Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Ford, 12780-12782 [05-5038]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12780
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 15, 2005 / Notices
body control module (BCM). The
received signal is compared to an
internally stored value by the BCM. If
the values match, the key is recognized
as valid and a vehicle security password
is transmitted through data link to the
engine control module to enable fuel
and starting of the vehicle.
In GM’s petition to modify its
exemption, it stated that its Buick
Lucerne vehicle line will be equipped
with the PASS-Key III+ theft deterrent
system for MY 2006. The PASS-Key III+
device will continue to provide
protection against unauthorized starting
and fueling of the vehicle engine.
Components of the modified antitheft
device include a special ignition key
and decoder module. The conventional
mechanical code of the key will
continue to unlock and releases the
transmission lever. Before the vehicle
can be operated, the key’s electrical
code must be sensed and properly
decoded by the PASS-Key III+ control
module. The ignition key contains
electronics molded in to the key head.
These electronics receive energy and
data from the control module. Upon
receipt of the data, the key will calculate
a response to the data using secret
information and an internal encryption
algorithm and transmit the response
back to the vehicle. The controller
module translates the radio frequency
signal received from the key into a
digital signal and compares the received
response to an internally calculated
value. If the values match, the key is
recognized as valid, and a vehicle
security password (one of 65,534), is
transmitted through a serial data link to
the powertrain control module to enable
fuel and starting of the vehicle. If an
invalid key code is received, the PASSKey III+ controller module will send a
disable password to the powertrain
control module through the serial data
bus, and the ignition and fuel systems
will be inhibited. GM also stated that
the PASS-Key III+ device has the
capability for producing billions of
codes, which will require centuries to
scan to allow someone to steal a vehicle.
GM stated that although it’s modified
antitheft device provides protection
against unauthorized starting and
fueling of the vehicle, it does not
provide any visible or audible
indication of unauthorized entry by
means of flashing vehicle lights or
sounding of the horn. Since the system
is fully operational once the vehicle has
been turned off, specific visible or
audible reminders beyond key removal
reminders have not been provided.
Based on comparison of the reduction
in the theft rates of GM vehicles using
a passive theft deterrent device with an
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:31 Mar 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
audible/visible alarm system to the
reduction in theft rates for GM vehicle
models equipped with a passive
antitheft device without an alarm, GM
finds that the lack of an alarm or
attention attracting device does not
compromise the theft deterrent
performance of a system such as PASSKey III+. The agency has previously
agreed with the finding that the absence
of a visible or audible alarm has not
prevented these antitheft devices from
being effective protection against theft.
In order to ensure the reliability and
durability of the device, GM conducted
tests based on its own specified
standards. GM provided a detailed list
of tests conducted and believes that its
device is reliable and durable since the
device complied with its specified
requirements for each test. The tests
conducted included high and low
temperature storage, thermal shock,
humidity, frost, salt fog, flammability,
altitude, drop, shock, random vibration,
dust, potential contaminants, connector
retention/strain relief, terminal
retention, connector insertion, crush,
ice, immersion and tumbling.
Additionally, GM stated that the design
and assembly processes of the PASSKey III+ device and components are
validated for a vehicle life of 10 years
and 150,000 miles of performance.
GM compared its MY 2006 antitheft
device with devices which NHTSA has
already determined to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as would compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. To
substantiate its beliefs as to the
effectiveness of the new device, GM
compared the MY 2006 modified device
to its ‘‘PASS-Key’’-like systems. GM
indicated that the theft rates, as reported
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s
National Crime Information Center, are
lower for GM models equipped with the
‘‘PASS-Key’’-like systems which have
exemptions from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541, than
the theft rates for earlier models with
similar appearance and construction
which were parts-marked. Based on the
performance of the PASS-Key, PASSKey II, and PASS-Key III systems on
other GM models, and the advanced
technology utilized by the modification,
GM believes that the MY 2006 modified
antitheft device will be more effective in
deterring theft than the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
On the basis of this comparison, the
antitheft device (PASS-Key III+) for
model years 2006 and later will provide
essentially the same functions and
features as found on its MY 1993–2005
‘‘PASS-Key’’-like devices and therefore,
its modified device will provide at least
PO 00000
Frm 00136
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the same level of theft prevention as
parts-marking. GM believes that the
antitheft device proposed for
installation on its MY 2006 Buick
Lucerne vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing thefts as
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of part 541.
