Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mercedes-Benz, 31837-31839 [2010-13466]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices
motor carrier safety statutes and
regulations, to ‘‘prescribe recordkeeping
and reporting requirements’’ and to
‘‘perform other acts the Secretary
considers appropriate’’ (49 U.S.C.
31133(a)(8) and (10)). The FMCSA
Administrator has been delegated
authority under 49 CFR 1.73(g) to carry
out the functions vested in the Secretary
by 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapters I
and III, relating to CMV programs and
safety regulation.
Members of the motor carrier industry
and other interested parties may access
FMCSA’s guidance through FMCSA’s
Internet site at https://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov. Specific questions
addressing any of the interpretive
material withdrawn in this document
should be directed to the contact person
listed earlier under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, or to the FMCSA
Division Office in each State.
Basis for the Notice
On February 12, 2008, the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
(CVSA) petitioned FMCSA to withdraw
certain regulatory guidance concerning
49 CFR part 393. The regulatory
guidance that was the subject of the
petition had been made obsolete by final
rules concerning (1) protection against
shifting and falling cargo, and (2)
general amendments to Part 393 of the
FMCSRs.
For the reasons set forth below,
FMCSA granted the CVSA’s petition on
July 9, 2009:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Protection Against Shifting and Falling
Cargo
FMCSA published a final rule on
September 27, 2002 (67 FR 61212),
revising the regulations in 49 CFR part
393 concerning protection against
shifting and falling cargo for CMVs
engaged in interstate commerce. The
previous cargo securement regulations
required all cargo-carrying CMVs to be
equipped with devices that provided
protection against shifting or falling
cargo and that met the requirements of
one of four ‘‘options’’ (Options A, B, C,
or D). The September 2002 cargo
securement final rule replaced Options
A through D with: (1) More
comprehensive, performance-based,
general requirements; and (2) detailed
requirements for a number of specific
commodities, the proper securement of
which generated the most disagreement
between industry and enforcement
agencies. Because Options A through D
are no longer a part of the cargo
securement regulations, the regulatory
guidance provided in questions 2, 5,
and 6 to section 393.100 (reference 62
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:01 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
FR 16419, dated April 4, 1997) is no
longer valid and is hereby withdrawn.
General Amendments to Part 393
FMCSA published a final rule on
August 15, 2005 (70 FR 48008),
amending part 393 of the FMCSRs. As
part of this rule, FMCSA clarified that
CMVs must have both windshield
wiping and windshield washing
systems that meet the requirements of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 104, ‘‘Windshield wiping and
washing systems.’’ As such, the
regulatory guidance provided in
question 1 to section 393.78 (reference
62 FR 16418, dated April 4, 1997) is no
longer valid and is hereby withdrawn.
FMCSA further clarified that the
requirements of section 393.201 apply
to all CMVs, including trailers, and not
only buses, trucks, and truck tractors.
As such, the regulatory guidance
provided in question 2 to section
393.201 (reference 62 FR 16419, dated
April 4, 1997) is no longer valid and is
hereby withdrawn.
FMCSA also revised section
393.201(d) to make the regulation more
practical. Paragraph (d) was intended to
prohibit welding on vehicle frames
constructed of certain types of steel that
are weakened by the welding process.
However, the previous wording was
overly restrictive. To address this issue,
paragraph (d) now allows welding
which is performed in accordance with
the vehicle manufacturer’s
recommendations, and therefore, the
regulatory guidance provided in
question 3 to section 393.201 is now
redundant, no longer necessary, and
hereby withdrawn.
Decision
For the reasons presented above,
FMCSA removes the following
regulatory guidance: Section 393.78,
question 1; section 393.100, questions 2,
5, and 6; and section 393.201, questions
2 and 3, published online at https://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/
administration/fmcsr/
FmcsrGuideDetails.aspx?menukey=393.
Issued on: May 26, 2010.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010–13401 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31837
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard;
Mercedes-Benz
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
SUMMARY: This document grants in full
the Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA)
petition for an exemption of the SL–
Class Line Chassis vehicle line in
accordance with 49 CFR part 543,
Exemption from the 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
the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part
541).
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2011 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Rosalind Proctor, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Programs, NHTSA,1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building, W43–302,
Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor’s
telephone number is (202) 366–0846.
