Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; MAZDA, 26448-26450 [E7-8861]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
26448
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 9, 2007 / Notices
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 27,
2007.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 07–2271 Filed 5–8–07; 8:45 am]
delays, improve safety and operations,
and attain an acceptable Level of
Service to meet the existing and
projected traffic volumes within the
project limits. The 13.6-mile project is
located on State Route 99 between
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
Goshen in Tulare County to Kingsburg
in Fresno County, California.
The actions by the Federal agencies
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
and the laws under which such actions
Federal Highway Administration
were taken, are described in the
Environmental Assessment (EA)/
Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions Finding of No Significant Impact
on Proposed Highway in California
(FONSI) for the project, approved on
October 23, 2006 and in other
AGENCY: Federal Highway
documents in the FHWA administrative
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
record. The EA/FONSI and other
ACTION: Notice of limitation on claims
documents are available by contacting
for judicial review of actions by FHWA
FHWA or Caltrans at the addresses
and other Federal agencies.
provided above. The FHWA EA/FONSI
SUMMARY: This notice announces actions can be viewed and downloaded from
taken by the FHWA and other Federal
the project Web site at: https://
agencies that are final within the
www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/environmental/
meaning of 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). The
envdocs/envTulFre99EAIS.pdf.
actions relate to a proposed State Route
This notice applies to all Federal
99 project, Goshen to Kingsburg Sixagency decisions as of the issuance date
Lane Freeway project between kilometer of this notice and all laws under which
posts 66.4 to 86.8 (post miles 41.3 to
such actions were taken, including but
53.9) in Tulare County, and kilometer
not limited to:
posts 0.0 to 1.6 (post miles 0.0/1.0) in
1. General: National Environmental
Fresno County, State of California.
Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321—
Those actions grant approvals for the
4351]; and Federal-Aid Highway Act [23
project.
U.S.C. 109 and 23 U.S.C. 128].
2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C.
DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is
7401—7671(q)].
advising the public of final agency
3. Land: Landscape and Scenic
actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A
Enhancement (Wildflowers) [23 U.S.C.
claim seeking judicial review of the
319].
Federal agency actions on the highway
4. Wetlands and Water Resources:
project will be barred unless the claim
Safe Drinking Water Act [42 U.S.C.
is filed on or before November 5, 2007.
300(f) –300(j)(6)]; and Wetlands
If the Federal law that authorizes
Mitigation [23 U.S.C. 103(b)(6)(m) and
judicial review of a claim provides a
133(b)(11)].
time period of less than 180 days for
5. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act
filing such claim, then that shorter time
[16 U.S.C. 1531—1544 and Section
period still applies.
1536]; Fish and Wildlife Coordination
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Act [16 U.S.C. 661—667(d)]; and
Mayela Sosa, Central Team Leader,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16 U.S.C.
Federal Highway Administration, 650
703—712].
Capitol Mall, #4–100, Sacramento, CA
6. Historic and Cultural Resources:
95814, weekdays 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Section 106 of the National Historic
(Pacific time), telephone (916) 498–
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended
5057; e-mail: mayela.sosa@fhwa.dot.gov
[16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archaeological
or Juergen Vespermann, Senior
and Historic Preservation Act [16 U.S.C.
Environmental Planner, California
469—469c]; Archaeological Resources
Department of Transportation (Caltrans),
Protection Act of 1979 [16 U.S.C. 470aa
2015 E. Shields Avenue, Suite 100,
et seq]; and Native American Graves
Fresno, CA 93726, weekdays 7 a.m. to
Protection and Repatriation Act [25
4 p.m. (Pacific time), telephone (559)
U.S.C. 3001—3013].
243–8157, e-mail:
7. Social and Economic: Civil Rights
juergen_vespermann@dot.ca.gov.
Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)—
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
2000(d)(1)]; Farmland Protection Policy
hereby given that the FHWA and other
Act [7 U.S.C. 4201—4209]; and The
Federal agencies have taken final agency Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
actions by issuing approvals for the
Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as
following State Route 99 project in the
amended.