The agency has evaluated GM’s MY
2006 petition to modify the exemption
for the Buick Lucerne vehicle line from
the parts-marking requirements of 49
CFR Part 541, and has decided to grant
it. It has determined that the PASS-Key
III+ system is likely to be as effective as
parts-marking in preventing and
deterring theft of these vehicles, and
therefore qualifies for an exemption
under 49 CFR part 543. The agency
believes that the modified device will
continue to provide four of the five
types of performance listed in Section
543.6(b)(3): promoting activation;
preventing defeat or circumventing of
the device by unauthorized persons;
preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any
changes the effects of which might be
characterized as de minimis, it should
consult the agency before preparing and
submitting a petition to modify.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: March 4, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05–5036 Filed 3–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard;
Ford
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA);
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document grants in full
the petition of Ford Motor Company
(Ford) for an exemption of a high-theft
line, the Ford Thunderbird, from the
parts-marking requirements of the
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard. This petition is granted
because the agency has determined that
the antitheft device to be placed on the
line as standard equipment is likely to
be as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 15, 2005 / Notices
the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with model
year (MY) 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah Mazyck, Consumer Standards
Division, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington DC 20590. Ms.
Mazyck’s telephone number is (202)
366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–
2290.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated December 20, 2004, Ford
requested an exemption from the parts
marking requirements of 49 CFR part
541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard, for the Ford
Thunderbird vehicle line beginning in
MY 2006. The petition was filed
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption
from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard,
based on the installation of an antitheft
device as standard equipment for the
entire line. Based on the evidence
submitted by Ford, the agency believes
that the antitheft device for the Ford
Thunderbird vehicle line is likely to be
as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with
the parts-marking requirements of the
theft prevention standard (49 CFR part
541).
Section 331066(b)(2)(D) of Title 49,
United States Code, authorized the
Secretary of Transportation to grant an
exemption from the parts-marking
requirements for not more than one
additional line of a manufacturer for
MYs 1997–2000. However, it does not
address the contingency of what to do
after model year 2000 in the absence of
a decision under section 33103(d). 49
U.S.C. 33103(d)(3) states that the
number of lines for which the agency
can grant an exemption is to be decided
after the Attorney General completes a
review of the effectiveness of antitheft
devices and finds that antitheft devices
are an effective substitute for partsmarking. The Attorney General has not
yet made a finding and has not decided
the number of lines, if any, for which
the agency will be authorized to grant
an exemption. Upon consultation with
the Department of Justice, we
determined that the appropriate reading
of section 33103(d) is that NHTSA may
continue to grant parts-marking
exemptions for not more than one
additional model line each year, as
specified for model years 1997–2000 by
49 U.S.C. 33106(b)(2)(C). This is the
level contemplated by the Act for the
period before the Attorney General’s
decision. The final decision on whether
to continue granting exemptions will be
made by the Attorney General at the
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:31 Mar 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
conclusion of the review pursuant to
section 330103(d)(3).
Ford’s submittal is considered a
complete petition, as required by 49
CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general
requirements contained in § 543.5 and
the specific content requirements of
§ 543.6.
In its petition, Ford provided a
detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the
components of the antitheft device for
the line. Ford will install its antitheft
device, the SecuriLock Passive AntiTheft Electronic Engine Immobilizer
System (SecuriLock) as standard
equipment on the MY 2006 Ford
Thunderbird. The system has been
voluntarily installed as standard
equipment on its Ford Thunderbird line
since MY 2002. The antitheft device
installed on the Ford Thunderbird
includes both an audible and visual
alarm system and an engine immobilizer
system. The Ford Thunderbird will also
have a standard perimeter alarm system
which will monitor all the doors,
decklid and hood of the vehicle.
