Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Ford Motor Company, 71721-71722 [E8-27962]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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
