Vol. 141, No. 23 — November 14, 2007

Registration
SOR/2007-246 November 1, 2007

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT

Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention — Standard 114)

P.C. 2007-1671 November 1, 2007

Whereas, pursuant to subsection 11(3) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (see footnote a), a copy of the proposed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention — Standard 114), substantially in the form set out in the annexed Regulations, was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on March 3, 2007 and a reasonable opportunity was thereby afforded to interested persons to make representations to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities with respect to the proposed Regulations;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, pursuant to section 5 (see footnote b) and subsection 11(1) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (see footnote c), hereby makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention — Standard 114).

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY REGULATIONS (THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLAWAY PREVENTION — STANDARD 114)

AMENDMENTS

1. The portion of item 114 of Schedule III to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (see footnote 1) in Column II is replaced by the following:

Column I Item (CMVSS)	Column II Description
114	Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention

2. (1) Paragraph 102(3)(a) of Schedule IV to the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(a) the ignition switch is set to the position where the transmission can be shifted; or

(2) Subsections 102(4) and (5) of Schedule IV to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(4) Subject to subsection (5), if the transmission control sequence does not include a park position, the identification of the transmission control positions and the position selected shall be displayed in at least a single location in view of the driver when the ignition switch is set to the position where the engine is capable of operation.

(5) The identification of transmission control positions need not be displayed when the ignition switch is set to the position used to start the vehicle.

3. Section 114 of Schedule IV to the Regulations and the headings before it are replaced by the following:

Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention (Standard 114)

114. (1) With the exception of a walk-in van, every passenger car, every three-wheeled vehicle, and every multi-purpose passenger vehicle and truck with a GVWR of 4 536 kg or less shall conform to the requirements of Technical Standards Document No. 114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention (TSD 114), as amended from time to time.

(2) The term "self-mobility" in TSD 114 means movement of a vehicle under its own power.

(3) Subsection (1) expires on January 1, 2010.

Immobilization System

(4) With the exception of a walk-in van and an emergency vehicle, every passenger car, every three-wheeled vehicle, and every multi-purpose passenger vehicle and truck with a GVWR of 4 536 kg or less shall be equipped with an immobilization system that meets one of the following sets of requirements as modified by subsection (5), (6) or (7):

(a) section 3, subsection 4.3, sections 6 to 10 and subsections 12.1, 12.2 and 12.16 of National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, entitled Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998), published by the Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada;

(b) the general and particular specifications of an immobilizer that are set out in Part III of ECE Regulation No. 97, entitled Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicle Alarm Systems (VAS) and of Motor Vehicles with Regard to Their Alarm Systems (AS), as revised on October 14, 2002; or

(c) the general and particular specifications of an immobilizer that are set out in Part IV of ECE Regulation No. 116, entitled Uniform Technical Prescriptions Concerning the Protection of Motor Vehicles Against Unauthorized Use, as revised on March 6, 2006.

(5) The requirements set out in National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98 are modified as follows:

(a) the requirements respecting non-OEM systems as defined in section 2, respecting local noise regulations and respecting radio frequency interference immunity do not apply; and

(b) a reference to a "manufacturer of an electronic immobilization system" is to be read as a reference to a "manufacturer".

(6) The requirements set out in Part III of ECE Regulation No. 97 are modified as follows:

(a) the aftermarket, type approval and radio emission requirements do not apply;

(b) for the purposes of section 31.7, the word "rapidly" means less than 5 minutes and the words "time consuming" mean at least 5 minutes;

(c) despite any statement to the contrary in sections 31.10 and 31.11, the immobilization system shall not have any impact on the vehicle's brake system; and

(d) for the purposes of section 32.4.1, the expression "maximum of 5 minutes" is replaced by the expression "a maximum of 1 minute".

(7) The requirements set out in Part IV of ECE Regulation No. 116 are modified as follows:

(a) the aftermarket, type approval and radio emission requirements do not apply;

(b) for the purposes of section 8.2.7, the word "rapidly" means less than 5 minutes and the expression "time consuming" means at least 5 minutes;

(c) despite any statement to the contrary in sections 8.2.10 and 8.2.11, the immobilization system shall not have any impact on the vehicle's brake system; and

(d) for the purposes of section 8.3.4.1, the expression "maximum of 5 minutes" is replaced by the expression "a maximum of 1 minute".

(8) A vehicle equipped with an immobilization system shall be accompanied by the following written information:

(a) instructions for operating and maintaining the system; and

(b) a warning not to leave in the vehicle a device or a combination that disarms or deactivates the system.

