[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 189 (Thursday, September 30, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58592-58594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21977]


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

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 of a high-theft line, the Mazda 
MX-5 Miata, from the parts-marking requirements of the Federal motor 
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 the Theft Prevention Standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 2005.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated June 2, 2004, Mazda 
Motor Corporation (Mazda), requested exemption from the parts-marking 
requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the 
Mazda MX-5 Miata vehicle line beginning with MY 2005. 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.
    Section 33106(b)(2)(D) of Title 49, United States Code, gave the 
Secretary of Transportation the authority to grant a manufacturer one 
parts-marking exemption per model year for vehicle lines produced MYs' 
1997-2000. However, it does not address the

[[Page 58593]]

contingency of what to do after model year 2000 in the absence of a 
decision under Section 33103(d). 49 U.S.C. 33103(d)(3), states that the 
number of lines for which the agency can grant an exemption is to be 
decided after the Attorney General completes a review of the 
effectiveness of antitheft devices and finds that antitheft devices are 
an effective substitute for parts-marking. The Attorney General has not 
yet made a finding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33103(d)(3), Long Range Review 
of Effectiveness, and has not decided the number of lines, if any, for 
which the agency will be authorized to grant an exemption. Upon 
consultation with the Department of Justice, both agencies determined 
that the appropriate reading of Section 33103(d) is that the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may continue to grant 
parts-marking exemptions for not more than one additional model line 
each year, as specified for model years 1997-2000 by 49 U.S.C. 
33106(b)(2)(C). This is the level contemplated by the Act for the 
period before the Attorney General's decision. The final decision on 
whether to continue granting exemptions will be made by the Attorney 
General at the conclusion of the review pursuant to Section 
33103(d)(3).
    Mazda's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 
49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in 
543.5 and the specific content requirements of 543.6.
    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. The antitheft device is a 
transponder-based electronic immobilizer system. Mazda will install its 
antitheft device, a transponder based electronic engine immobilizer 
antitheft system as standard equipment on its MX-5 Miata vehicle line 
beginning with MY 2005.
    In order to ensure the reliability and durability of the device, 
Mazda conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Mazda 
provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and stated its belief 
that the device is reliable and durable since it has complied with 
Mazda's specified requirements for each test. The components of the 
immobilizer system are tested in climatic, mechanical and chemical 
environments all keys and key cylinders should meet unique strength 
tests against attempts of mechanical overriding. The test 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's antitheft device is activated 
when the driver/operator turns off the engine using the properly coded 
ignition key. When the ignition key is turned to the ``start'' 
position, the transponder (located in the head of the key) transmits a 
code to the powertrain's electronic control module. Mazda stated that 
encrypted communications exist between the immobilizer system control 
function and 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 powertrain's electronic control module. 
If the code does not match, the engine will be disabled. Mazda stated 
that there are approximately 18 quintillion different codes and at the 
time of manufacture, each transponder is hard-coded with a unique code. 
Mazda also stated that its immobilizer system incorporates a light-
emitting diode (LED) that provides information as to when the system is 
``unset''. When the ignition is initially turned to the ``START'' 
position, a one-second continuous LED indicates the proper ``unset'' 
state of the device. When the ignition is turned to ``OFF'', a flashing 
LED indicates the ``unset'' state of the system. The integration of the 
setting/unsetting device (transponder) into the ignition key prevents 
any inadvertent activation of the system.
    Mazda believes that it would be very difficult for a thief to 
defeat this type of electronic immobilizer system. Mazda believes that 
its proposed device is reliable and durable because it does not have 
any moving parts, nor does it require a separate battery in the key. 
Any attempt to slam-pull the ignition lock cylinder, for example, will 
have no effect on a thief's ability to start the vehicle. 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.
    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'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 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.
    On the basis of this comparison, Mazda has concluded that the 
proposed antitheft device is no less effective than those devices 
installed on lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption 
from the parts-marking requirements.
    Based on the evidence submitted by Mazda, the agency believes that 
the antitheft device for the Mazda 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 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.
    If Mazda decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should

[[Page 58594]]

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.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.

    Issued on: September 24, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-21977 Filed 9-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P