Vol. 145, No. 7 — March 30, 2011

Registration

SOR/2011-69 March 10, 2011

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT

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

P.C. 2011-400 March 10, 2011

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 annexed form, was published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on February 27, 2010 and a reasonable opportunity was thereby afforded to interested persons to make representations to the Minister of Transport with respect to the proposed Regulations;

Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, 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)

AMENDMENT

1. Subsections 114(4) to (9) of Schedule IV to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations (see footnote 1) are replaced by the following:

(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 conforms to

(a) one of the following sets of requirements as modified by subsection (22), (23) or (24):

(i) the requirements of 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,

(ii) the general and particular specifications 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), in the version in effect on August 8, 2007, or

(iii) the general and particular specifications that are set out in Part IV of ECE Regulation No. 116, entitled Uniform Provisions Concerning the Protection of Motor Vehicles Against Unauthorized Use, in the version in effect on February 10, 2009; or

(b) the requirements set out in subsections (8) to (21).

(5) 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 a disarming device or a combination that disarms the system in the vehicle.

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

(7) In this section, “disarming device” means a physical device that contains or transmits the code that disarms the immobilization system of a vehicle.

(8) Subject to subsection (9), an immobilization system shall arm automatically within a period of not more than 1 minute after the disarming device is removed from the vehicle, if the vehicle remains in a mode of operation other than “accessory” or “on” throughout that period.

(9) If the disarming device is a keypad or biometric identifier, the immobilization system shall arm automatically within a period of not more than 1 minute after the motors used for the vehicle’s propulsion are turned off, if the vehicle remains in a mode of operation other than “accessory” or “on” throughout that period.

(10) The immobilization system shall arm automatically not later than 2 minutes after the immobilization system is disarmed, unless

(a) action is taken for starting one or more motors used for the vehicle’s propulsion;

(b) disarming requires an action to be taken on

(i) the engine start control or electric motor start control,

(ii) the engine stop control or electric motor stop control, or

(iii) the ignition switch; or

(c) disarming occurs automatically by the presence of a disarming device and the device is inside the vehicle.

(11) If armed, the immobilization system

(a) shall prevent the vehicle from moving more than 3 m under its own power by inhibiting the operation of at least one electronic control unit; and

(b) shall not have any impact on the vehicle’s brake system except that it may prevent regenerative braking and the release of the parking brake.

(12) During the disarming process, a code shall be sent to the inhibited electronic control unit in order to allow the vehicle to move under its own power.

(13) It shall not be possible to disarm the immobilization system by interrupting its normal operating voltage.

(14) When the normal starting procedure requires that the disarming device mechanically latch into a receptacle and the device is physically separate from the ignition switch key, one or more motors used for the vehicle’s propulsion shall start only after the device is removed from that receptacle.

(15) The immobilization system shall conform to the following requirements:

(a) it shall have a minimum capacity of 50,000 code variants;

(b) it shall not be disarmed by a code that can disarm all other immobilization systems of the same make and model; and

(c) subject to subsection (16), it shall not have the capacity to process more than 5,000 codes within 24 hours;

(16) If an immobilization system uses rolling or encrypted codes, it may conform to the following requirements, instead of the requirement set out in paragraph (15)(c):

(a) the probability of obtaining the correct code within 24 hours shall not exceed 4 per cent; and

(b) it shall not be possible to disarm the system by re-transmitting in any sequence the previous 5 codes generated by the system.

(17) The immobilization system shall be designed so that, when tested as installed in the vehicle,

(a) neither the replacement of an original immobilization system component with a manufacturer’s replacement component nor the addition of a manufacturer’s component can be completed without the use of software; and

(b) it is not possible for the vehicle to move under its own power for at least 5 minutes after the beginning of the replacement or addition of a component referred to in paragraph (a).

(18) The immobilization system’s conformity to subsection (17) shall be demonstrated by testing that is carried out without damaging the vehicle.

(19) Paragraph (17)(b) does not apply to the addition of a disarming device that requires the use of another disarming device that is validated by the immobilization system.

(20) The immobilization system shall be designed so that it can neither be bypassed nor rendered ineffective in a manner that would allow a vehicle to move under its own power, or be disarmed, using one or more of the tools and equipment listed in subsection (21),

(a) within a period of less than 5 minutes, when tested as installed in the vehicle; or

(b) within a period of less than 2.5 minutes, when bench-tested outside the vehicle.