8. Hazardous Materials:
State of California. The Goshen to
Comprehensive Environmental
Kingsburg Six-Lane Freeway project
Response, Compensation, and Liability
would alleviate traffic congestion and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:12 May 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Act [42 U.S.C. 9601—9675]; Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986; and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act [42 U.S.C. 6901—6992(k)].
9. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990
Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988
Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898
Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income
Populations; E.O. 11593 Protection and
Enhancement of the Cultural
Environment; E.O. 13007 Indian Sacred
Sites; E.O. 13287 Preserve America;
13175 Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments; E.O.
11514 Protection and Enhancement of
Environmental Quality; and E.O. 13112
Invasive Species.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning
and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this
program.)
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1)
Issued on: April 30, 2007.
Maiser Khaled,
Director, Project Development &
Environment, Sacramento, California.
[FR Doc. E7–8806 Filed 5–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard;
MAZDA
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document grants in full
the petition of Mazda Motor
Corporation, (Mazda) in accordance
with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543,
Exemption from the Theft Prevention
Standard, for the Mazda CX–9 vehicle
line beginning with model year (MY)
2008. 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) 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah Mazyck, Office of International
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 9, 2007 / Notices
Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms.
Mazyck’s telephone number is (202)
366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–
2290.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated March 8, 2007, Mazda
requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541)
for the CX–9 vehicle line beginning with
MY 2008. 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 § 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 CX–9 vehicle line
beginning with MY 2008. 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 CX–9 vehicle
line. Mazda will install its passive
antitheft device as standard equipment
on the vehicle line. Features of the
antitheft device will include a
powertrain control module, immobilizer
control module, transceiver and ignition
key. 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.
The antitheft device to be installed on
the MY 2008 Mazda CX–9 is a
transponder-based electronic
immobilizer system. 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 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. 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:12 May 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 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 threesecond 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.
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). The
immobilizer system was installed on the
Ford Mustang vehicle line as standard
equipment in MY 1997. 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
(NCIC) 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 noted that a July 2000
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
news release compared theft loss data
before and after equipping vehicles with
a passive immobilizer device. It showed
an average reduction of about 50 percent
for vehicles with an immobilizer
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. Mazda also
states that its proposed device is reliable
and durable because it does not have
any moving parts, nor does the key
require a separate battery. Any attempt
to slam-pull the ignition lock cylinder,
for example, will have no effect on a
thief’s ability to start the vehicle.
Starting the vehicle is accomplished by
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26449
having the correct ignition key transmit
the correct code to the control module.
Mazda’s proposed device, as well as
other comparable devices that have
received full exemptions from the partsmarking requirements, lacks an audible
or visible alarm. Therefore, the device
cannot perform one of the functions
listed in 49 CFR Part 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 CX–9
vehicle line is likely to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541).
Based on the information Mazda
provided about its device, the agency
concludes that the device will provide
the four 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 Part 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full Mazda’s petition
for exemption for the Mazda CX–9
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 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
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
26450
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 89 / Wednesday, May 9, 2007 / Notices
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.
Issued on: May 3, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E7–8861 Filed 5–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
May 3, 2007.
The Department of the Treasury has
submitted the following public
information collection requirement(s) to
OMB for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. Copies of the
submission(s) may be obtained by
calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance
Officer listed. Comments regarding this
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:12 May 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
information collection should be
addressed to the OMB reviewer listed
and to the Treasury Department
Clearance Officer, Department of the
Treasury, Room 11000, 1750
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
Dates: Written comments should be
received on or before June 8, 2007 to be
assured of consideration.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
OMB Number: 1545–1226.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: FI–59–89 (Final) Proceeds of
Bonds used for Reimbursement.
Description: The rule requires record
maintenance by a state or local
government or section 501(c)(3)
organization issuing tax-exempt bonds
(‘‘Issuer’’) to reimburse itself for
previously-paid expenses. This
recordkeeping will establish that the
issuer had an intent, when it paid an
expense, to later issue a reimbursement
bond.
Respondents: State, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 6,000
hours.
OMB Number: 1545–1708.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: Publication 1345, Handbook for
Authorized IRS e-file Providers.
Description: Publication 1345 informs
those who participate in the IRS e-file
Program for Individual Income Tax
Returns of their obligations to the
Internal Revenue Service, taxpayers,
and other participants.
