Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mazda Motor Corporation, 11920-11923 [2024-03105]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
11920
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices
VI. Response to Public Comments and
Agency Decision
FMCSA has evaluated the public
comments and issues this final decision
affirming its provisional decision to
renew the exemption. To date, the
Agency has not received any crash
reports concerning drivers or motor
carriers operating under MPA’s
exemption granted in 2018. For this
reason, the Agency believes that drivers
and motor carriers operating under this
exemption would continue to achieve
an equivalent level of safety. FMCSA
also notes that Congress has recognized
the unique aspects of the motion picture
industry’s operations and has provided
statutory exceptions from some HOS
regulations.1
FMCSA acknowledges that, given the
unique arrangements under which
drivers in the motion picture industry
routinely operate for multiple carriers
over brief periods of time, paper RODS
may prove more efficient than ELDs. In
addition, MPA members are required to
submit their RODS within 24 hours,
rather than waiting for the 13-day
period allowed by 49 CFR
395.8(a)(2)(ii). According to MPA, these
‘‘RODS are reviewed by a third-party
auditing company, resulting in
accelerated reporting of HOS
compliance and an independent
assessment of accuracy.’’ FMCSA
concludes that extending the exemption
for another five years, under the terms
and conditions listed below, will likely
maintain a level of safety that is
equivalent to, or greater than, the level
of safety that would be achieved
without the exemption.
VII. Exemption Decision
A. Grant of Exemption
FMCSA renews the exemption for a
period of five years subject to the terms
and conditions of this decision. The
exemption from the ELD requirement
under 49 CFR 395.8(a), is effective
January 19, 2023, through January 19,
2028, 11:59 p.m. local time, unless
renewed or rescinded.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
B. Applicability of Exemption
The exemption allows all CMV
drivers providing transportation to or
from a theatrical or television motion
picture production site to complete
paper RODS instead of using an ELD.
C. Terms and Conditions
When operating under this
exemption, motor carriers and drivers
1 See Section 4133 of SAFETEA–LU (119
Stat.1744) (set out as a note to 49 U.S.C. 31136).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Feb 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
are subject to the following terms and
conditions:
1. Motor carriers and drivers must
comply with all other applicable
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (49 CFR parts 350 through
399).
2. Drivers operating under this
exemption must submit their RODS to
the motor carrier within 24 hours
instead of the 13-day period otherwise
allowed by 49 CFR 395.8(a)(2)(ii).
3. Drivers must have a copy of this
notice in their possession while
operating under the terms of the
exemption. The exemption document
must be presented to law enforcement
officials upon request.
4. Drivers must not be subject to any
out-of-service order or suspension of
their driving privileges; and
5. Carriers operating under this
exemption may not have an
‘‘Unsatisfactory’’ rating with FMCSA or
be subject to any imminent hazard or
out-of-service orders.
D. Preemption
In accordance with 49 U.S.C.
31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this
exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation applicable
to interstate commerce that conflicts
with or is inconsistent with this
exemption with respect to a firm or
person operating under the exemption.
States may, but are not required to,
adopt the same exemption with respect
to operations in intrastate commerce.
E. Notification to FMCSA
Motor carriers operating under this
exemption must notify FMCSA within
five business days of any crash (as
defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving any
of their CMVs operating under the terms
of the exemption. The notification must
include the following information:
1. Identity of Exemption: ‘‘MPA
2023,’’
2. Name and USDOT number of the
operating motor carrier.
3. Date of the crash.
4. City or town, and State, in which
the accident occurred, or closest to the
accident scene.
5. Driver’s name and license number.
6. Vehicle number and State license
number.
7. Number of individuals suffering
physical injury.
8. Number of fatalities.
9. The police-reported cause of the
crash.
10. Whether the driver was cited for
violation of any traffic laws or motor
carrier safety regulations.
11. The driver’s total driving time and
total on-duty time since the last ten (if
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
operating under 49 CFR 395.3(a)) or
eight (if operating under 49 CFR
395.1(p)) consecutive hours off-duty
prior to the crash.
Reports filed under this provision
shall be emailed to MCPSD@DOT.GOV.
F. Termination
Based on the safety record of drivers
operating under the exemption up to
this point, FMCSA has no basis to
believe the drivers covered by this
renewed exemption will experience any
deterioration of their safety record. The
exemption will be rescinded if (1) motor
carriers and drivers operating under the
exemption fail to comply with the terms
and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level
of safety than was maintained before it
was granted; or (3) continuation of the
exemption would not be consistent with
the goals and objects of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315.
Sue Lawless,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2024–03192 Filed 2–14–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–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).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
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 CX–90 vehicle line beginning in
model year (MY) 2025. 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.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2025 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.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM
15FEN1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices
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
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.
This grant of petition for exemption
considers Mazda Motor Corporation’s
(Mazda) petition for its CX–90 vehicle
line beginning in MY 2025.