Her fax number is (202) 493–0073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated April 26, 2010, MBUSA
requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541)
for the new MY 2011 SL–Class Line
Chassis vehicle line. 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 an exemption
for one vehicle line per model year. In
its petition, MBUSA provided a detailed
description and diagram of the identity,
design, and location of the components
of the antitheft device for its new
vehicle line. MBUSA will install a
passive ignition immobilizer (FBS III)
and access code protected locking
system as standard equipment on its
new vehicle line beginning with MY
2011. MBUSA stated that its
immobilizer device is an interlinked
system of control units which
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
31838
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices
collectively perform the immobilizer
function. The interlinked system
includes the engine, electronic ignition
starter, transmitter key, electronic
control unit and the fuel injection
system which independently calculates
and matches a unique code. MBUSA
stated that if a relevant query from the
vehicle to the transmitter key is valid,
operation of the vehicle is authorized.
MBUSA stated that the device will also
incorporate an audible and visible alarm
feature as standard equipment.
MBUSA’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.
MBUSA stated that activation of the
device occurs automatically when the
key is removed from the ignition switch,
whether the doors are open or not. Once
activated, only a valid key with the
correct code inserted into the ignition
switch will disable immobilization and
allow the vehicle to start and operate.
MBUSA further stated that no other
action by the operator other than
turning the key is required to activate or
deactivate the immobilizer.
In its submission, MBUSA stated that
a locking/unlocking function is also
incorporated into the device. The data
exchange between the transmitter key
and the vehicle’s central controller for
the lock/unlock function is carried out
by radio signal. The unlocking signal
from the remote key sends a message to
the vehicle’s central electronic control
unit and a permanent code is verified
and compared to the stored code in the
Signal Acquisition Module (SAM).
MBUSA stated that the locking system
will only unlock the doors, tailgate and
fuel filler cover when both codes match.
In addressing the specific content
requirements of § 543.6, MBUSA
provided information on the reliability
and durability of its proposed device.
To ensure reliability and durability of
the immobilizer device, MBUSA
conducted performance tests based on
its Economic Commission for Europe
(ECE) specified standards. MBUSA
provided a detailed list of the tests
conducted and believes that the device
is reliable and durable since the device
complied with the specified
requirements for each test. MBUSA also
stated that it believes that the
immobilizer device offered on the SLclass vehicle will be at least as effective
as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the theft prevention
standard and as effective in deterring
theft as it has been in other MBUSA
vehicle lines for which theft data has
been published. MBUSA submitted theft
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:01 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
rate data published by the agency
comparing its proposed device to
antitheft devices already installed in the
Aston Martin Vantage, BMW 6-series
and Porsche 911 vehicle lines. MBUSA
stated it believes that an immobilizer
device was effective in contributing to a
63.5% reduction in the theft rate for the
Aston Martin Vantage Line. Specifically,
data published by the agency showed a
theft rate of 0.0000 for the calendar year
(CY) 2006 Aston Martin Vantage vehicle
line and 0.6784 for the MY 2007.
MBUSA also referenced theft data
published by the agency which showed
that the average theft rate for the BMW
6-series with an immobilizer was 2.3505
in MY/CY 2005 and 1.6227 in MY/CY
2007. MBUSA stated that it believes that
this data also indicates that the
immobilizer device was effective in
contributing to an additional (31%)
reduction in the theft rate of the BMW
6-series vehicle line. MBUSA also
referenced theft rate data published by
the agency for the Porsche 911 vehicle
line (with an immobilizer) showing a
theft rate experience of 0.8342 and 0.000
for MY/CY’s 2005 and 2006
respectively. MBUSA stated that it
believes that the data indicates that the
immobilizer device was effective in
contributing to a 13.8% reduction in the
theft rate of the Porsche 911 vehicle
line.
MBUSA stated that its proposed
device is also functionally similar to the
antitheft devices installed on the
Mercedes-Benz E–Class, C–Class and
SLK Class chassis vehicles which the
agency has already exempted from the
parts-marking requirements. In its
submission, MBUSA concluded that
lower theft rates could be expected from
vehicles equipped with immobilizer
devices as standard equipment. MBUSA
stated it believes that the data indicated
the immobilizer device was effective in
contributing to an average reduction of
29.9% in the theft rate of the SL–Line
Chassis when theft rates for the vehicle
line dropped from 1.4170 (CY 2005) to
1.0460 (CY 2007).
Based on the supporting evidence
submitted by MBUSA on the device, the
agency believes that the antitheft device
for the SL–Class Line Chassis 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 the five types of
performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3):
promoting activation; attracting
attention to the efforts of an
unauthorized person to enter or move a
vehicle by means other than a key;
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 MBUSA has provided
adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the MBUSA new
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).
This conclusion is based on the
information MBUSA provided about its
device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full MBUSA’s petition
for exemption for the SL–Class line
Chassis vehicle line from the partsmarking requirements of 49 CFR part
541, beginning with the 2011 model
year vehicles. 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 MBUSA 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 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major
component parts and replacement
parts).