The visual and audible features of the
standard perimeter alarm system will
attract attention to the efforts of an
unauthorized person to enter the vehicle
by sounding the vehicle’s horn and
illuminating the front lights. The lights
will flash from 4.5 to 5 minutes and the
horn will sound 25 to 30 seconds on
illegal entry. Once armed, the perimeter
alarm system is activated.
In order to ensure the reliability and
durability of the device, Ford conducted
tests, based on its own specified
standards. Ford provided a detailed list
of the tests conducted supporting its
belief that the device is reliable and
durable since it complied with Ford’s
specified requirements for each test. The
environmental and functional tests
conducted were for thermal shock, high
temperature exposure, low-temperature
exposure, powered/thermal cycle,
temperature/humidity cycling, constant
humidity, end-of-line, functional,
random vibration, tri-temperature
parametric, bench drop, transmit
current, lead/lock strength/integrity,
output frequency, resistance to solvents,
output field strength, dust, and
electromagnetic compatibility.
The Ford SecuriLock is a transponderbased electronic immobilizer system.
Ford stated that the integration of the
transponder into the normal operation
of the ignition key assures activation of
the system. When the ignition key is
turned to the start position, the
transceiver module reads the ignition
key code and transmits an encrypted
message to the cluster. Validation of the
key is determined and start of the
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12781
engine is authorized once a separate
encrypted message is sent to the
powertrain’s electronic control module
(PCM). The powertrain will function
only if the key code matches the unique
identification key code previously
programmed into the PCM. If the codes
do not match, the powertrain engine
starter, spark and fuel will be disabled.
Ford stated that there are now 18
quintillion possible codes, and at the
time of vehicle assembly, each
transponder is also hard-coded with a
unique code. Additionally, Ford stated
that in model year 2003, the SecuriLock
system was upgraded from Read Only
Transponder technology to Encrypted
Transponder technology.
Communication between the SecuriLock
transponder, Cluster and the PCM is
also encrypted, making key duplication
nearly impossible.
Ford stated that its SecuriLock system
incorporates an indicator light, a lightemitting diode (LED) that provides a
visual indicator to the driver/operator as
to the ‘‘set’’ and ‘‘unset’’ condition of
the device. When the ignition is initially
turned to the ‘‘ON’’ position, a 3-second
continuous LED indicates that the
device is ‘‘unset.’’ When the ignition is
turned to ‘‘OFF,’’ a flashing LED
indicates the device is ‘‘set’’ and
provides visual information that the
vehicle is protected by the SecuriLock
system. Ford states that the integration
of the setting/unsetting device
(transponder) into the ignition key
assures activation of the device.
Ford believes that its new device is
reliable and durable because its does not
have any moving parts, nor does it
require a separate battery in the key. If
the correct code is not transmitted to the
electronic control module
(accomplished only by having the
correct key), there is no way to
mechanically override the system and
start the vehicle. Furthermore, Ford
stated that with the sophisticated design
and operation of the electronic engine
immobilizer system, the SecuriLock
electronic engine immobilizer device
makes conventional theft methods such
as hot-wiring or attacking the ignition
lock cylinder ineffective, virtually
eliminating drive-away thefts.
The effectiveness of Ford’s
SecuriLock device was first introduced
as standard equipment on its MY 1996
Mustang GT and Cobra. In MY 1997, the
SecuriLock system was installed on the
entire Mustang vehicle line as standard
equipment. Ford stated that the 1997
model year Mustang with SecuriLock
shows a 70% reduction in theft
compared to the MY 1995 Mustang,
according to National Insurance Crime
Bureau (NICB) theft statistics. There
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
12782
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 49 / Tuesday, March 15, 2005 / Notices
were 149 reported theft for 1997
compared to 500 reported thefts in 1995.
