Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Ford Motor Company, 71721-71722 [E8-27962]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 25, 2008 / Notices States served: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. [FR Doc. E8–27283 Filed 11–24–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–57–C 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. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES 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 Ford Mercury Mariner vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 2010. 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) 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 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 September 18, 2008, Ford requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Mercury Mariner vehicle line beginning with MY 2010. The petition requested an exemption from partsmarking 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 vehicle line per model year. Ford has petitioned the agency to grant an exemption for its Mercury Mariner vehicle line beginning with MY 2010. In its petition, Ford provided a detailed VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:01 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 217001 States served: Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the Mercury Mariner vehicle line. Ford will install its passive transponder-based electronic immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment on the vehicle line. Features of the antitheft device will include an electronic key, ignition lock, and a passive immobilizer. The system does not include an audible or visual alarm as standard equipment. 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 antitheft device to be installed on the MY 2010 Mercury Mariner is the SecuriLock Passive Antitheft Electronic Engine Immobilizer System (SecuriLock). 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 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 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. The cluster and PCM share security data when first installed during vehicle assembly form matched modules. Ford stated that as an additional measure of security, these matched modules will not function in other vehicles if they are separated from each other. Ford also stated that key duplication would virtually be impossible because its key is encrypted with many different codes (18 quintillion). Ford stated that there were only two years of reported theft rates available for the Mercury Mariner, but its Escape vehicle line which is comparable in design, size and equipment to the Mariner is installed with the proposed PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4703 71721 Sfmt 4703 device. The Ford Escape vehicle line had an average theft rate using 5 MY’s data (2001–2005) of 1.4215 and was granted an exemption from the parts marking standard (Part 541) beginning with the 2009 model year. Ford stated that the exceptionally low theft rate (0.6968) for MY 2006 Mariner vehicles is likely to continue or improve in future years. The theft rate using an average of two MY’s data (2005–2006) for Mariner vehicles is 0.7913. Additionally, Ford noted the reduction in the theft rate for other vehicle lines equipped with the SecuriLock device. Ford’s SecuriLock device was first introduced as standard equipment on it’s MY 1996 Mustang GT and Cobra vehicle lines. The SecuriLock system was installed on the entire Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment in MY 1997. Ford stated that according to National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) theft statistics, the 1997 model year Mustang with SecuriLock showed a 70% reduction in theft compared to its MY 1995 Mustang vehicles. Comparatively, Ford stated that there were 149 thefts reported in 1997 and 500 thefts reported 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 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. The agency also notes 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 543.7(b), the agency grants a petition for exemption from the partsmarking requirements of Part 541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency finds that Ford has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the antitheft device for the Mercury Mariner vehicle E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM 25NON1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES 71722 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 25, 2008 / Notices 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). 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 Mercury Mariner 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 Part 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. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR Parts 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 antitheft device on which the line’s exemption is based. Further, Part 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 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:01 Nov 24, 2008 Jkt 217001 before preparing and submitting a petition to modify. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Issued on: November 20, 2008. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E8–27962 Filed 11–24–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0182, Notice 1] Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. LLC; Receipt of Application for Extension of a Temporary Exemption From Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of receipt of application for a temporary exemption. AGENCY: SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures of 49 CFR 555.6(b), Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A. LLC (‘‘MBUSA’’), on behalf of its parent corporation Daimler AG (‘‘Daimler’’) has applied for a renewal of a temporary exemption from S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108. The basis of the application is to continue the development and field evaluation of new motor vehicle safety feature providing a level of safety at least equal to that of the standard. We are publishing this notice of receipt of the application in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 555.7(a), and have made no judgment on the merits of the application. DATES: You should submit your comments not later than December 26, 2008. