Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft Prevention Standard; Mazda, 58789-58790 [05-20184]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 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 Fuji has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based on the information Fuji provided about its device. For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Fuji’s petition for exemption for the vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. If Fuji decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts). NHTSA notes that if Fuji 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, §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 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: October 3, 2005. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 05–20186 Filed 10–6–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:27 Oct 06, 2005 Jkt 208001 58789 contained in § 543.5 and the specific content requirements of § 543.6. National Highway Traffic Safety Mazda’s antitheft device is activated Administration when the driver/operator turns off the engine using the properly coded Petition for Exemption From the ignition key. When the ignition key is Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft turned to the ‘‘ON’’ position, the Prevention Standard; Mazda transponder (located in the head of the key) transmits a code to an immobilizer AGENCY: National Highway Traffic control module which then Safety Administration, Department of communicates with powertrain’s Transportation (DOT). electronic control module. The vehicle’s ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. engine can only be started if the transponder code matches the code SUMMARY: This document grants in full previously programmed into the the petition of Mazda Motor immobilizer control module. If the code Corporation, (Mazda) for an exemption does not match, the engine will be in accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the Theft disabled. Mazda stated that Prevention Standard, for the Mazda CX– communications between the immobilizer system control function 7 vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 2007. This petition is granted and the powertrains electronic control because the agency has determined that module are encrypted with 18 × 1018 different codes, and each transponder is the antitheft device to be placed on the hard coded with a unique code at time line as standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring of manufacture. Mazda also stated that its immobilizer system incorporates a motor vehicle theft as compliance with light-emitting diode (LED) that provides the parts-marking requirements of the information as to when the system is Theft Prevention Standard. ‘‘set and ‘‘unset’’. When the ignition is DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with model initially turned to the ‘‘ON’’ position, a three-second continuous LED indicates year (MY) 2007. the proper ‘‘unset’’ state of the device. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. When the ignition is turned to ‘‘OFF’’, Rosalind Proctor, Office of International a flashing LED indicates the ‘‘set’’ state Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer of the system and provides a visual Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, confirmation that the vehicle is SW., Washington DC 20590. Ms. protected by the immobilizer system. Proctor’s phone number is (202) 366– The integration of the setting/unsetting 0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–2290. device (transponder) into the ignition SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a key prevents any inadvertent activation petition dated June 21, 2005, Mazda of the system. Motor Corporation (Mazda), requested In addressing the specific content an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of 543.6, Mazda provided requirements of the theft prevention information on the reliability and standard (49 CFR part 541) for the durability of its proposed device. To Mazda CX–7 vehicle line beginning ensure reliability and durability of the with MY 2007. The petition requested device, Mazda conducted tests based on an exemption from parts-marking its own specified standards. Mazda also pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption provided a detailed list of the tests from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, conducted and believes that the device based on the installation of an antitheft is reliable and durable since the device device as standard equipment for the complied with its specified entire vehicle line. requirements for each test. The Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may components of the immobilizer device petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for are tested in climatic, mechanical and one line of its vehicle lines per year. In chemical environments, and, immunity its petition, Mazda provided a detailed to various electromagnetic radiation. description and diagram of the identity, Mazda stated that for reliability/ design, and location of the components durablility purposes, its key and key of the antitheft device for the new cylinders must also meet unique vehicle line. The anti-theft device is a strength tests against attempts of transponder-based, electronic, mechanical overriding. The tests immobilizer system. Mazda will install conducted were for thermal shock, high its antitheft device, as standard temperature exposure, low-temperature equipment on its CX–7 vehicle line exposure, thermal cycle, humidity beginning with MY 2007. Mazda’s temperature cycling, functional, random submission is considered a complete vibration, dust, water, connector and petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in lead/lock strength, chemical resistance, that it meets the general requirements electromagnetic field, power line DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1 58790 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices variations, DC stresses, electrostatic discharge, transceiver/key strength and transceiver mounting strength. Mazda also stated 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 electronicengine immobilizer system which makes conventional theft methods (i.e., hot-wiring or attacking the ignition-lock cylinder) ineffective. Additionally, 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 partsmarking 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:27 Oct 06, 2005 Jkt 208001 reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the partsmarking 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 § 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 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 antitheft device on which the line’s exemption is based. Further, § 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 § 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. PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dated: October 3, 2005. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 05–20184 Filed 10–6–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 34752] Watco Companies, Inc.—Continuance in Control Exemption—Louisiana Southern Railroad, Inc. Watco Companies, Inc. (Watco), has filed a verified notice of exemption to continue in control of the Louisiana Southern Railroad, Inc. (LSRR), upon LSRR’s becoming a Class III rail carrier.1 The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or shortly after September 25, 2005. This transaction is related to the concurrently filed verified notice of exemption in STB Finance Docket No. 34751, Louisiana Southern Railroad, Inc.—Lease and Operation Exemption— The Kansas City Southern Railway Company. In that proceeding, LSRR seeks to acquire by lease from The Kansas City Southern Railway Company and operate approximately 165.8 miles of rail line extending between: (1) A point 1,600 feet south of LN&W milepost 62, near Gibsland, LA, and milepost B–192, near Pineville, LA; (2) milepost 148.8, at Winnfield, LA, and the end of the track, at Joyce, LA; (3) milepost 78.8, at Minden, LA, and milepost 83.5, at Sibley, LA; and (4) milepost 48.48, south of Springhill, LA, and milepost B–102, east of Hinkle, LA. Watco, a Kansas corporation, is a noncarrier that currently controls 13 Class III rail carriers: South Kansas and Oklahoma Railroad Company (SKO); Palouse River & Coulee City Railroad, Inc. (PRCC); Timber Rock Railroad, Inc. (TIBR); Stillwater Central Railroad, Inc. (SLWC); Eastern Idaho Railroad, Inc. (EIRR); Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad, Inc. (K&O); Pennsylvania Southwestern Railroad, Inc. (PSWR); Great Northwest Railroad, Inc. (GNR); Kaw River Railroad, Inc. (KRR); Mission Mountain Railroad, Inc. (MMT); Appalachian & Ohio Railroad, Inc. (AO); Mississippi Southern Railroad, Inc. (MSRR); and Yellowstone Valley Railroad, Inc. (YVRR). Applicant states that: (1) The rail lines operated by SKO, PRCC, TIBR, SLWC, EIRR, K&O, PSWR, GNR, KRR, MMT, AO, MSRR, and YVRR do not connect 1 Watco owns 100% of the issued and outstanding stock of LSRR. E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM 07OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58789-58790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20184]