NHTSA notes that if MBUSA 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 anti-theft device on
which the line’s exemption is based.
Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices
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: June 1, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010–13466 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0060; Notice 1]
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Ford Motor Company, Receipt of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
The Ford Motor Company (Ford) 1 has
determined that certain model year 2010
Ford Taurus passenger cars, built from
June 1, 2009, through October 5, 2009,
and certain model year 2010 Lincoln
MKT multi-purpose vehicles, built from
June 29, 2009, through October 8, 2009,
do not fully meet the windshield
marking requirements of paragraph S6.2
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 205 Glazing
Materials. On November 12, 2009, Ford
filed an appropriate report pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49
CFR part 556), Ford has petitioned for
an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
1 Ford
is a domestic manufacturer of motor
vehicles, incorporated under the laws of the State
of Delaware, with offices at The American Road,
Dearborn, Michigan.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:01 Jun 03, 2010
Jkt 220001
This notice of receipt of Ford’s
petition is published under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 and does not represent
any agency decision or other exercise of
judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
Ford estimates approximately 15,663
model year 2010 Ford Taurus passenger
car models, built from June 1, 2009,
through October 5, 2009, at Ford’s
Chicago Assembly Plant, and
approximately 3,565 model year 2010
Lincoln MKT multi-purpose vehicle
models, built from June 29, 2009,
through October 8, 2009, at Ford’s
Oakville Assembly Plant, a total of
approximately 19,228 vehicles are not
in compliance with paragraph S6.2 of
FMVSS No. 205 relating to windshield
marking.2
Paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205
requires in pertinent part:
S6.2 A prime glazing manufacturer certifies
its glazing by adding to the marks required
by section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996, in
letters and numerals of the same size, the
symbol ‘‘DOT’’ and a manufacturer’s code
mark that NHTSA assigns to the
manufacturer. * * *
Ford describes the noncompliance as
the improper location of the ‘‘AS1’’
glazing marking. The standard requires
that the ‘‘AS1’’ glazing marking be
located in close proximity to the official
designated trademark area (lower
portion) of the windshield. However,
Ford said that the ‘‘AS1’’ symbol is
marked in the upper portion of the
windshield, on both sides of the affected
windshields and that the windshields
conform to all other FMVSS No. 205
requirements.
Ford states the basis for why they
believe this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
as:
No other Ford vehicles are affected by this
condition and we are not aware of any field
or owner complaints related to this
condition. In our judgment, the condition
does not present a risk to motor vehicle
safety because the windshield fully meets the
performance and physical requirements of
FMVSS [No.] 205. Additionally repair service
will be unaffected because the selection of
replacement windshields is typically done
utilizing a distributor, a catalog, or NAGS
[National Auto Glass Specification] number.
Furthermore, repairers will be able to
determine the appropriate glazing because
the upper portions of the windshield are
properly labeled with the ‘‘AS1,’’ designation,
the glazing is clearly marked as ‘‘Laminated,’’
and all other markings required by FMVSS
[No.] 205 are properly labeled.
2 Ford additionally notes that the nonconforming
windshields installed in the subject vehicles were
manufactured by Zeledyne, Inc. (Zeledyne), at their
facility located at 7200 W. Centennial Boulevard,
Nashville, TN 37209.
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31839
Additionally, Ford stated that
Zeledyne discovered the noncompliance
during its trademark content project
study in which its laboratory personnel
noticed that the ‘‘AS1’’ symbol was
missing from the designated trademark
location on the lower corner of the
windshields for the affected vehicles.
Ford also has informed NHTSA that it
has corrected the problem that caused
these errors so that they will not be
repeated in future production.
Therefore, Ford believes that the
described noncompliance does not
present a risk to motor vehicle safety.
Thus, Ford requests that its petition, to
exempt it from providing recall
notification of noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and
remedying the recall noncompliance as
required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be
granted.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance.
Interested persons are invited to
submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments
must refer to the docket and notice
number cited at the beginning of this
notice and be submitted by any of the
following methods:
a. By mail addressed to: U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M–30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
b. By hand delivery to U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M–30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590. The Docket Section is open
on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except Federal Holidays.
c. Electronically: by logging onto the
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Comments may also be faxed to 1–202–
493–2251.
Comments must be written in the
English language, and be no greater than
15 pages in length, although there is no
limit to the length of necessary
attachments to the comments. If
comments are submitted in hard copy
form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31837-31839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13466]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Mercedes-Benz
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
(MBUSA) petition for an exemption of the SL-Class Line Chassis vehicle
line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the 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 the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541).
