Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mazda Motor Corporation, 26137-26140 [2021-09983]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
26137
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 12, 2021 / Notices
to the purchaser. FMVSS No. 218, S5.6
requires that each helmet shall be
labeled permanently and legibly in a
manner such that the label(s) can be
read easily without removing padding
or any other permanent part.
Description of the Need for the
Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: The labeling requirement
in the Standard supports the
Department of Transportation’s strategic
goal in safety, by ensuring that
motorcycle helmets are manufactured
and certified to the performance
requirements of the Standard. NHTSA
uses this information for enforcement
purposes to ensure that manufacturers
certify compliance with the Standard.
State and local law enforcement use this
information to enforce helmet-use laws,
For the labor costs associated with the
burden hours for affixing labels to
helmets, NHTSA uses the average wage
of $22.59 per hour for ‘‘Assemblers and
Fabricators’’ (occupational code 51–
2000) published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS).1 BLS estimates that
wages represent approximately 70.2% of
total compensation for private industry
workers.2 Therefore, NHTSA calculates
the labor cost associated with
Assemblers and Fabricators to be $32.18
per hour ($22.59 ÷ 0.702). Multiplying
that hourly rate by the estimated 9,100
labor hours needed to affix labels yields
an estimated total annual labor cost of
$292,838 ($32.18 × 9,100 hours). The
total estimated burden hours and
associated labor costs are detailed in the
table below:
Number of
respondents
(helmet
manufacturers)
Number of
helmets
produced
annually
(per respondent)
(rounded)
Time to
affix
label per
helmet
(seconds)
Estimated
total annual
burden hours
(per respondent)
(rounded)
Total
labor cost
per hour
Labor cost
(per respondent)
Total
burden
hours
(rounded)
Total
labor
cost
45
72,000
10
200
$32.18
$6,500
9,100
$292,838
Estimated Total Annual Burden Cost:
$1,137,500.
The total annual cost to the
respondents is estimated to be
$1,137,500. NHTSA estimates that the
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
and consumers use the information to
make decisions when purchasing
motorcycle helmets.
Affected Public: Motorcycle helmet
manufacturers.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
45.
Frequency: On occasion.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 9,100 hours.
NHTSA estimates that 3,250,000
motorcycle helmets are manufactured
annually by 45 motorcycle helmet
manufacturers. NHTSA also estimates
that 10 seconds are spent labeling each
helmet. Therefore, the estimated total
annual burden hours for the collection
of information required in FMVSS No.
218 is 9,100 hours (3,250,000 × 10
seconds, rounded).
printing and material cost per helmet is
$0.35. The total annual cost to
respondents is calculated by
multiplying the printing and material
cost ($0.35) by the estimated 3,250,000
responses (helmets produced) per year
($0.35 × 3,250,000). The total estimated
annual burden costs are detailed in the
table below:
Number of
respondents
(helmet
manufacturers)
Number of
helmets
produced
annually per
respondent
(rounded)
Printing and
material cost
per helmet
Annual printing
and material cost
per manufacturer
(rounded)
Total number
of helmets
produced annually
Estimated total
annual printing
and material
costs
45
72,000
$0.35
$25,200.00
3,250,000
$1,137,500.00
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspects of this
information collection, including (a)
whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the Department’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
information collection; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility and clarity
of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended;
49 CFR 1.49; and DOT Order 1351.29.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2021–09985 Filed 5–11–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Mazda Motor Corporation
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
AGENCY:
1 May 2019 National Industry-Specific
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates,
NAICS 336100—Motor Vehicle Manufacturing,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 May 11, 2021
Jkt 253001
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_
336100.htm#51-0000.
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full
the Mazda Motor Corporation (Mazda)
petition for exemption from the Federal
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (theft prevention standard) for
its confidential vehicle line beginning in
model year (MY) 2023. The 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 partsmarking requirements of the theft
prevention standard. Mazda also
requested confidential treatment for
specific information in its petition.
Therefore, no confidential information
provided for purposes of this notice has
been disclosed.
SUMMARY:
2 Table 1. Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation by ownership, September 2020,
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm.
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
26138
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 12, 2021 / Notices
The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2023 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carlita Ballard, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer
Programs, NHTSA, West Building,
W43–439, NRM–310, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Ms.