(21) During a test referred to in subsection (20), only the following tools or equipment may be used:

(a) scissors, wire strippers, wire cutters and electrical wires;

(b) a hammer, a slide hammer, a chisel, a punch, a wrench, a screwdriver and pliers;

(c) steel rods and spikes;

(d) a hacksaw;

(e) a battery operated drill;

(f) a battery operated angle grinder; and

(g) a battery operated jigsaw.

(22) 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 of that document and respecting local noise regulations do not apply;

(b) a reference to a “manufacturer of the electronic immobilization system” is to be read as a reference to a “manufacturer”; and

(c) subsection 8.1 is to be read as follows: “Transponders and remote controls shall be in sealed enclosures that conform to the requirements of Subsections 12.1, General, and 12.2, Normal Operation.”

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

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

(b) all references to paragraph 33 do not apply;

(c) for the purposes of paragraph 31.7, the word “rapidly” means less than 5 minutes and the words “time consuming” mean at least 5 minutes; and

(d) despite any statement to the contrary in paragraphs 31.10 and 31.11, the immobilization system shall not have any impact on the vehicle’s brake system.

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

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

(b) for the purposes of paragraph 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 paragraphs 8.2.10 and 8.2.11, the immobilization system shall not have any impact on the vehicle’s brake system; and

(d) all references to paragraph 8.4 do not apply.

COMING INTO FORCE

2. 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.)

Issue and objectives

This amendment to section 114 of Schedule IV of the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations, hereafter referred to as the Canadian safety standard, introduces new provisions that update the vehicle safety immobilization system requirements by recognizing and encompassing new and emerging technologies as they apply to original-equipment manufacturers. The previous Canadian safety standard included specific requirements relative to immobilization systems, which potentially prevented the introduction of new and evolving vehicle and immobilization systems.

Description and rationale

The Canadian safety standard governs the design and performance requirements of locking and immobilization systems for theft protection and rollaway prevention. The immobilization system requirements that became effective on September 1, 2007, (see footnote 2) required that passenger cars, three-wheeled vehicles, trucks and multi-purpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicleweight rating of 4 536 kg or less be equipped with an immobilization system that met one of the following three incorporated immobilization-system standards:

  • National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC S338-98, Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998), published by the Underwriters Laboratories of Canada
  • Part III of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Regulation No. 97, Uniform Provisions Concerning the Approval of Vehicle Alarm Systems (VAS) and of Motor Vehicles with Regard to Their Alarm Systems (AS), as revised on August 8, 2007
  • Part IV of ECE Regulation No. 116, Uniform Technical Prescriptions Concerning the Protection of Motor Vehicles Against Unauthorized Use, as revised on March 6, 2006

Immobilization system requirements were introduced by the Department of Transport with a view to reduce motor vehicle theft. Theft is known to lead to otherwise avoidable collisions and casualties involving members of police services as well as the general population. The following data demonstrate that the theft rate is currently on the decline, particularly as it applies to theft by youth, and that immobilization systems are effective at reducing motor vehicle theft:

  • According to Statistics Canada, motor vehicle thefts in Canada dropped from 171 017 in 2003 (see footnote 3) to 146 142 in 2007. (see footnote 4) Over these years, the rate of motor vehicle theft per 100 000 population decreased by 19.4% while the number of registered motor vehicles has steadily increased. It should be noted that the vehicles that are currently stolen are increasingly likely to be earlier models that lack an effective immobilization system. As noted in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that introduced the immobilization system requirements to the Canadian safety standard in 2005, the standard was meant to greatly reduce “theft for convenience,” often by juvenile offenders, which frequently leads to collisions resulting in serious injuries and death. It was not meant to prevent “theft for profit” by dedicated and well-equipped professional thieves associated with organized crime.
  • Of the number of persons charged in that same period (2003 to 2007), the youth category (aged 12–17) was most affected with an estimated 50% reduction in the rate of motor vehicle theft per 100 000 youth population. (see footnote 5)
  • Some vehicle models previously not equipped with an immobilization system show a significant decrease in the number of vehicle thefts. For example, after the installation of an immobilizer was made standard for the Honda Civic two-door coupe, theft fell from 152% above the average frequency rating (1995 to 2000 model year data) to 19% below the average frequency rating (2001 to 2005 model year data). (see footnote 6)