(9) The information shall be provided in English, French or both official languages, as requested by the first retail purchaser.

COMING INTO FORCE

4. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Description

This amendment harmonizes the requirements of the Canadian safety standard for theft protection and rollaway prevention with those of the United States. The amendment is required as the United States has published Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, which specifies vehicle performance requirements, intended to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from theft and accidental rollaway of motor vehicles. These modifications result from technical advances in vehicle design with a corresponding update of terminology to include modern technology. These modifications are not intended to impose any new substantive requirements on vehicle manufacturers.

The previous Canadian safety standard required vehicles to be fitted with a conventional key and to be equipped with a steering lock when a transmission override option was installed. Revisions to the United States safety standard have updated requirements, eliminated the need to use a conventional key, and eliminated the need to install a steering lock. Consequently, to harmonize the Canadian and United States safety standards, this amendment introduces a new definition for the term "key"; provides additional key removal and transmission override options; and harmonizes the steering lock requirements and test procedures with regards to vehicle motion.

The introduction of the United States requirements is completed by incorporating by reference a new Technical Standard Document (TSD) 114. The new TSD 114 reproduces the United States requirements, as amended from time to time, with certain adaptations. The Regulations also maintain the requirement that, starting September 1, 2007, most new vehicles be equipped with theft immobilization systems.

This amendment also adds a new compliance option for immobilization systems (Part IV of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation No. 116) and clarifies test requirements of the Canadian safety standard by removing performance tests concerning environmental durability and electrical testing.

If Canada did not harmonize with the published United States amendments and did not update the immobilization requirements, the sale of some vehicles would be prevented in Canada and there could be increases in manufacturing costs. Harmonizing with the United States and updating immobilization requirements is expected to improve vehicle safety.

Background

In Canada, section 114 of Schedule IV to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114) herein referred to as Canadian safety standard, governs the design and performance of locking and immobilization systems. The previous standard required every vehicle built for sale in Canada to be equipped with a key-operated locking system and, starting September 1, 2007, required every non-emergency vehicle to be equipped with an immobilization system. The Canadian safety standard does not apply to a vehicle that has a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg or more or to a walk-in van.

The previous Canadian safety standard included the following test conditions and requirements:

• a vehicle must be equipped with a key-operated locking system that:
  
  
  • when the key is removed, prevents the activation of the vehicle engine or main power source and steering or the forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both; and
    
    
  • if an automatic transmission control is used, prevents the removal of the key unless the transmission or the transmission control is locked in the park position.
    
    
• a vehicle that is equipped with an automatic transmission may be equipped with an overriding device that:
  
  
  • allows the removal of the key if it meets certain requirements; and
    
    
  • allows the unlocking of the transmission or transmission control if it meets certain requirements.
    
    
• a vehicle must not move more than 150 mm on a 10 per cent grade when the transmission or transmission control is locked in the park position;
  
  
• a warning to the driver of the vehicle must be activated whenever the key has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened; and
  
  
• starting September 1, 2007, all vehicles with a GVWR of less than 4,536 kg, except walk-in vans and emergency vehicles, must be equipped with an immobilization system that, at the option of the manufacturer, meets one of the following standards:
  
  
  • National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, entitled Standard for Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization; (see footnote 2) or
    
    
  • Part III of ECE Regulation No. 97, entitled Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicle Alarm Systems (VAS) and of Motor Vehicles with Regard to Their Alarm Systems (AS). (see footnote 3)

In the United States, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 114, (see footnote 4) herein referred to as the United States safety standard, specifies vehicle performance requirements intended to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from theft and accidental rollaway of motor vehicles. This standard takes into account technical advances in vehicle design with a corresponding update of terminology to include modern technology.

Description of the amendments

Definition

The definition of the term "key" was revised in the United States safety standard to make it appropriate for conventional and newer designs of electronic codes as a means of unlocking and operating a vehicle. The definition states that "key" means a physical device or an electronic code which, when inserted into the starting system (by physical or electronic means), enables the vehicle operator to activate the engine or motor. The Canadian regulations did not include a definition of the term "key".

This amendment introduces the same definition of "key" in Canada through TSD 114. This definition clarifies and alleviates interpretation issues. It permits the sale and manufacturing of vehicles equipped with conventional key, electronic code and other technologies as long as they meet all safety requirements specified in this amendment.