As part of its submission, Ford also
provided a Highway Loss Data Institute
(HLDI) Injury, Collision & Theft Losses
publication, dated September 2004,
which evaluated the 2002–2003 Ford
Thunderbird models equipped with the
SecuriLock device. On a scale where
one hundred (100) represents the
average result for all cars in each loss
category, the results as reported by HLDI
indicated an average theft loss of eightyseven convertible Thunderbirds over a
two model year period. Results are
based on the loss experience of 2001–
2003 models from their first sales
through 2004. HLDI loss results for
2001–2003 models are stated in relative
terms. Since the reintroduction of the
Ford Thunderbird equipped with the
SecuriLock anti-theft device and
Perimeter alarm system as standard
equipment, it has seen a very low theft
rate. Ford also presented information
from NHTSA’s Final Theft Data report
(69 FR 53354, September 1, 2004) on
thefts of 2002 model year passenger
motor vehicles that occurred in calendar
year 2002. The report showed the Ford
Thunderbird having only fourteen thefts
out of a production of 28,639 vehicles
for the 2002 model year, with a theft
rate of 0.4888.
Additionally, Ford stated that its
SecuriLock device has been
demonstrated to various insurance
companies, and as a result AAA
Michigan and State Farm now give an
antitheft discount for all Ford vehicles
equipped with the SecuriLock device.
On the basis of comparison, Ford has
concluded that the antitheft device
proposed for its vehicle line is no less
effective than those devices in the lines
for which NHTSA has granted full
exemptions from the parts-marking
requirements.
Based on the evidence submitted by
Ford, the agency believes that the
antitheft device for the Ford
Thunderbird vehicle line is likely to be
as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with
the parts-marking requirements of the
theft prevention standard (49 CFR part
541).
The agency concludes that the device
will provide the types of performance
listed in 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3): Promoting
activation; attracting attention to the
efforts of unauthorized persons to enter
or operate a vehicle by means other than
a key; preventing defeat or
circumvention of the device by
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:31 Mar 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
unauthorized persons; preventing
operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and
49 CFR 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the agency
finds that Ford has provided adequate
reasons for its belief that the antitheft
device will reduce and deter theft. This
conclusion is based on the information
Ford provided about its antitheft device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full Ford Motor
Company’s petition for an exemption for
the MY 2006 Ford Thunderbird vehicle
line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
If Ford decides not to use the
exemption for this line, it must formally
notify the agency, and, thereafter, must
fully mark the line as required by 49
CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major
component parts and replacement
parts).
NHTSA notes that if Ford wishes in
the future to modify the device on
which this exemption is based, the
company may have to submit a petition
to modify the exemption. Section
543.7(d) states that a part 543 exemption
applies only to vehicles that belong to
a line exempted under this part and
equipped with the antitheft device on
which the line’s exemption is based.
Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions to modify an
exemption to permit the use of an
antitheft device similar to but differing
from the one specified in that
exemption. The agency wishes to
minimize the administrative burden that
§ 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted
vehicle manufacturers and itself. The
agency did not intend in drafting part
543 to require the submission of a
modification petition for every change
to the components or design of an
antitheft device. The significance of
many such changes could be de
minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests
that if the manufacturer contemplates
making any changes, the effects of
which might be characterized as de
minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a
petition to modify.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: March 9, 2005.
H. Keith Brewer,
Director, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards.
[FR Doc. 05–5038 Filed 3–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs
Administration
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety;
Notice of Application for Exemptions
Research and Special Programs
Administration, DOT.
AGENCY:
List of applications for
exemption.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, exemptions
from the Department of Transportation’s
Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR
part 107, subpart B), notice is hereby
given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the
application described herein. Each
mode of transportation for which a
particular exemption is requested is
indicated by a number in the ‘‘Nature of
Application’’ portion of the table below
as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail
freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo
aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying
aircraft.
Comments must be received on
or before April 14, 2005.
Address Comments To: Record
Center, Research and Special Programs
Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the
application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of
comments is desired, include a selfaddressed stamped postcard showing
the exemption number.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Copies of the applications are available
for inspection in the Records Center,
Nassif Building, 400 7th Street, SW.,
Washington DC or at https://dms.dot.gov.
This notice of receipt of applications
for modification of exemption is
published in accordance with part 107
of the Federal hazardous materials
transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b);
49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9,
2005.
R. Ryan Posten,
Exemptions Program Officer, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety Exemptions &
Approvals.
