
[Federal Register: July 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 135)]
[Notices]               
[Page 40447-40448]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jy08-155]                         

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

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 petition of Mazda Motor 
Corporation (Mazda) in accordance with Sec.  543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR part 
543, Exemption From the Theft Prevention Standard, for the Mazda 
Tribute vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 2010. 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) 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's telephone 
number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated March 28, 2008, Mazda 
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Mazda Tribute vehicle 
line beginning with MY 2010. 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 an entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant 
exemptions for one of its vehicle lines per year. Mazda has petitioned 
the agency to grant an exemption for its Mazda Tribute vehicle line 
beginning with MY 2010. 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 Mazda Tribute vehicle line. 
Mazda will install its passive antitheft device as standard equipment 
on the 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 a transponder-based electronic 
immobilizer system. Mazda stated that the Tribute vehicle line is 
developed by the Ford Motor Company (Ford), and the passive anti-theft 
electronic engine immobilizer system proposed for installation on the 
line is the same as Ford's SecuriLock Passive Anti-Theft System (PATS). 
The device will provide protection against unauthorized use (i.e., 
starting and engine fueling), but will not provide any visible or 
audible indication of unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e., flashing lights 
or horn alarm). Mazda stated that the integration of the transponder 
into the normal operation of the ignition key assures activation of the 
system. When the ignition key is turned to the start position, the 
transceiver module reads the ignition key code and transmits an 
encrypted message to the cluster. Validation of the key is determined 
and start of the engine is authorized once a separate encrypted message 
is sent to the powertrain's control module (PCM). The powertrain will 
function only if the key code matches the unique identification key 
code previously programmed into the PCM. If the codes do not match, the 
powertrain engine starter will be disabled.
    In its submission, Mazda stated that the PATS antitheft device was 
previously approved for exemption from the requirements of Part 541. 
The agency granted in full the petition for the Ford Focus vehicle line 
beginning with model year 2006, (see 51 FR 7824, February 14, 2006), 
the Ford Five Hundred vehicle line beginning with

[[Page 40448]]

model year 2007, (see 71 FR 52206, September 1, 2006), Ford Taurus X 
vehicle line beginning with model year 2008, (see 72 FR 20400, April 
24, 2007). There is currently no available theft rate data published by 
the agency for the MY 2008 Tribute vehicle line. However, Mazda 
provided data on the effectiveness of other similar antitheft devices 
installed on the vehicle lines in support of its belief that its device 
will be at least as effective as those comparable devices previously 
granted exemptions by the agency.
    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.
    Based on the evidence submitted by Mazda, the agency believes that 
the antitheft device for the Mazda Tribute 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).
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Mazda 
requested the agency to refer to the reliability and durability 
information submitted in Ford's June 5, 2002 letter to the agency 
regarding the identical device installed as standard equipment on the 
2003 Ford Th!nk City vehicle line.\1\ Ford 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Reliability and durability data were submitted by Ford in 
support of its request pursuant to 49 CFR part 542, ``Procedures for 
Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mazda stated that the electronic engine immobilizer device makes 
conventional theft methods such as hot-wiring or attacking the ignition 
lock cylinder ineffective, and virtually eliminates drive-away thefts. 
Mazda also stated that the integration of the setting device 
(transponder) into the ignition key prevents any inadvertent activation 
of the system. Mazda stated that there are 18 quintillion possible 
codes making a successful key duplication virtually impossible.
    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 the Mazda Tribute 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 Tribute vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2010 model 
year 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 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 must 
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 anti-theft 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.

Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.6
[FR Doc. E8-15914 Filed 7-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