Ballard’s phone number is (202) 366–
5222. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49
U.S.C. Chapter 331, the Secretary of
Transportation (and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) by delegation) is required to
promulgate a theft prevention standard
to provide for the identification of
certain motor vehicles and their major
replacement parts to impede motor
vehicle theft. NHTSA promulgated
regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft
prevention standard) to require partsmarking for specified passenger motor
vehicles and light trucks. Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 33106, manufacturers that are
subject to the parts-marking
requirements may petition NHTSA, by
delegation, for an exemption for a line
of passenger motor vehicles equipped
with an antitheft device as standard
equipment that NHTSA decides is likely
to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements. In accordance with this
statute, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR
part 543, which establishes the process
through which manufacturers may seek
an exemption from the theft prevention
standard.
49 CFR 543.5 provides general
submission requirements for petitions
and states that each manufacturer may
petition NHTSA for an exemption of
one vehicle line per model year. Among
other requirements, manufacturers must
identify whether the exemption is
sought under section 543.6 or section
543.7. Under section 543.6, a
manufacturer may request an exemption
by providing specific information about
the antitheft device, its capabilities, and
the reasons the petitioner believes the
device to be as effective at reducing and
deterring theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. Section
543.7 permits a manufacturer to request
an exemption under a more streamlined
process if the vehicle line is equipped
with an antitheft device (an
‘‘immobilizer’’) as standard equipment
that complies with one of the standards
specified in that section.1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
DATES:
1 49 CFR 543.7 specifies that the manufacturer
must include a statement that their entire vehicle
line is equipped with an immobilizer that meets
one of the following standards:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 May 11, 2021
Jkt 253001
Section 543.8 establishes
requirements for processing petitions for
exemption from the theft prevention
standard. As stated in section 543.8(a),
NHTSA processes any complete
exemption petition. If NHTSA receives
an incomplete petition, NHTSA will
notify the petitioner of the deficiencies.
Once NHTSA receives a complete
petition the agency will process it and,
in accordance with section 543.8(b),
will grant the petition 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.
Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to
issue its decision either to grant or to
deny an exemption petition not later
than 120 days after the date on which
a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA
does not make a decision within the
120-day period, the petition shall be
deemed to be approved and the
manufacturer shall be exempt from the
standard for the line covered by the
petition for the subsequent model year.2
Exemptions granted under part 543
apply only to the vehicle line or lines
that are subject to the grant and that are
equipped with the antitheft device on
which the line’s exemption was based,
and are effective for the model year
beginning after the model year in which
NHTSA issues the notice of exemption,
unless the notice of exemption specifies
a later year.
Sections 543.8(f) and (g) apply to the
manner in which NHTSA’s decisions on
petitions are to be made known. Under
section 543.8(f), if the petition is sought
under section 543.6, NHTSA publishes
a notice of its decision to grant or deny
the exemption petition in the Federal
Register and notifies the petitioner in
writing. Under section 543.8(g), if the
petition is sought under section 543.7,
NHTSA notifies the petitioner in writing
of the agency’s decision to grant or deny
the exemption petition.
(1) The performance criteria (subsections 8
through 21) of C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection
and Rollaway Prevention (in effect March 30, 2011),
as excerpted in appendix A of [part 543];
(2) National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC–
S338–98, Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment
and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998);
(3) United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97),
Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval of Vehicle
Alarm System (VAS) and Motor Vehicles with
Regard to Their Alarm System (AS) in effect August
8, 2007; or
(4) UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116),
Uniform Technical Prescriptions Concerning the
Protection of Motor Vehicles Against Unauthorized
Use in effect on February 10, 2009.
2 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
This grant of petition for exemption
considers Mazda Motor Corporation’s
(Mazda) petition for its confidential
vehicle line beginning in MY 2023.
Mazda’s petition is granted under 49
U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.8(c),
which state that if the Secretary of
Transportation (NHTSA, by delegation)
does not make a decision about a
petition within 120 days of the petition
submission, the petition shall be
deemed to be approved and the
manufacturer shall be exempt from the
standard for the line covered by the
petition for the subsequent model year.
Separately, based on the information
provided in Mazda’s petition, NHTSA
has determined that the antitheft device
to be placed on its vehicle 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.
