the 
transponder key is passed over the coil antenna located in the ``Engine 
Start'' pushbutton. The immobilizer control module then communicates 
with the transponder key to determine key validity. Mazda stated that 
if the code from the transponder key matches with the code from the 
immobilizer control module by either process, the immobilizer control 
module compares its code with the code from the powertrain electronic 
control module when the ``Engine Start'' pushbutton is pressed and the 
brake pedal is depressed simultaneously. Mazda stated

[[Page 70292]]

that the vehicle's engine can only be started if the immobilizer code 
matches the code previously programmed into the immobilizer control 
module.
    Mazda stated that activation of the device occurs when the operator 
disengages the ignition by pressing the ``Engine Start'' pushbutton 
when the vehicle is parked, and that the integration of the set/unset 
device (transponder key) into the immobilizer system prevents any 
inadvertent activation of the system. Deactivation occurs when the 
ignition is initially engaged by pressing the ``Engine Start'' 
pushbutton while simultaneously depressing the brake pedal.
    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 its device was installed on certain MY 
1996 Ford vehicles as standard equipment, (i.e., all Ford Mustang GT 
and Cobra models, Ford Taurus LX, and SHO models and Ford 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 Mustang 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 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. The agency notes that the theft rate 
data for MYs' 2010 through 2012 are 2.2392, 1.7365 and 2.2115 
respectively for the Ford Mustang vehicle line. Preliminary theft data 
for MY 2013 show that the theft rate for the Ford Mustang vehicle line 
is 2.8190, which is still below the median theft rate. Additionally, 
Mazda referenced a July 2000 Highway Loss Data Institute news release 
which compared theft loss data before and after equipping vehicles with 
passive immobilizer devices. The data showed an average theft reduction 
of approximately 50% for vehicles installed with immobilizer devices.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Mazda on its device, 
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the (confidential) 
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; 
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 the Mazda (confidential) 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 (confidential) 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 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. As a condition to the 
formal granting of Mazda's petition for exemption from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541 for the MY 2017 (confidential) 
vehicle line, the agency fully expects Mazda to notify the agency of 
the nameplate for the vehicle line prior to its introduction into the 
United States Commerce for sale.
    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. 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.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-28814 Filed 11-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P