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12780-12782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5038]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Ford
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA);
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of Ford Motor
Company (Ford) for an exemption of a high-theft line, the Ford
Thunderbird, from the parts-marking requirements of the Federal Motor
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the
agency has determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the
line as standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with
[[Page 12781]]
the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
model year (MY) 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Consumer Standards
Division, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington DC 20590. Ms.
Mazyck's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202)
493-2290.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 20, 2004, Ford
requested an exemption from the parts marking requirements of 49 CFR
part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, for the Ford
Thunderbird vehicle line beginning in MY 2006. The petition was filed
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard
equipment for the entire line. Based on the evidence submitted by Ford,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Ford Thunderbird
vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements
of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541).
Section 331066(b)(2)(D) of Title 49, United States Code, authorized
the Secretary of Transportation to grant an exemption from the parts-
marking requirements for not more than one additional line of a
manufacturer for MYs 1997-2000. However, it does not address the
contingency of what to do after model year 2000 in the absence of a
decision under section 33103(d). 49 U.S.C. 33103(d)(3) states that the
number of lines for which the agency can grant an exemption is to be
decided after the Attorney General completes a review of the
effectiveness of antitheft devices and finds that antitheft devices are
an effective substitute for parts-marking. The Attorney General has not
yet made a finding and has not decided the number of lines, if any, for
which the agency will be authorized to grant an exemption. Upon
consultation with the Department of Justice, we determined that the
appropriate reading of section 33103(d) is that NHTSA may continue to
grant parts-marking exemptions for not more than one additional model
line each year, as specified for model years 1997-2000 by 49 U.S.C.
33106(b)(2)(C). This is the level contemplated by the Act for the
period before the Attorney General's decision. The final decision on
whether to continue granting exemptions will be made by the Attorney
General at the conclusion of the review pursuant to section
330103(d)(3).
Ford's submittal is considered a complete petition, as required by
49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in
Sec. 543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec. 543.6.
In its petition, Ford provided a detailed description and diagram
of the identity, design, and location of the components of the
antitheft device for the line. Ford will install its antitheft device,
the SecuriLock Passive Anti-Theft Electronic Engine Immobilizer System
(SecuriLock) as standard equipment on the MY 2006 Ford Thunderbird. The
system has been voluntarily installed as standard equipment on its Ford
Thunderbird line since MY 2002. The antitheft device installed on the
Ford Thunderbird includes both an audible and visual alarm system and
an engine immobilizer system. The Ford Thunderbird will also have a
standard perimeter alarm system which will monitor all the doors,
decklid and hood of the vehicle.
The visual and audible features of the standard perimeter alarm
system will attract attention to the efforts of an unauthorized person
to enter the vehicle by sounding the vehicle's horn and illuminating
the front lights. The lights will flash from 4.5 to 5 minutes and the
horn will sound 25 to 30 seconds on illegal entry. Once armed, the
perimeter alarm system is activated.
In order to ensure the reliability and durability of the device,
Ford conducted tests, based on its own specified standards. Ford
provided a detailed list of the tests conducted supporting its belief
that the device is reliable and durable since it complied with Ford's
specified requirements for each test. The environmental and functional
tests conducted were for thermal shock, high temperature exposure, low-
temperature exposure, powered/thermal cycle, temperature/humidity
cycling, constant humidity, end-of-line, functional, random vibration,
tri-temperature parametric, bench drop, transmit current, lead/lock
strength/integrity, output frequency, resistance to solvents, output
field strength, dust, and electromagnetic compatibility.
The Ford SecuriLock is a transponder-based electronic immobilizer
system. Ford stated that the integration of the transponder into the
normal operation of the ignition key assures activation of the system.
When the ignition key is turned to the start position, the transceiver
module reads the ignition key code and transmits an encrypted message
to the cluster. Validation of the key is determined and start of the
engine is authorized once a separate encrypted message is sent to the
powertrain's electronic control module (PCM). The powertrain will
function only if the key code matches the unique identification key
code previously programmed into the PCM. If the codes do not match, the
powertrain engine starter, spark and fuel will be disabled.
Ford stated that there are now 18 quintillion possible codes, and
at the time of vehicle assembly, each transponder is also hard-coded
with a unique code. Additionally, Ford stated that in model year 2003,
the SecuriLock system was upgraded from Read Only Transponder
technology to Encrypted Transponder technology. Communication between
the SecuriLock transponder, Cluster and the PCM is also encrypted,
making key duplication nearly impossible.