I. Specific Petition Content
Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6
Pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,
Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention, Mazda petitioned for an
exemption for its specified vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of
the theft prevention standard, beginning
in MY 2023. Mazda petitioned under 49
CFR 543.6, Petition: Specific content
requirements, which, as described
above, requires manufacturers to
provide specific information about the
antitheft device installed as standard
equipment on all vehicles in the line for
which an exemption is sought, the
antitheft device’s capabilities, and the
reasons the petitioner believes the
device to be as effective at reducing and
deterring theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements.
More specifically, section 543.6(a)(1)
requires petitions to include a statement
that an antitheft device will be installed
as standard equipment on all vehicles in
the line for which the exemption is
sought. Under section 543.6(a)(2), each
petition must list each component in the
antitheft system, and include a diagram
showing the location of each of those
components within the vehicle. As
required by section 543.6(a)(3), each
petition must include an explanation of
the means and process by which the
device is activated and functions,
including any aspect of the device
designed to: (1) Facilitate or encourage
its activation by motorists; (2) attract
attention to the efforts of an
unauthorized person to enter or move a
vehicle by means other than a key; (3)
prevent defeating or circumventing the
device by an unauthorized person
attempting to enter a vehicle by means
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 12, 2021 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
other than a key; (4) prevent the
operation of a vehicle which an
unauthorized person has entered using
means other than a key; and (5) ensure
the reliability and durability of the
device.3
In addition to providing information
about the antitheft device and its
functionality, petitioners must also
submit the reasons for their belief that
the antitheft device will be effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft, including any theft data and other
data that are available to the petitioner
and form a basis for that belief,4 and the
reasons for their belief that the agency
should determine that the antitheft
device is likely to be as effective as
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of part 541 in reducing
and deterring motor vehicle theft. In
support of this belief, the petitioners
should include any statistical data that
are available to the petitioner and form
the basis for the petitioner’s belief that
a line of passenger motor vehicles
equipped with the antitheft device is
likely to have a theft rate equal to or less
than that of passenger motor vehicles of
the same, or a similar, line which have
parts marked in compliance with part
541.5
The following sections describe
Mazda’s petition information provided
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption
from Vehicle Theft Prevention. To the
extent that specific information in
Mazda’s petition is subject to a properly
filed confidentiality request, that
information was not disclosed as part of
this notice.6
II. Mazda’s Petition for Exemption
In a petition dated November 26,
2020, Mazda requested an exemption
from the parts-marking requirements of
the theft prevention standard for its
confidential vehicle line beginning with
MY 2023.
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 confidential vehicle line. Mazda
stated that its MY 2023 confidential
vehicle line will be installed with a
passive, transponder based, electronic
engine immobilizer antitheft device as
standard equipment. Key components of
its antitheft device will include a
powertrain control module (PCM),
immobilizer control module, security
indicator light, coil antenna, transmitter
with transponder key (transponder key),
3 49
CFR 543.6(a)(3).
CFR 543.6(a)(4).
5 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5).
6 49 CFR 512.20(a).
4 49
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 May 11, 2021
Jkt 253001
low frequency (LF) antenna, radio
frequency (RF) receiver and a low
frequency unit (LFU). The device will
not provide any visible or audible
indication of unauthorized vehicle entry
(i.e., flashing lights or horn alarm) as
standard equipment; however, Mazda
stated that its device will incorporate a
security indicator light which will
provide a visual confirmation on the
protection status of the antitheft device.
Pursuant to section 543.6(a)(3), Mazda
explained that there are two methods of
initiating the antitheft device operation
process. Specifically, Mazda stated that
the immobilizer system monitors two
codes: (1) The transponder code, which
the immobilizer control module checks
with the transponder located in the
transmitter; and (2) the immobilizer
code, which the immobilizer control
module checks with the powertrain’s
electronic control module. Mazda also
stated that there are two means of
checking the transponder code: (1)
When the immobilizer control module
communicates with the transmitter
which includes a transponder by LF
antenna and receives a reply of
transmitter in the RF receiver; and (2)
when the immobilizer control module
communicates with the transponder by
coil antenna which is located in the
push button start. If the transponder
code matches with the immobilizer
control module by either method
mentioned above, and the ignition is
turned to the ON position, the
immobilizer control module checks the
powertrain’s electronic control module
with immobilizer code. Mazda further
stated that the vehicle’s engine can only
be started if the immobilizer code
matches the code previously
programmed into the immobilizer
control module. If the immobilizer code
does not match, the engine will be
disabled. Communications between the
immobilizer system control function
and the powertrain’s electronic control
module are encrypted. Mazda also
stated that there are more than 15 x 10 6
different transponder codes, and each
transponder is hard coded with a
unique code at the time of manufacture.
