Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Ford Motor Company, 7824-7825 [E6-2053]
Download as PDF
7824
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2006 / Notices
allow sponsors to submit the reports
electronically in the future.
Dated: January 3, 2006.
Stanley S. Colvin,
Director, Office of Exchange Coordination
and Designation, Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E6–2050 Filed 2–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–05–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping
Requirements; Agency Information
Collection Activity Under OMB Review
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice
announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted
below has been forwarded to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and comment. The ICR describes
the nature of the information collections
and their expected burden. The Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period was published on December 1,
2005 in Volume 70, Number 230 on
pages 72145–72146.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before 30 days from the date of
publication of this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Glassbrenner, PhD, at the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Mathematical Analysis
Division, NPO–121, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Room 6125, Washington, DC
20590. Dr. Glassbrenner can also be
reached at (202) 366–3962.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Title: National Survey of the Use of
Booster Seats.
OMB Number: 2127–0644.
Type of Request: 3-year extension of
approval for information collection.
Abstract: The National Survey of the
Use of Booster Seats is being conducted
to respond to the Section 14(i) of the
Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation
(TREAD) Act of 2000. The Act directs
the Department of Transportation to
reduce the deaths and injuries among
children in the 4-to-8 year old age group
that are caused by failure to use a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:46 Feb 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
booster seat by 25 percent. Conducting
the National Survey of the Use of
Booster Seats will provide the
Department with invaluable information
on who is and is not using booster seats,
helping the Department better direct its
outreach programs to ensure that
children are protected to the greatest
degree possible when they ride in motor
vehicles. The OMB approval for this
survey is scheduled to expire on March
31, 2006. NHTSA seeks an extension to
this approval in order to continue to
obtain this important survey data,
saving more children and helping to
comply with the TREAD Act
requirement.
Affected Public: Motorists in
passenger vehicles at gas stations, fast
food restaurants, and other types of sites
frequented by children during the time
in which the survey is conducted.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 320
hours.
Number of Respondents:
Approximately 4,800 adult motorists
will respond to survey questions about
the children in their vehicle.
Send comments within 30
days to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725–17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention: NHTSA Desk Officer.
Comments are invited on: Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Department,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of
the Department’s estimate of the burden
of the proposed information collection;
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is most effective if
OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.
ADDRESSES:
Issued in Washington, DC, February 2006.
Joseph Carra,
Associate Administrator for the National
Center for Statistics and Analysis, NHTSA.
[FR Doc. 06–1360 Filed 2–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard;
Ford Motor Company
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) in accordance with § 543.9(c)(2)
of 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from the
Theft Prevention Standard, for the
Focus vehicle line beginning with
model year (MY) 2006. 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 the partsmarking 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.
Carlita Ballard, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms.
Ballard’s telephone number is (202)
366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–
2290.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated October 7, 2005, Ford
requested exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541)
for the MY 2006 Focus vehicle line. The
petition requested exemption from
parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part
543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard, based on the
installation of an antitheft device as
standard equipment for an entire
vehicle line.
Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may
petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for
one line of its vehicle lines per year. 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 Focus
vehicle line. Ford will install its
antitheft device, the SecuriLock Passive
Anti-Theft Electronic Powertrain
Immobilizer System (SecuriLock) as
standard equipment on the Ford Focus
vehicle line beginning with MY 2006.
Features of the antitheft device will
include an electronic key, ignition lock,
and a passive immobilizer.
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2006 / Notices
Additionally, the Ford Focus will have
an optional perimeter alarm system
which will monitor all the doors,
decklid and hood of the vehicle. Ford’s
submission 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.
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
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 will be disabled.
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
were 149 reported theft for 1997
compared to 500 reported thefts in 1995.
In addressing the specific content
requirements of 543.6, Ford provided
information on the reliability and
durability of its proposed device. To
ensure reliability and durability of the
device, Ford conducted tests based on
its own specified standards. Ford also
provided a detailed list of the tests
conducted and believes that the device
is reliable and durable since the device
complied with its specified
requirements for each test. Ford also
stated that the SecuriLock electronic
engine immobilizer device makes
conventional theft methods such as hotwiring or attacking the ignition lock
cylinder ineffective and virtually
eliminates drive-away thefts.