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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Feb 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 00113
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11921
exemption for its specified vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of
the theft prevention standard, beginning
in MY 2025. 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
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
3 49
4 49
E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM
CFR 543.6(a)(3).
CFR 543.6(a)(4).
15FEN1
11922
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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.
II. Mazda’s Petition for Exemption
In a petition dated April 21, 2023,
Mazda requested an exemption from the
parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard for its CX–90
vehicle line beginning with MY 2025.
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–90 vehicle line. Mazda stated
that its MY 2025 CX–90 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
5 49
CFR 543.6(a)(5).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Feb 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
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 × 106
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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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; 6 however,
Mazda stated that there is no
comparable data for Mazda’s SUV 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,
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.
NHTSA 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 partsmarking 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 of the
five types of performance features listed
in section 543.6(a)(3): promoting
activation; preventing defeat or
6 See
E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM
85 FR 55368 (Sep. 8, 2020).
15FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 32 / Thursday, February 15, 2024 / Notices
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
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.’’ 7
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby announces a grant in full of
Mazda’s petition for exemption for the
CX–90 vehicle line from the partsmarking requirements of 49 CFR part
541, beginning with its MY 2025
vehicles.
7 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Feb 14, 2024
Jkt 262001
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95, 501.5 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2024–03105 Filed 2–14–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No: PHMSA–2023–0076]
Pipeline Safety: Information Collection
Activities
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the six
information collection requests
abstracted below are being forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and comment. A
Federal Register notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on
the information collections was
published on November 6, 2023.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before March
18, 2024.
ADDRESSES: The public is invited to
submit comments regarding these
information collection requests,
including suggestions for reducing the
burden, to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer
for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, DC 20503. Comments can
also be submitted electronically at
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Angela Hill by telephone at 202–680–
2034 or by email at angela.hill@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations
§ 1320.8(d), requires the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) to provide
interested members of the public and
affected agencies the opportunity to
comment on information collection and
recordkeeping requests before they are
submitted to OMB for approval. In
accordance with this regulation, on
November 6, 2023, PHMSA published a
Federal Register notice (88 FR 76270)
with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on its intent to request
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
11923
OMB’s renewed approval of several
information collection requests that are
due to expire in 2024.
During the 60-day comment period,
PHMSA received one comment from
National Propane Gas Association on a
matter not pertaining to the proposed
renewal of the impacted information
collections.
II. Summary of Impacted Collections
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of
Federal Regulations, requires PHMSA to
provide interested members of the
public and affected entities an
opportunity to comment on information
collection and recordkeeping requests.
PHMSA will request a three-year term of
approval for each of the following
information collection activities.
The following information is provided
for each information collection: (1) Title
of the information collection; (2) OMB
control number; (3) Current expiration
date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of
the information collection activity; (6)
Description of affected public; (7)
Estimate of total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden; and (8)
Frequency of collection.
PHMSA requests comments on the
following:
1. Title: Pipeline Safety: Integrity
Management Program for Gas
Distribution Pipelines.
OMB Control Number: 2137–0625.
Current Expiration Date: 5/31/2024.
Type of Request: Renewal with no
change of a currently approved
collection.
Abstract: The Federal Pipeline Safety
Regulations require operators of gas
distribution pipelines to develop and
implement integrity management (IM)
programs. The purpose of these
programs is to enhance safety by
identifying and reducing pipeline
integrity risks. PHMSA requires that
operators maintain records
demonstrating compliance with these
requirements for 10 years and that these
records must include superseded IM
plans.
Affected Public: Operators of gas
distribution pipeline systems.
Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping
Burden:
Estimated Number of Responses:
3,882.
Estimated Annual Burden Hours:
723,192.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
2. Title: Post-Accident Drug Testing
for Pipeline Operators.
OMB Control Number: 2137–0632.
Current Expiration Date: 8/31/2024.
Type of Request: Renewal with no
change of a currently approved
information collection.
E:\FR\FM\15FEN1.SGM
15FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11920-11923]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03105]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 CX-90 vehicle
line beginning in model year (MY) 2025. 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.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2025 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.
[[Page 11921]]
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 CX-90 vehicle line beginning in
MY 2025.
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 2025. 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 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
[[Page 11922]]
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.
II. Mazda's Petition for Exemption
In a petition dated April 21, 2023, Mazda requested an exemption
from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard
for its CX-90 vehicle line beginning with MY 2025.
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-90 vehicle line. Mazda stated that its MY
2025 CX-90 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; \6\ however, Mazda
stated that there is no comparable data for Mazda's SUV 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, than the parts marking requirements of part 541
in reducing vehicle theft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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.
NHTSA 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 of the five types of performance features listed in section
543.6(a)(3): promoting activation; preventing defeat or
[[Page 11923]]
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.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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 CX-90 vehicle line from
the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with its
MY 2025 vehicles.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95, 501.5 and
501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2024-03105 Filed 2-14-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