As required in section 543.6(a)(3)(v),
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 provided a
detailed list of the tests conducted (i.e.,
low/high temperature exposure
operation, high temperature endurance,
thermal cycling, thermal shock
resistance, thermal shock endurance,
humidity temperature cycling, high
temperature and humidity endurance,
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26139
water, dust, vibration, connector and
lead/lock strength, chemical resistance,
electromagnetic field, power line
variations, DC stresses, electrostatic
discharge and push button start
strength) and stated that it believes the
device is reliable and durable since it
complied with its own specified
requirements for each test. Additionally,
Mazda stated that its device is extremely
reliable and durable because it is
computer-based and does not rely on
any mechanical or moving parts. Mazda
further stated that any attempt to slampull its vehicle’s ignition will have no
effect on a thief’s ability to start the
vehicle without the correct code being
transmitted to the electronic control
modules.
Mazda provided data from the
Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI),
National Crime Information Center
(NCIC), and Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) 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. Specifically, Mazda
stated that its device was installed on
certain MY 1996 Ford vehicles as
standard equipment, (i.e., all Ford
Mustang GT and Cobra models, Ford
Taurus LX, and SHO models and Ford
Sable LS models). In MY 1997, Mazda
installed its immobilizer device on the
entire Ford Mustang vehicle line as
standard equipment. When comparing
1995 model year Mustang vehicle thefts
(without immobilizers) with MY 1997
Mustang vehicle thefts (with
immobilizers), Mazda referenced the
National Crime Information Center’s
(NCIC) theft information which showed
that 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 recognized that NHTSA
requested data for vehicle sets that are
as similar as possible to the vehicle for
which the petition is written; 7 however,
Mazda stated that there is no
comparable data for a Mazda vehicle of
the same body style before and after the
implementation of an immobilizer
system, because all of Mazda’s similar
vehicles have been equipped with a
standard immobilizer from the onset of
manufacture. In light of these
considerations, Mazda stated that the
NCIC and HLDI data provided
supported its belief that the immobilizer
system described in its petition will
prove to be as, if not more effective,
7 See
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
85 FR 55368 (Sep. 8, 2020).
12MYN1
26140
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 12, 2021 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
than the parts marking requirements of
part 541 in reducing vehicle theft.
III. Decision To Grant the Petition
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49
CFR 543.8(b), the agency grants a
petition for exemption from the partsmarking 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 or if deemed
approved under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d). As
discussed above, in this case, Mazda’s
petition is granted under 49 U.S.C.
33106(d).
However, separately, NHTSA also
finds that Mazda has provided adequate
reasons for its belief that the antitheft
device for its 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. This
conclusion is based on the information
Mazda provided about its antitheft
device. NHTSA believes, based on
Mazda’s supporting evidence, that the
antitheft device described for its 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.
The agency concludes that Mazda’s
antitheft device will provide four types
of performance features listed in section
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.
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 543.8(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 its requested vehicle line,
the manufacturer must formally notify
the agency. If such a decision is made,
the line must be fully marked as
required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 May 11, 2021
Jkt 253001
(marking of major component parts and
replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if a manufacturer
to which an exemption has been granted
wishes in the future to modify the
device on which the exemption is
based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption.
Section 543.8(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, section 543.10(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 the
exemption.’’ 8
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby announces a grant in full of
Mazda’s petition for exemption for the
confidential vehicle line from the partsmarking requirements of 49 CFR part
541, beginning with its MY 2023
vehicles.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2021–09983 Filed 5–11–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption from the
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; North American Subaru,
INC.
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
This document grants in full
the North American Subaru, Inc.’s
(Subaru) petition for exemption from
the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard (theft prevention
standard) for its Toyota GR 86 vehicle
line beginning in model year (MY) 2022.
The petition is granted because the
agency has determined that the antitheft
SUMMARY:
8 The agency wishes to minimize the
administrative burden that section 543.10(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 a manufacturer with an
exemption 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00143
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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. Subaru also
requested confidential treatment for
specific information in its petition.