Ford also compared the device
proposed for its vehicle line with other
devices which NHTSA has determined
to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as would
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements. Ford finds that the lack of
an alarm or attention attracting device
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:46 Feb 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
does not compromise the theft deterrent
performance of a system such as the
SecuriLock. Ford stated that its
proposed device is functionally
equivalent to the systems used in
previous vehicle lines which were
deemed effective and granted
exemptions from the parts-marking
requirements of the theft prevention
standard. Additionally, theft data have
indicated a decline in theft rates for
vehicle lines that have been equipped
with antitheft devices similar to that
which Ford proposes to install on the
new line. In these instances, the agency
has concluded that the lack of a visual
or audio alarm has not prevented these
antitheft devices from being effective
protection against theft.
On the basis of this comparison, Ford
has concluded that the antitheft device
proposed for its Focus vehicle line is no
less effective than those devices in the
lines for which NHTSA has already
granted full exemption from the partsmarking requirements.
Based on the evidence submitted by
Ford, the agency believes that the
antitheft device for the Focus 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 (49 CFR Part 541).
The agency concludes that the device
will provide four of the five types of
performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3):
promoting activation; preventing defeat
or circumvention of the device by
unauthorized persons; preventing
operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
Pursuant to 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 device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full Ford’s petition for
exemption for the Focus vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of
49 CFR Part 541. 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 543.7(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-
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7825
marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
If Ford decides not to use the
exemption for this line, it must formally
notify the agency, and, thereafter, 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 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. Part 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 anti-theft 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 Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted
vehicle manufacturers and itself. The
agency did not intend 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: February 8, 2006.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E6–2053 Filed 2–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket: RSPA–98–4957]
Request for Public Comments and
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Approval of an Existing
Information Collection (2137–0589)
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
SUMMARY: This notice requests public
participation in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
approval process for the renewal of an
existing PHMSA information collection.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7824-7825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-2053]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Ford Motor Company
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) in accordance with Sec. 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part
543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard, for the Focus
vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 2006. 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 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. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone
number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated October 7, 2005, Ford
requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2006 Focus vehicle
line. The petition requested exemption from parts-marking pursuant to
49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard,
based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment
for an entire vehicle line.
Under Sec. 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines per year. 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
Focus vehicle line. Ford will install its antitheft device, the
SecuriLock Passive Anti-Theft Electronic Powertrain Immobilizer System
(SecuriLock) as standard equipment on the Ford Focus vehicle line
beginning with MY 2006. Features of the antitheft device will include
an electronic key, ignition lock, and a passive immobilizer.
[[Page 7825]]
Additionally, the Ford Focus will have an optional perimeter alarm
system which will monitor all the doors, decklid and hood of the
vehicle. Ford's submission 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 Sec.
543.6.
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 will be disabled.
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 were 149 reported theft for 1997 compared to 500
reported thefts in 1995.
In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Ford
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Ford
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Ford also
provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the
device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its
specified requirements for each test. Ford also stated that the
SecuriLock electronic engine immobilizer device makes conventional
theft methods such as hot-wiring or attacking the ignition lock
cylinder ineffective and virtually eliminates drive-away thefts.
Ford also compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with
other devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing
and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-
marking requirements. Ford finds that the lack of an alarm or attention
attracting device does not compromise the theft deterrent performance
of a system such as the SecuriLock. Ford stated that its proposed
device is functionally equivalent to the systems used in previous
vehicle lines which were deemed effective and granted exemptions from
the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard.
Additionally, theft data have indicated a decline in theft rates for
vehicle lines that have been equipped with antitheft devices similar to
that which Ford proposes to install on the new line. In these
instances, the agency has concluded that the lack of a visual or audio
alarm has not prevented these antitheft devices from being effective
protection against theft.
On the basis of this comparison, Ford has concluded that the
antitheft device proposed for its Focus vehicle line is no less
effective than those devices in the lines for which NHTSA has already
granted full exemption from the parts-marking requirements.
Based on the evidence submitted by Ford, the agency believes that
the antitheft device for the Focus 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 four of the five
types of performance listed in Sec. 543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;
preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants;
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
Pursuant to 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 device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Ford's
petition for exemption for the Focus vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. 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 543.7(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 Ford decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, 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 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. Part 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 anti-theft 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 Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend 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: February 8, 2006.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E6-2053 Filed 2-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P