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2011 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA,1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, W43-302, Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is
(202) 493-0073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated April 26, 2010, MBUSA
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the new MY 2011 SL-Class Line
Chassis vehicle line. 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 an
exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, MBUSA
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design,
and location of the components of the antitheft device for its new
vehicle line. MBUSA will install a passive ignition immobilizer (FBS
III) and access code protected locking system as standard equipment on
its new vehicle line beginning with MY 2011. MBUSA stated that its
immobilizer device is an interlinked system of control units which
[[Page 31838]]
collectively perform the immobilizer function. The interlinked system
includes the engine, electronic ignition starter, transmitter key,
electronic control unit and the fuel injection system which
independently calculates and matches a unique code. MBUSA stated that
if a relevant query from the vehicle to the transmitter key is valid,
operation of the vehicle is authorized. MBUSA stated that the device
will also incorporate an audible and visible alarm feature as standard
equipment. MBUSA'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.
MBUSA stated that activation of the device occurs automatically
when the key is removed from the ignition switch, whether the doors are
open or not. Once activated, only a valid key with the correct code
inserted into the ignition switch will disable immobilization and allow
the vehicle to start and operate. MBUSA further stated that no other
action by the operator other than turning the key is required to
activate or deactivate the immobilizer.
In its submission, MBUSA stated that a locking/unlocking function
is also incorporated into the device. The data exchange between the
transmitter key and the vehicle's central controller for the lock/
unlock function is carried out by radio signal. The unlocking signal
from the remote key sends a message to the vehicle's central electronic
control unit and a permanent code is verified and compared to the
stored code in the Signal Acquisition Module (SAM). MBUSA stated that
the locking system will only unlock the doors, tailgate and fuel filler
cover when both codes match.
In addressing the specific content requirements of Sec. 543.6,
MBUSA provided information on the reliability and durability of its
proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the
immobilizer device, MBUSA conducted performance tests based on its
Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) specified standards. MBUSA
provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the
device is reliable and durable since the device complied with the
specified requirements for each test. MBUSA also stated that it
believes that the immobilizer device offered on the SL-class vehicle
will be at least as effective as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the theft prevention standard and as effective in
deterring theft as it has been in other MBUSA vehicle lines for which
theft data has been published. MBUSA submitted theft rate data
published by the agency comparing its proposed device to antitheft
devices already installed in the Aston Martin Vantage, BMW 6-series and
Porsche 911 vehicle lines. MBUSA stated it believes that an immobilizer
device was effective in contributing to a 63.5% reduction in the theft
rate for the Aston Martin Vantage Line. Specifically, data published by
the agency showed a theft rate of 0.0000 for the calendar year (CY)
2006 Aston Martin Vantage vehicle line and 0.6784 for the MY 2007.
MBUSA also referenced theft data published by the agency which showed
that the average theft rate for the BMW 6-series with an immobilizer
was 2.3505 in MY/CY 2005 and 1.6227 in MY/CY 2007. MBUSA stated that it
believes that this data also indicates that the immobilizer device was
effective in contributing to an additional (31%) reduction in the theft
rate of the BMW 6-series vehicle line. MBUSA also referenced theft rate
data published by the agency for the Porsche 911 vehicle line (with an
immobilizer) showing a theft rate experience of 0.8342 and 0.000 for
MY/CY's 2005 and 2006 respectively. MBUSA stated that it believes that
the data indicates that the immobilizer device was effective in
contributing to a 13.8% reduction in the theft rate of the Porsche 911
vehicle line.
MBUSA stated that its proposed device is also functionally similar
to the antitheft devices installed on the Mercedes-Benz E-Class, C-
Class and SLK Class chassis vehicles which the agency has already
exempted from the parts-marking requirements. In its submission, MBUSA
concluded that lower theft rates could be expected from vehicles
equipped with immobilizer devices as standard equipment. MBUSA stated
it believes that the data indicated the immobilizer device was
effective in contributing to an average reduction of 29.9% in the theft
rate of the SL-Line Chassis when theft rates for the vehicle line
dropped from 1.4170 (CY 2005) to 1.0460 (CY 2007).
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by MBUSA on the device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the SL-Class Line
Chassis 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 five types of
performance listed in Sec. 543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;
attracting attention to the efforts of an unauthorized person to enter
or move 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.
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 MBUSA has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the MBUSA new 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). This conclusion is based on the information MBUSA
provided about its device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full MBUSA's
petition for exemption for the SL-Class line Chassis vehicle line from
the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the
2011 model year vehicles. 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 MBUSA 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 541.5 and
541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if MBUSA 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 anti-theft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Sec. 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
[[Page 31839]]
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: June 1, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-13466 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