Therefore, no confidential information
provided for purposes of this notice has
been disclosed.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2022 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carlita Ballard, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer
Programs, NHTSA, West Building,
W43–439, NRM–310, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Ms.
Ballard’s phone number is (202) 366–
5222. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49
U.S.C. Chapter 331, the Secretary of
Transportation (and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) by delegation) is required to
promulgate a theft prevention standard
to provide for the identification of
certain motor vehicles and their major
replacement parts to impede motor
vehicle theft. NHTSA promulgated
regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft
prevention standard) to require partsmarking for specified passenger motor
vehicles and light trucks. Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 33106, manufacturers that are
subject to the parts-marking
requirements may petition NHTSA, by
delegation, for an exemption for a line
of passenger motor vehicles equipped
with an antitheft device as standard
equipment that NHTSA decides is likely
to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements. In accordance with this
statute, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR
part 543, which establishes the process
through which manufacturers may seek
an exemption from the theft prevention
standard.
49 CFR 543.5 provides general
submission requirements for petitions
and states that each manufacturer may
petition NHTSA for an exemption of
one vehicle line per model year. Among
other requirements, manufacturers must
identify whether the exemption is
sought under section 543.6 or section
543.7. Under section 543.6, a
manufacturer may request an exemption
by providing specific information about
the antitheft device, its capabilities, and
the reasons the petitioner believes the
device to be as effective at reducing and
deterring theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. Section
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26137-26140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09983]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; Mazda Motor Corporation
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Mazda Motor Corporation
(Mazda) petition for exemption from the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard (theft prevention standard) for its confidential
vehicle line beginning in model year (MY) 2023. The 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. Mazda also
requested confidential treatment for specific information in its
petition. Therefore, no confidential information provided for purposes
of this notice has been disclosed.
[[Page 26138]]
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2023 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, NRM-310, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is
(202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331, the Secretary
of Transportation (and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) by delegation) is required to promulgate a theft
prevention standard to provide for the identification of certain motor
vehicles and their major replacement parts to impede motor vehicle
theft. NHTSA promulgated regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft
prevention standard) to require parts-marking for specified passenger
motor vehicles and light trucks. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106,
manufacturers that are subject to the parts-marking requirements may
petition NHTSA, by delegation, for an exemption for a line of passenger
motor vehicles equipped with an antitheft device as standard equipment
that NHTSA decides is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements. In accordance with this statute, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR
part 543, which establishes the process through which manufacturers may
seek an exemption from the theft prevention standard.
49 CFR 543.5 provides general submission requirements for petitions
and states that each manufacturer may petition NHTSA for an exemption
of one vehicle line per model year. Among other requirements,
manufacturers must identify whether the exemption is sought under
section 543.6 or section 543.7. Under section 543.6, a manufacturer may
request an exemption by providing specific information about the
antitheft device, its capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner
believes the device to be as effective at reducing and deterring theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements. Section 543.7
permits a manufacturer to request an exemption under a more streamlined
process if the vehicle line is equipped with an antitheft device (an
``immobilizer'') as standard equipment that complies with one of the
standards specified in that section.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 CFR 543.7 specifies that the manufacturer must include a
statement that their entire vehicle line is equipped with an
immobilizer that meets one of the following standards:
(1) The performance criteria (subsections 8 through 21) of
C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention (in
effect March 30, 2011), as excerpted in appendix A of [part 543];
(2) National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, Automobile
Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization
(May 1998);
(3) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE)
Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97), Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval
of Vehicle Alarm System (VAS) and Motor Vehicles with Regard to
Their Alarm System (AS) in effect August 8, 2007; or
(4) UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116), Uniform Technical
Prescriptions Concerning the Protection of Motor Vehicles Against
Unauthorized Use in effect on February 10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 543.8 establishes requirements for processing petitions for
exemption from the theft prevention standard. As stated in section
543.8(a), NHTSA processes any complete exemption petition. If NHTSA
receives an incomplete petition, NHTSA will notify the petitioner of
the deficiencies. Once NHTSA receives a complete petition the agency
will process it and, in accordance with section 543.8(b), will grant
the petition 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.
Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to issue its decision either to
grant or to deny an exemption petition not later than 120 days after
the date on which a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA does not make
a decision within the 120-day period, the petition shall be deemed to
be approved and the manufacturer shall be exempt from the standard for
the line covered by the petition for the subsequent model year.\2\
Exemptions granted under part 543 apply only to the vehicle line or
lines that are subject to the grant and that are equipped with the
antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based, and are
effective for the model year beginning after the model year in which
NHTSA issues the notice of exemption, unless the notice of exemption
specifies a later year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 543.8(f) and (g) apply to the manner in which NHTSA's
decisions on petitions are to be made known. Under section 543.8(f), if
the petition is sought under section 543.6, NHTSA publishes a notice of
its decision to grant or deny the exemption petition in the Federal
Register and notifies the petitioner in writing. Under section
543.8(g), if the petition is sought under section 543.7, NHTSA notifies
the petitioner in writing of the agency's decision to grant or deny the
exemption petition.
This grant of petition for exemption considers Mazda Motor
Corporation's (Mazda) petition for its confidential vehicle line
beginning in MY 2023. Mazda's petition is granted under 49 U.S.C. 33106
and 49 CFR 543.8(c), which state that if the Secretary of
Transportation (NHTSA, by delegation) does not make a decision about a
petition within 120 days of the petition submission, the petition shall
be deemed to be approved and the manufacturer shall be exempt from the
standard for the line covered by the petition for the subsequent model
year. Separately, based on the information provided in Mazda's
petition, NHTSA has determined that the antitheft device to be placed
on its vehicle 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.
I. Specific Petition Content Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6
Pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention, Mazda petitioned for an exemption for its specified vehicle
line from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention
standard, beginning in MY 2023. Mazda petitioned under 49 CFR 543.6,
Petition: Specific content requirements, which, as described above,
requires manufacturers to provide specific information about the
antitheft device installed as standard equipment on all vehicles in the
line for which an exemption is sought, the antitheft device's
capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner believes the device to be
as effective at reducing and deterring theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements.
More specifically, section 543.6(a)(1) requires petitions to
include a statement that an antitheft device will be installed as
standard equipment on all vehicles in the line for which the exemption
is sought. Under section 543.6(a)(2), each petition must list each
component in the antitheft system, and include a diagram showing the
location of each of those components within the vehicle. As required by
section 543.6(a)(3), each petition must include an explanation of the
means and process by which the device is activated and functions,
including any aspect of the device designed to: (1) Facilitate or
encourage its activation by motorists; (2) attract attention to the
efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means
other than a key; (3) prevent defeating or circumventing the device by
an unauthorized person attempting to enter a vehicle by means
[[Page 26139]]
other than a key; (4) prevent the operation of a vehicle which an
unauthorized person has entered using means other than a key; and (5)
ensure the reliability and durability of the device.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to providing information about the antitheft device and
its functionality, petitioners must also submit the reasons for their
belief that the antitheft device will be effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft, including any theft data and other data
that are available to the petitioner and form a basis for that
belief,\4\ and the reasons for their belief that the agency should
determine that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541 in reducing
and deterring motor vehicle theft. In support of this belief, the
petitioners should include any statistical data that are available to
the petitioner and form the basis for the petitioner's belief that a
line of passenger motor vehicles equipped with the antitheft device is
likely to have a theft rate equal to or less than that of passenger
motor vehicles of the same, or a similar, line which have parts marked
in compliance with part 541.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4).
\5\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections describe Mazda's petition information
provided pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention. To the extent that specific information in Mazda's petition
is subject to a properly filed confidentiality request, that
information was not disclosed as part of this notice.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 49 CFR 512.20(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Mazda's Petition for Exemption
In a petition dated November 26, 2020, Mazda requested an exemption
from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard
for its confidential vehicle line beginning with MY 2023.
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 confidential vehicle line. Mazda stated that
its MY 2023 confidential vehicle line will be installed with a passive,
transponder based, electronic engine immobilizer antitheft device as
standard equipment. Key components of its antitheft device will include
a powertrain control module (PCM), immobilizer control module, security
indicator light, coil antenna, transmitter with transponder key
(transponder key), low frequency (LF) antenna, radio frequency (RF)
receiver and a low frequency unit (LFU). The device will not provide
any visible or audible indication of unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e.,
flashing lights or horn alarm) as standard equipment; however, Mazda
stated that its device will incorporate a security indicator light
which will provide a visual confirmation on the protection status of
the antitheft device.