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ari Scott, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC–112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366–2992; Fax: (202) 366–3820; E-mail: ari.scott@dot.gov. I. Background In June of 2005, MBUSA petitioned the agency on behalf of its parent corporation, DaimlerChrysler AG,1 seeking a temporary exemption from S5.5.10 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108. In short, S5.5.10 specifies that with certain 1 Due to corporate changes since the previous petition was received, the parent company of MBUSA is now Daimler AG. PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 exceptions not applicable to this petition, all lamps, including stop lamps must be wired to be steady-burning.2 In order to develop and evaluate an innovative brake signaling system in the United States, MBUSA sought a temporary exemption from the ‘‘steadyburning’’ requirement as it applies to stop lamps. At the time of the original petition, the system was available in Europe on the S-class, CL-class, and SLclass Mercedes vehicles. MBUSA states that the system enhances the emergency braking signal by flashing three stop lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 during strong deceleration. In addition, after emergency braking, the system automatically activates the hazard warning lights of the stopped vehicle until it starts to move again or the lights are manually switched off. The petitioner states that this signaling system reduces the following drivers’ reaction time by attracting their attention, and also enhances visibility of the stopped vehicle, thus helping to reduce the incidence and severity of rear end collisions. NHTSA granted MBUSA’s petition for exemption on January 30, 2006.3 The exemption was for a two-year period.4 In granting MBUSA’s request in the original grant, NHTSA made several determinations. The agency stated that MBUSA had met the requirements to receive an exemption under 49 CFR Part 555(b), which permits exemptions from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on the basis that the exemption would make easier the development or field evaluation of safety equipment. Specifically, the agency stated that based on information provided by MBUSA, it appeared the proposed brake lamp system provided at least an equivalent level of safety to those that comply with FMVSS No. 108. Furthermore, NHTSA decided that granting the requested would be in the public interest, because the new field data obtained through this temporary exemption would enable the agency to make more informed decisions regarding the effect of flashing brake 2 See S5.5.10 of 49 CFR 571.108. Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, school bus warning lamps must be wired to flash. Headlamps and side marker lamps may be wired to flash for signaling purposes. Motorcycle headlamps may be wired to modulate. 3 71 FR 4961. 4 We note that under 49 CFR 555.8(e), ‘‘if an application for renewal of temporary exemption that meets the requirements of § 555.5 has been filed not later than 60 days before the termination date of an exemption, the exemption does not terminate until the Administrator grants or denies the application for renewal.’’ E:\FR\FM\25NON1.SGM 25NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71721-71722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-27962]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Ford Mercury 
Mariner vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 2010. 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) 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., 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 September 18, 2008, Ford 
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Mercury Mariner vehicle 
line beginning with MY 2010. The petition requested an 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 vehicle line per model year. Ford has petitioned the 
agency to grant an exemption for its Mercury Mariner vehicle line 
beginning with MY 2010. 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 Mercury Mariner vehicle 
line. Ford will install its passive transponder-based electronic 
immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment on the vehicle line. 
Features of the antitheft device will include an electronic key, 
ignition lock, and a passive immobilizer. The system does not include 
an audible or visual alarm as standard equipment. Ford's submission 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.
    The antitheft device to be installed on the MY 2010 Mercury Mariner 
is the SecuriLock Passive Antitheft Electronic Engine Immobilizer 
System (SecuriLock). 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 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 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. The cluster and PCM share security data 
when first installed during vehicle assembly form matched modules. Ford 
stated that as an additional measure of security, these matched modules 
will not function in other vehicles if they are separated from each 
other. Ford also stated that key duplication would virtually be 
impossible because its key is encrypted with many different codes (18 
quintillion).
    Ford stated that there were only two years of reported theft rates 
available for the Mercury Mariner, but its Escape vehicle line which is 
comparable in design, size and equipment to the Mariner is installed 
with the proposed device. The Ford Escape vehicle line had an average 
theft rate using 5 MY's data (2001-2005) of 1.4215 and was granted an 
exemption from the parts marking standard (Part 541) beginning with the 
2009 model year. Ford stated that the exceptionally low theft rate 
(0.6968) for MY 2006 Mariner vehicles is likely to continue or improve 
in future years. The theft rate using an average of two MY's data 
(2005-2006) for Mariner vehicles is 0.7913.
    Additionally, Ford noted the reduction in the theft rate for other 
vehicle lines equipped with the SecuriLock device. Ford's SecuriLock 
device was first introduced as standard equipment on it's MY 1996 
Mustang GT and Cobra vehicle lines. The SecuriLock system was installed 
on the entire Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment in MY 1997. 
Ford stated that according to National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) 
theft statistics, the 1997 model year Mustang with SecuriLock showed a 
70% reduction in theft compared to its MY 1995 Mustang vehicles. 
Comparatively, Ford stated that there were 149 thefts reported in 1997 
and 500 thefts reported 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 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.
    The agency also notes 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 543.7(b), the agency grants 
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part 
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon 
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely 
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as 
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency 
finds that Ford has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the 
antitheft device for the Mercury Mariner vehicle

[[Page 71722]]

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). 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 Mercury Mariner 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 Part 
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. If such a decision is made, the line must 
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR Parts 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 antitheft device on which the line's 
exemption is based. Further, Part 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 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: November 20, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-27962 Filed 11-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P