Warning

The United States safety standard, like the previous Canadian safety standard, mandates that a warning to the vehicle operator be activated whenever the key is in the starting system and the door closest to the driver is opened. The United States safety standard also specifies that the warning must be audible.

By adopting the same United States requirement for an audible signal, safety is increased and property damage reduced as this feature will help prevent the key from being forgotten or left in the ignition, thus increasing the opportunity for vehicle theft.

Key removal override option

The United States safety standards, like the previous Canadian safety standard, allows the option of an overriding device that permits the removal of the key without the transmission locked in the park position. This option is allowed provided that steering or forward self-mobility is prevented. Access to means to activate the devices must require the use of a tool and be protected by an opaque cover.

The United States safety standard also includes the additional option that if this device and the removal of the key are simultaneously activated, then the requirement for an opaque cover is not required. This additional option presents sufficient complexity to prevent possible activation by a child.

Transmission override option

The United States safety standard, like the previous Canadian safety standard, allows the option of an overriding device that permits the user to move the gear selection control from the "park" position after the key has been removed from the starting system.

This option is allowed as long as it is designed to be activated by the use of a key or by other means to which access is protected by an opaque cover that must be removed with a tool. In this situation, when the device is not activated by the use of a key, steering must be prevented.

The United States also provides the same requirement for the use of the transmission override option. In addition, the United States safety standard presents alternate options: 1) if the device and movement of the gear selection control from the "park" position are simultaneously activated, then an opaque cover is not required; and 2) if the device is not activated by the use of a key, steering or forward self-mobility must be prevented.

By introducing the transmission override options presented in the United States safety standard, the costs to the industry will be reduced. Adopting these additional options eliminate the requirement for a steering lock due to the mandatory installation of an engine immobilizer in Canada. Preventing forward self-mobility with an immobilizer provides adequate theft protection.

Test procedure

The United States safety standard, like the previous Canadian safety standard, specifies that vehicle movement must be less then 150 mm from the "park" position when the vehicle is parked up a hill. The United States safety standard also specifies that this test should also be conducted when the vehicle is parked down a hill. This amendment adopts the United States requirements to harmonize the two test procedures.

Immobilizer

As noted previously, the Canadian safety standard will require most vehicles built for sale in Canada starting September 1, 2007, be equipped with an immobilization system. The United States safety standard does not require vehicles to be equipped with such systems nor does it provide for any performance requirements if vehicles are fitted with such systems.

A study indicates that vehicle theft is a serious road safety issue resulting in 27 fatalities per year. (see footnote 5) Studies have estimated the direct dollar losses from motor vehicle theft in Canada to be $600 million per year. (see footnote 6) Transport Canada's research indicates that installation of immobilization systems, which make it difficult for the car engine to be started, will reduce vehicle theft, especially youth theft. Furthermore, these studies have demonstrated that an average of 244 to 345 serious injuries and 11 lives will be saved every year as a result of immobilization systems. (see footnote 7) This amendment, therefore, continues to not be harmonized with the United States safety standard with respect to immobilization systems.

Alternative for immobilization standard

Additionally, this amendment incorporates a new option in the Canadian safety standard that would reflect changes in the ECE regulations. The option allows a vehicle to conform to the general and particular specifications and operation parameters of an immobilizer that are set out in Part IV of ECE Regulation No. 116, as revised on March 6, 2006, except that:

Clarification of CAN/ULC 338-98 standard and ECE Regulation No. 97 requirements

In view of comments received from manufacturers following pre-publication in the Canada Gazette, Part I, all environmental durability test requirements were removed from the proposed requirements of the Canadian safety standards. Manufacturers pointed out that these standards introduce very specific component testing and design parameters. They argued that the introduction of component environmental requirements (temperature, vibration, humidity and dust) for vehicle subsystems goes beyond performance requirements generally identified in a vehicle safety standard that considers the vehicle as a whole. They also pointed out that these requirements were developed for aftermarket immobilization systems and should not apply to original equipment manufacturers.

Alternatives

Status quo, no changes to the Canadian safety standard

The Department of Transport believes that this alternative would have a negative effect on the industry. In certain cases, it would require vehicles to be equipped with steering lock and conventional key in Canada, but not in the United States. This could result in additional costs to the industry and could also prevent the sale of some vehicles in Canada without presenting significant safety benefits to the public.

Harmonize Canadian and United States safety standards by use of a TSD with the prescriptions concerning immobilization system

By following this alternative, harmonizing Canadian and United States safety standards and updating the current requirements concerning immobilization systems, the Department believes that safety will be improved.