Ford stated that its SecuriLock system incorporates an indicator
light, a light-emitting diode (LED) that provides a visual indicator to
the driver/operator as to the ``set'' and ``unset'' condition of the
device. When the ignition is initially turned to the ``ON'' position, a
3-second continuous LED indicates that the device is ``unset.'' When
the ignition is turned to ``OFF,'' a flashing LED indicates the device
is ``set'' and provides visual information that the vehicle is
protected by the SecuriLock system. Ford states that the integration of
the setting/unsetting device (transponder) into the ignition key
assures activation of the device.
Ford believes that its new device is reliable and durable because
its does not have any moving parts, nor does it require a separate
battery in the key. If the correct code is not transmitted to the
electronic control module (accomplished only by having the correct
key), there is no way to mechanically override the system and start the
vehicle. Furthermore, Ford stated that with the sophisticated design
and operation of the electronic engine immobilizer system, the
SecuriLock electronic engine immobilizer device makes conventional
theft methods such as hot-wiring or attacking the ignition lock
cylinder ineffective, virtually eliminating drive-away thefts.
The effectiveness of Ford's SecuriLock device was first introduced
as standard equipment on its MY 1996 Mustang GT and Cobra. In MY 1997,
the SecuriLock system was installed on the entire Mustang vehicle line
as standard equipment. Ford stated that the 1997 model year Mustang
with SecuriLock shows a 70% reduction in theft compared to the MY 1995
Mustang, according to National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) theft
statistics. There
[[Page 12782]]
were 149 reported theft for 1997 compared to 500 reported thefts in
1995.
As part of its submission, Ford also provided a Highway Loss Data
Institute (HLDI) Injury, Collision & Theft Losses publication, dated
September 2004, which evaluated the 2002-2003 Ford Thunderbird models
equipped with the SecuriLock device. On a scale where one hundred (100)
represents the average result for all cars in each loss category, the
results as reported by HLDI indicated an average theft loss of eighty-
seven convertible Thunderbirds over a two model year period. Results
are based on the loss experience of 2001-2003 models from their first
sales through 2004. HLDI loss results for 2001-2003 models are stated
in relative terms. Since the reintroduction of the Ford Thunderbird
equipped with the SecuriLock anti-theft device and Perimeter alarm
system as standard equipment, it has seen a very low theft rate. Ford
also presented information from NHTSA's Final Theft Data report (69 FR
53354, September 1, 2004) on thefts of 2002 model year passenger motor
vehicles that occurred in calendar year 2002. The report showed the
Ford Thunderbird having only fourteen thefts out of a production of
28,639 vehicles for the 2002 model year, with a theft rate of 0.4888.
Additionally, Ford stated that its SecuriLock device has been
demonstrated to various insurance companies, and as a result AAA
Michigan and State Farm now give an antitheft discount for all Ford
vehicles equipped with the SecuriLock device.
On the basis of comparison, Ford has concluded that the antitheft
device proposed for its vehicle line is no less effective than those
devices in the lines for which NHTSA has granted full exemptions from
the parts-marking requirements.
Based on the evidence submitted by Ford, the agency believes that
the antitheft device for the Ford Thunderbird vehicle line is likely to
be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention
standard (49 CFR part 541).
The agency concludes that the device will provide the types of
performance listed in 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation;
attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or
operate a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or
circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing
operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the
agency finds that Ford has provided adequate reasons for its belief
that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion
is based on the information Ford provided about its antitheft device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Ford
Motor Company's petition for an exemption for the MY 2006 Ford
Thunderbird vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR
part 541.
If Ford decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, must fully mark the line
as required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts
and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Ford wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.7(d) states that a part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Sec. 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions to modify an exemption to permit the use of an
antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption. The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden
that Sec. 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers
and itself. The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require
the submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
Issued on: March 9, 2005.
H. Keith Brewer,
Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards.
[FR Doc. 05-5038 Filed 3-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