Pursuant to section 543.6(a)(3), Mazda explained that there are two
methods of initiating the antitheft device operation process.
Specifically, Mazda stated that the immobilizer system monitors two
codes: (1) The transponder code, which the immobilizer control module
checks with the transponder located in the transmitter; and (2) the
immobilizer code, which the immobilizer control module checks with the
powertrain's electronic control module. Mazda also stated that there
are two means of checking the transponder code: (1) When the
immobilizer control module communicates with the transmitter which
includes a transponder by LF antenna and receives a reply of
transmitter in the RF receiver; and (2) when the immobilizer control
module communicates with the transponder by coil antenna which is
located in the push button start. If the transponder code matches with
the immobilizer control module by either method mentioned above, and
the ignition is turned to the ON position, the immobilizer control
module checks the powertrain's electronic control module with
immobilizer code. Mazda further stated that the vehicle's engine can
only be started if the immobilizer code matches the code previously
programmed into the immobilizer control module. If the immobilizer code
does not match, the engine will be disabled. Communications between the
immobilizer system control function and the powertrain's electronic
control module are encrypted. Mazda also stated that there are more
than 15 x 10 \6\ different transponder codes, and each transponder is
hard coded with a unique code at the time of manufacture.
As required in section 543.6(a)(3)(v), 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 provided a detailed list of the
tests conducted (i.e., low/high temperature exposure operation, high
temperature endurance, thermal cycling, thermal shock resistance,
thermal shock endurance, humidity temperature cycling, high temperature
and humidity endurance, water, dust, vibration, connector and lead/lock
strength, chemical resistance, electromagnetic field, power line
variations, DC stresses, electrostatic discharge and push button start
strength) and stated that it believes the device is reliable and
durable since it complied with its own specified requirements for each
test. Additionally, Mazda stated that its device is extremely reliable
and durable because it is computer-based and does not rely on any
mechanical or moving parts. Mazda further stated that any attempt to
slam-pull its vehicle's ignition will have no effect on a thief's
ability to start the vehicle without the correct code being transmitted
to the electronic control modules.
Mazda provided data from the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI),
National Crime Information Center (NCIC), and Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) 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.
Specifically, Mazda stated that its device was installed on certain MY
1996 Ford vehicles as standard equipment, (i.e., all Ford Mustang GT
and Cobra models, Ford Taurus LX, and SHO models and Ford Sable LS
models). In MY 1997, Mazda installed its immobilizer device on the
entire Ford Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment. When comparing
1995 model year Mustang vehicle thefts (without immobilizers) with MY
1997 Mustang vehicle thefts (with immobilizers), Mazda referenced the
National Crime Information Center's (NCIC) theft information which
showed that 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 recognized that
NHTSA requested data for vehicle sets that are as similar as possible
to the vehicle for which the petition is written; \7\ however, Mazda
stated that there is no comparable data for a Mazda vehicle of the same
body style before and after the implementation of an immobilizer
system, because all of Mazda's similar vehicles have been equipped with
a standard immobilizer from the onset of manufacture. In light of these
considerations, Mazda stated that the NCIC and HLDI data provided
supported its belief that the immobilizer system described in its
petition will prove to be as, if not more effective,
[[Page 26140]]
than the parts marking requirements of part 541 in reducing vehicle
theft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 85 FR 55368 (Sep. 8, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Decision To Grant the Petition
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.8(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 or if deemed
approved under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d). As discussed above, in this case,
Mazda's petition is granted under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
However, separately, NHTSA also finds that Mazda has provided
adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for its
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. This conclusion is based on the
information Mazda provided about its antitheft device. NHTSA believes,
based on Mazda's supporting evidence, that the antitheft device
described for its 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.
The agency concludes that Mazda's antitheft device will provide
four types of performance features listed in section 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.
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 543.8(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 its requested vehicle
line, the manufacturer must formally notify the agency. If such a
decision is made, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR
541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement
parts).
NHTSA notes that if a manufacturer to which an exemption has been
granted wishes in the future to modify the device on which the
exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify
the exemption. Section 543.8(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, section 543.10(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 the
exemption.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that
section 543.10(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 a manufacturer with an exemption 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby announces a grant in
full of Mazda's petition for exemption for the confidential vehicle
line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning
with its MY 2023 vehicles.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2021-09983 Filed 5-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