Fully harmonize the Canadian and United States safety standards by use of a TSD (elimination of mandatory immobilization system)

Total harmonization of the Canadian and United States safety standards would significantly increase the risk of property loss, injury and death due to the elimination of a compulsory immobilization system. Studies completed by the Department indicate that vehicle theft is a serious issue in Canada and that immobilization systems aid in reducing vehicle theft.

Benefits and costs

This amendment is not expected to have any significant negative cost impact on vehicle manufacturers. It is expected that, in certain cases, there would be a cost reduction as some manufacturers may be able to remove steering locking devices. It is also expected that this amendment will eliminate potential impact on consumer choice that may result from non-harmonized requirements with the United States.

Under the Department's Strategic Environmental Assessment Policy, a preliminary evaluation of the possible environmental effects of this amendment was carried out. It was determined that the proposed changes would have no impact on the environment.

Consultation

General communication process

The Department of Transport has instituted a systematic and extensive information process that is intended to keep the automotive industry, public safety organizations, and the general public informed of projected and recent changes to the regulatory requirements governing motor vehicle safety in Canada. This process includes information sessions with the provinces and territories, as well as with the authorities of other countries, and it provides a mechanism for interested parties to comment on the Department's planned initiatives.

In particular, meetings are held three times a year with the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association (CVMA), which represents Canada's leading motor vehicle manufacturers. (see footnote 8) Departmental representatives meet three times a year with the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada (AIAMC), which represents international motor vehicle manufacturers and importers. (see footnote 9) There are semi-annual meetings with the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council and the Rubber Association of Canada. As well, semi-annual meetings are held with the United States Department of Transportation.

Mainly through the Department's membership in the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, discussions that deal with a broad range of issues take place on a regular basis with the provinces and territories. There are also semi-annual meetings with national public safety organizations in order to discuss future regulatory changes and emerging safety problems.

Pre-publication

The proposed Regulation was pre-published in Part I of the Canada Gazette on March 3, 2007, followed by a 75-day comments period. In response to the pre-publication, the Department received 2 responses, both from the automotive manufacturing associations (i.e., CVMA and AIAMC).

Both the CVMA and the AIAMC indicated that they support this proposal and are pleased with the proposal to further harmonize the Canadian and American safety standards.

CAN/ULC-S338-98 and the ECE regulation No. 97 requirements

The CVMA and the AIAMC indicated that they strongly support elimination of mandatory compliance testing of subsection 12.3 Reverse Polarity, 12.4 Excess Voltage, 12.5 Short Circuit and Open Circuit, 12.6 Voltage Reduction or Removal and 12.12 Electromagnetic Compatibility of CAN/ULC-S338-98. Similarly, for the ECE regulations, they support the removal of mandatory compliance with the following tests: Test for safety against reverse polarity and Test for safety against short-circuits and electromagnetic compatibility.

They argued that the inclusion of the electrical system test for vehicle subsystems goes beyond performance requirements generally specified in a vehicle safety standard. They noted that the tests were developed for immobilization systems that are installed after the vehicle is first manufactured and should not apply to original equipment manufacturers (OEM). Furthermore, the OEM systems are integrated into complex electronic modules that were designed to control many vehicle functions, such as power train and emission systems resulting in complex compliance confirmations.

The Department agreed with the manufacturers and has removed these requirements from the Canadian safety standard.

Definition of forward self-mobility

In order to clarify the text and to respond to the CVMA and the AIAMC request, the definition of the term "self-mobility" has been included in the regulation as it was defined in the interim order modifying the operation of section 114 of Schedule IV (Locking and Immobilization Systems) published in Part I of the Canada Gazette on August 19, 2006.

Immobilization system

The AIAMC stated that it did not believe immobilization systems should be made mandatory and that the cost-benefit analysis published in July 2003 to justify the requirement was inappropriate. They suggested that this be a voluntary measure. They also pointed out that this requirement contributes to the non-harmonization of the Canadian and American safety standards.

This amendment maintains the immobilization requirements adopted in 2005, which were published in Part II of the Canada Gazette in February 22, 2005 (SOR/2005-45). An agreement on voluntary compliance by the industry for the installation of vehicle immobilization systems was attempted in 2001 and 2002. Unfortunately, some manufacturers were unwilling to commit to a voluntary agreement.