The data is encouraging and the trend is consistent with an increase over time in the proportion of vehicles that come equipped with immobilization systems. It is a further indication that the Canadian immobilization system requirements are successful in reducing motor vehicle theft, particularly for the category of youth. Given that all new vehicles offered to Canadians have been required to be equipped with immobilization systems since September 1, 2007, the Government of Canada (hereafter referred to as the Government) expects that the vehicle theft rate will decrease further as the national vehicle fleet is replaced.

The Government was made aware that the previous regulatory requirements (which incorporated by reference the three immobilization-system standards documents mentioned above) had the potential impact of preventing the introduction of new and emerging technologies, such as remote starting systems, keyless vehicle technology and key-replacement technologies. It is important to be compatible with such technologies, and to accommodate the development and integration of new technologies, to foster innovation and preclude the need for modifications that may create unwanted technical and safety issues.

Accordingly, Department of Transport officials formed a working group with key representatives of the two automotive manufacturing associations of Canada: the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada (see footnote 7) and the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association. (see footnote 8) The purpose was to assist the Department in its development of a fourth alternative to the immobilization system requirements to address the noted concerns, as they apply to the original equipment manufacturer, while maintaining the current high level of safety. After a consensus was reached, this fourth alternative was circulated for general consultation to obtain comments from additional interest groups, which further assisted in developing this amendment.

In summary, this amendment adds a fourth compliance option for immobilization systems that will form part of the Canadian safety standard. This fourth option carries forward the basic concepts of immobilization systems, which include arming, immobilization, disarming and component replacement/manipulation. It also provides performance requirements that take into account new and emerging vehicle and immobilization systems technologies, as they apply to the original equipment manufacturers, while maintaining the robustness of the previous requirements.

Finally, the references to both European regulations have been updated to include the most recent, dated versions of these regulations. These changes are non-substantive relative to the previous Canadian requirements, and improve harmonization. The updates become effective as of the date noted in this amendment.

Consultation

By way of the pre-publication of proposed amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part I, and through the quarterly dissemination of a regulatory plan, the Department of Transport informs the automotive industry, public safety organizations, the general public, and other groups when changes are planned to the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations. This gives interested stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes by letter or email. The Department also consults regularly, in face-to-face meetings or teleconferences, with the automotive industry, public safety organizations, the provinces and the territories.

The proposed amendment to the Canadian safety standard was pre-published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on February 27, 2010, and interested persons were given 75 days to comment. The Department received two written responses to the pre-publication, one from the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association and the other from the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada. Both associations indicated their support for the proposed amendment.

On a separate issue that is unaffected by this amendment, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada further noted that the original equipment manufacturers would continue to be at a disadvantage until the requirements of the Canadian safety standard are equivalent to those applicable to vehicles purchased at the retail level in the United States and imported into Canada. While this issue lies outside the scope of the present technical amendment, to this end, the Government of Canada is committed to working towards internationally harmonized regulations for immobilization systems that would continue to provide theft protection for all new vehicles entering the Canadian vehicle fleet.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

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

Contact

Denis Brault
Senior Regulatory Development Officer
Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate
Transport Canada
275 Slater Street, 16th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Email: denis.brault@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
SOR/2005-45

Footnote 3
Canadian Crime Statistics, 2003, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, published by Statistics Canada — cat. no. 85-205-XIE

Footnote 4
Crime Statistics in Canada, 2007, Juristat 2007, published by Statistics Canada — cat. no.85-002-X, Vol. 28, No. 7

Footnote 5
Crimes by type of offence, Statistics Canada, http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/legal02-eng.htm

Footnote 6
How Cars Measure Up - 1995-2007 Model Year, Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC)

Footnote 7
The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada represents the following automotive manufacturers and importers as voting members: BMW Canada Inc.; Honda Canada Inc.; Hyundai Auto Canada Corp.; Kia Canada Inc.; Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC.; 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 Group Canada Inc.

Footnote 8
The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association represents Chrysler Canada Inc.; Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited; General Motors of Canada Limited; and Navistar Canada, Inc.