
[Federal Register: February 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 25)]
[Notices]               
[Page 6254-6255]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08fe10-112]                         

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

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) of the Mazda2 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 2011 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West 
Building, W43-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is 
(202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated September 24, 2009, 
Mazda requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the 
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the MY 2011 Mazda2 
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 Mazda2 
vehicle line. Mazda will install its passive transponder-based, 
electronic immobilizer antitheft device as standard

[[Page 6255]]

equipment on its Mazda2 vehicle line beginning with MY 2011. Major 
components of the antitheft device will include a powertrain control 
module, an immobilizer control module, a security light, transceiver 
and a transponder ignition key. Mazda stated that the integration of 
the transponder into the ignition key prevents any inadvertent 
activation of the device. When the ignition is turned to the ``ON'' 
position a code is transmitted from the transponder to the immobilizer 
control module. If the transponder code matches the code programmed in 
the immobilizer control module, the vehicle's engine can be started. If 
the transponder code does not match, the engine will be disabled. 
Activation of the immobilization device occurs when the ignition is 
turned to the ``OFF'' position. 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 stated that the antitheft device to be installed on the 
Mazda2 vehicle line is based on the design of the immobilizer device 
installed on the Ford Mustang GT, Cobra, Taurus LX, SHO and Sable LS 
models beginning with the 1996 model year. The device will provide 
protection against unauthorized use (i.e., starting and engine 
fueling), but the device will not provide any visible or audible 
indication of unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e., flashing lights or horn 
alarm).
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, 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 are tested in climatic, 
mechanical and chemical environments, and that the device is also 
tested for its immunity to various electromagnetic radiation and 
electric conduction.
    Mazda stated that the design and the operation of 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 there is 
no way to start the vehicle by mechanically overriding the device and 
that successful key duplication is virtually impossible.
    There is currently no available theft rate data published by the 
agency for the Mazda2 vehicle line. However, 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. Mazda stated that according to 
National Crime Information Center's (NCIC) theft information, 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. Additionally, Mazda stated that supportively, a 
July 2000 International Institute for Highway Safety news release 
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 evidence submitted by Mazda, the agency believes that 
the antitheft device for the Mazda2 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 the Mazda2 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 Mazda2 vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2011 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 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, 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: February 2, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-2599 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