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

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 in accordance with Sec.  
543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention 
Standard, for the Mazda CX-7 vehicle line beginning with model year 
(MY) 2007. 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) 2007.

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 21, 2005, Mazda 
Motor Corporation (Mazda), requested an exemption from the parts-
marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) 
for the Mazda CX-7 vehicle line beginning with MY 2007. 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 line of its vehicle lines per 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. The anti-theft device is a transponder-based, 
electronic, immobilizer system. Mazda will install its antitheft 
device, as standard equipment on its CX-7 vehicle line beginning with 
MY 2007. 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 activated when the driver/operator 
turns off the engine using the properly coded ignition key. When the 
ignition key is turned to the ``ON'' position, the transponder (located 
in the head of the key) transmits a code to an immobilizer control 
module which then communicates with powertrain's electronic control 
module. The vehicle's engine can only be started if the transponder 
code matches the code previously programmed into the immobilizer 
control module. If the code does not match, the engine will be 
disabled. Mazda stated that communications between the immobilizer 
system control function and the powertrains electronic control module 
are encrypted with 18 x 10\18\ different codes, and each transponder is 
hard coded with a unique code at time of manufacture. Mazda also stated 
that its immobilizer system incorporates a light-emitting diode (LED) 
that provides information as to when the system is ``set and ``unset''. 
When the ignition is initially turned to the ``ON'' position, a three-
second continuous LED indicates the proper ``unset'' state of the 
device. When the ignition is turned to ``OFF'', a flashing LED 
indicates the ``set'' state of the system and provides a visual 
confirmation that the vehicle is protected by the immobilizer system. 
The integration of the setting/unsetting device (transponder) into the 
ignition key prevents any inadvertent activation of the system.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 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 also 
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. The components of the immobilizer 
device are tested in climatic, mechanical and chemical environments, 
and, immunity to various electromagnetic radiation. Mazda stated that 
for reliability/durablility purposes, its key and key cylinders must 
also meet unique strength tests against attempts of mechanical 
overriding. The tests 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

[[Page 58790]]

variations, DC stresses, electrostatic discharge, transceiver/key 
strength and transceiver mounting strength. Mazda also stated 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.
    Additionally, 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 
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 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.

    Dated: October 3, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-20184 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P