Respondents: Businesses and other
for-profit institutions.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
3,636,463 hours.
OMB Number: 1545–1734.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: Terminal Operator Report.
Form: 720–TO.
Description: Representatives of the
motor fuel industry, state governments,
and the Federal government are working
to ensure compliance with excise taxes
on motor fuels. This joint effort has
resulted in a system to track the
movement of all products to and from
terminals. Form 720–TO is an
information return that will be used by
terminal operators to report their
monthly receipts and disbursements of
products.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit institutions.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
2,347,020 hours.
OMB Number: 1545–1296.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: PS–27–91 (Final) Procedural
Rules for Excise Taxes Currently
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Reportable on Form 720, PS–8–95
(Final) Deposits of Excise Taxes.
Description: Section 6302(c)
authorizes the use of Government
depositaries. These regulations provide
reporting and recordkeeping rules
relating to the use of Government
depositaries for taxes imposed by
chapter 33 of the Code.
Respondents: Business and other forprofit institutions.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
242,350 hours.
OMB Number: 1545–1850.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: REG–105885–99 (Final),
Compensation Deferred Under Eligible
Deferred Compensation Plans.
Description: REG–105885–99
provides guidance regarding the trust
requirements for certain eligible
deferred compensation plans enacted in
the Small Business Job Protection Act of
1996.
Respondents: State, Local, and Tribal
Governments.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 10,600
hours.
OMB Number: 1545–1461.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: INTL–24–94 (Final) Taxpayer
Identifying Numbers (TINs).
Description: This regulation relates to
requirements for furnishing a taxpayer
identifying number on returns,
statements, or other documents.
Procedures are provided for requesting
a taxpayer identifying number for
certain alien individuals for whom a
social security number is not available.
The regulation also requires foreign
persons to furnish a taxpayer identifying
number on their tax returns.
Respondents: Individuals or
households.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1
hours.
OMB Number: 1545–1117.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: Notice 89–61, Imported
Substances; Rules for Filing a Petition.
Description: The notice sets forth
procedures to be followed in petitioning
the Secretary to modify the list of
taxable substances in section 4672(a)(3).
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit institutions.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 100
hours.
OMB Number: 1545–0041.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: Corporation Dissolution or
Liquidation.
Form: 966.
Description: Form 966 is filed by a
corporation whose shareholders have
agreed to liquidate the corporation. As
a result of the liquidation, the
E:\FR\FM\09MYN1.SGM
09MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26448-26450]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8861]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
CX-9 vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 2008. 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) 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International
[[Page 26449]]
Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's telephone number is
(202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated March 8, 2007, Mazda
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the CX-9 vehicle line
beginning with MY 2008. 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 CX-9 vehicle line beginning
with MY 2008. 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 CX-9 vehicle line. Mazda will install its
passive antitheft device as standard equipment on the vehicle line.
Features of the antitheft device will include a powertrain control
module, immobilizer control module, transceiver and ignition key.
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.
The antitheft device to be installed on the MY 2008 Mazda CX-9 is a
transponder-based electronic immobilizer system. 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 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. 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 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.
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).
The immobilizer system was installed on the Ford Mustang vehicle line
as standard equipment in MY 1997. 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 (NCIC) 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 noted that a July 2000 Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety news release compared theft loss data before and after equipping
vehicles with a passive immobilizer device. It showed an average
reduction of about 50 percent for vehicles with an immobilizer 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. Mazda also states that its
proposed device is reliable and durable because it does not have any
moving parts, nor does the key require a separate battery. Any attempt
to slam-pull the ignition lock cylinder, for example, will have no
effect on a thief's ability to start the vehicle. Starting the vehicle
is accomplished by having the correct ignition key transmit the correct
code to the control module.
Mazda's proposed device, as well as other comparable devices that
have received full exemptions from the parts-marking requirements,
lacks an audible or visible alarm. Therefore, the device cannot perform
one of the functions listed in 49 CFR Part 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 CX-9 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). Based on the information Mazda provided about its
device, the agency concludes that the device will provide the four
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 Part 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Mazda's
petition for exemption for the Mazda CX-9 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 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
[[Page 26450]]
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.
Issued on: May 3, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E7-8861 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