In view of the AIAMC comments regarding the validity of the cost-benefit analysis, an independent review of the economic analysis was made in 2003. It concluded that the implementation of the amendment would result in a positive benefit-to-cost ratio to the Canadian public ranging from 3.39/1 to 3.77/1. In addition, if a manufacturer follows the Canadian safety standard, they will meet all prescribed requirements contained in the United States safety standard.

In order to relieve some of the financial burden associated with this proposal, the mandatory compliance date was delayed from September 1, 2005 to September 1, 2007.

For all the above reasons, the Government has not removed the requirement for mandatory immobilization systems.

Attack test time limit

The CVMA and the AIAMC have indicated that the ECE regulation attack test time limit that was chosen was inappropriate.

This amendment did not propose to review immobilization requirements introduced in the Regulations in 2005 and published in Part II of the Canada Gazette on February 22, 2005 (SOR/ 2005-45). Following the Part I publication of that amendment, several comments were received indicating that ECE regulation(s) contained inferior requirements compared to the CAN/ULC-S338-98 Standard.

The following paragraph was especially pointed out as an inferior requirement within ECE regulation 97:

"An immobilizer shall be designed and built such that, when installed on a vehicle, according to the manufacturer's instructions, it cannot rapidly and without attracting attention, be rendered ineffective or destroyed by concealed tools, equipment or fabrications readily available to the public at large. It shall be difficult and time consuming to replace the major component or assembly in order to bypass the immobilizer."

The terms "rapidly and without attracting attention" could be interpreted to mean different lengths of time by different people. In response to comments made by the insurance industry, standard organizations as well as the provinces and to clarify this requirement, the test time period is limited to 5 minutes. Without a measurable time the regulation would not be enforceable.

By introducing a 5 minutes minimum time period in the regulatory text both standards are harmonized and provide the same level of protection to the Canadian public. Thus, the Department has not made further revisions.

Compliance and enforcement

Motor vehicle manufacturers and importers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations. The Department monitors the self-certification programs of manufacturers and importers by reviewing their test documentation, inspecting vehicles, and testing vehicles obtained in the open market. When a defect is found, the manufacturer or importer must issue a notice of defect to owners and to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. If a vehicle does not comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer or importer is subject to prosecution and, if found guilty, may be fined as prescribed in the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Contacts

Ghislain Lalime
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate
Transport Canada
330 Sparks Street, 8th Floor, Tower C
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Telephone: 613-998-1959
Fax: 613-990-2913
Email: lalimeg@tc.gc.ca

Copies of Technical Standards Document No. 114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention, may be obtained on the Internet at: www.tc.gc.ca/RoadSafety/mvstm_tsd/index_e.htm or by contacting:

Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate
Transport Canada
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Telephone: 613-998-8616 or 1-800-333-0371
Fax: 613-990-2913
Email: Regsclerkcommis@tc.gc.ca

Footnote a

S.C. 1993, c. 16

Footnote b

S.C. 1999, c. 33, s. 351

Footnote c

S.C. 1993, c. 16

Footnote 1

C.R.C., c. 1038

Footnote 2

Dated May 1998, published by the Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada (ULC)

Footnote 3

Dated October 14, 2002

Footnote 4

Title 49, Part 571, of the Code of Federal Regulations, Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22093 published on April 7, 2006

Footnote 5

The Motor Vehicle Theft Problem: An Exploration And Development of Future Options, Michael Parkes, October 15, 1999; Fatalities and Injuries as a Result of Stolen Motor Vehicles (1999-2001), prepared for Project 6116 by Matthew J. Miceli, December 2002

Footnote 6

The Auto Theft Industry – The Cost to Canadians, prepared for the Insurance Bureau of Canada by Standard & Poor's DRI, Toronto, Ontario, April 2000

Footnote 7

SOR/2005-45

Footnote 8

The CVMA represents DaimlerChrysler Canada Inc.; Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited; General Motors of Canada Limited; and International Truck and Engine Corporation Canada

Footnote 9

The AIAMC represents the following automotive manufacturers and importers as voting members: BMW Canada Inc.; Honda Canada Inc.; Hyundai Auto Canada; Kia Canada Inc.; Mazda Canada Inc.; Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc.; Mitsubishi Motor Sales of Canada, Inc.; Nissan Canada Inc.; Porsche Cars Canada Ltd.; Subaru Canada Inc.; Suzuki Canada, Inc.; Toyota Canada Inc.; and Volkswagen Canada Inc.

NOTICE:
The format of the electronic version of this issue of the Canada Gazette was modified in order to be compatible with extensible hypertext markup language (XHTML 1.0 Strict).