Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Ford Motor Company, 2444-2445 [2011-567]
Download as PDF
2444
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices
by 1-year intervals, for a total of three
administrations of the survey over
slightly more than a 2 year period. All
other members of the sample will be
administered the survey one time only.
The interviews with bar patrons will
be conducted with individuals 21 years
of age and older. Interview length will
average approximately 5 minutes, and
each member of the sample would
complete one interview. Businesses are
ineligible for the sample and would not
be interviewed.
The roadside survey interviews will
be conducted with drivers 18 and older.
Interviews would average 5 minutes,
and each member of the sample would
complete one interview. Businesses are
ineligible for the sample and would not
be interviewed.
Estimate of the Total Annual
Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of
Information—NHTSA estimates that
respondents would require an average of
10 minutes to complete the telephone
interviews or a total of 3,917 hours for
the 23,500 respondents. The interviews
with bar patrons will average 5 minutes
or a total of 125 hours for the 1,500
respondents. The roadside survey
interviews will also average 5 minutes
or a total of 125 hours for the 1,500
respondents. The total number of
estimated reporting burden hours on the
general public would be 4,167. The
annual reporting burden would be 1,923
hours based on a 26 month data
collection period. The respondents
would not incur any reporting cost from
the information collection. The
respondents also would not incur any
record keeping burden or record
keeping cost from the information
collection.
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).
Jeffrey Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and
Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2011–645 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
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:
This document grants in full
the Ford Motor Company’s (Ford)
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
petition for an exemption of the Fusion
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 partsmarking requirements of the 49 CFR
Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2012 model year.
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–
2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated September 21, 2010, Ford
requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541)
for the MY 2012 Ford Fusion 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 § 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 Fusion vehicle line
beginning with MY 2012. 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 Fusion vehicle
line. Ford will install its ‘‘SecuriLock’’
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. Ford stated that
since it’s MY 2006 introduction, the
Fusion has been equipped with the
‘‘SecuriLock’’ device as standard
equipment. The device does not
incorporate an audible or visual alarm
as standard equipment however, Ford
stated that the Fusion vehicles will
come equipped with a separate
perimeter alarm system that utilizes
both a visible and audible alarm if
unauthorized access is attempted.
Ford’s submission is considered a
complete petition as required by 49 CFR
543.7, in that it meets the general
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
requirements contained in § 543.5 and
the specific content requirements of
§ 543.6.
Ford stated that the devices
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 control module/
transmission control module (PCM/
TCM). 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 engine starter,
ignition and fuel systems will be
disabled. Ford stated that the device
functions automatically each time an
engine start sequence occurs. Therefore,
no owner/operator actions are required
to deactivate the device.
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.
Ford stated that incorporation of
several features in both devices further
support reliability and durability of the
device. Specifically, some of those
features include: encrypted
communication between the
transponder, control function and the
power train control module; no moving
parts; inability to mechanically override
the device to start the vehicle; and the
body control module/remote function
actuator and the power train control
module share security data that form
matched modules during vehicle
assembly that if separated from each
other will not function in other vehicles.
Ford stated that the Fusion will be
equipped with several other standard
antitheft features (i.e., a hood release,
counterfeit resistant VIN plates,
secondary VINs inscribed on the body,
and an exterior key lock that will be
located only on the driver door to limit
cabin access). Ford also stated that the
device’s encrypted transponder
technology will make key duplication
virtually impossible.
Additionally, Ford noted that with the
prevalence of electronic engine
immobilizer systems on nearly all new
E:\FR\FM\13JAN1.SGM
13JAN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices
retail vehicles, the overall theft rates
have been decreasing and the theft rate
for the Fusion vehicles have remained
very close to the overall theft rate trend.
Specifically, the agency’s data show that
theft rates for the Fusion for MYs 2006–
2008 are 1.7314, 1.8161 and 1.8797
respectively. Using an average of 3 MYs
data (2006–2008), the theft rate for the
Fusion vehicle line is well below the
median at 1.8090.
Ford compared the effectiveness of its
antitheft device with devices which
NHTSA has previously determined to be
as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as would
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of Part 541. Specifically,
Ford provided information on 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 also stated that the
‘‘SecuriLock’’ device has been installed
as standard equipment on all North
American Ford, Lincoln and Mercury
vehicles except for the F–Super Duty,
Econoline and Crown Victoria Police
Interceptor vehicles. 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.
Ford also stated that the proposed
device is very similar in design and
implementation to the device offered on
the Ford Escape vehicle line. The
agency granted Ford’s petition for
exemption for the Escape vehicle line
on April 18, 2008. Ford stated that it
believes that the standard installation of
the ‘‘SecuriLock’’ device on the Fusion
vehicle line would be an effective
deterrent against vehicle theft and that
the low theft rate experienced by the
line in CY 2008 is likely to continue or
improve in future years.
The agency agrees that the device is
substantially similar to devices in other
vehicle lines for which the agency has
already granted exemptions. Based on
the evidence submitted by Ford, the
agency believes that the antitheft device
for the Fusion 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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Jan 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 Ford Fusion 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
Ford provided about its device.
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.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full Ford’s petition for
exemption for the Fusion 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 partsmarking 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
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2445
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: January 7, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting, Associate Administrator for
Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011–567 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. AB 6 (Sub-No. 473X)]
BNSF Railway Company—
Abandonment Exemption—in Rolette
and Towner Counties, ND
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), filed
a verified notice of exemption under 49
C.F.R. pt. 1152 subpart F—Exempt
Abandonments to abandon 17.75 miles
of rail line between milepost 30.00,
north of Bisbee and milepost 47.75 at
Rolla, in Rolette and Towner Counties,
N.D.1 The line traverses United States
Postal Service Zip Codes 58317, 58363,
and 58367.
BNSF has certified that: (1) No local
traffic has moved over the line for at
least 2 years; 2 (2) there is no overhead
traffic on the line; (3) no formal
complaint filed by a user of rail service
on the line (or by a state or local
1 On December 23, 2010, the Rollo Job
Development Authority (RJDA) filed a letter in
opposition. While the Board will not delay service
and publication of this notice based on that letter
alone, RJDA has a number of post-publication/
service options available to it, as set forth in this
notice, should it choose to pursue the matter
further.
2 BNSF states that the line was embargoed on
March 29, 2007 due to soft track conditions and
sub-grade issues and the subsequent destruction by
fire of two bridges.
E:\FR\FM\13JAN1.SGM
13JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2444-2445]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-567]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Ford Motor Company's (Ford)
petition for an exemption of the Fusion 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 49 CFR Part
541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2012 model year.
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) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated September 21, 2010, Ford
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2012 Ford Fusion
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
exemptions for one vehicle line per model year. Ford has petitioned the
agency to grant an exemption for its Fusion vehicle line beginning with
MY 2012. 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 Fusion vehicle line. Ford will install its
``SecuriLock'' 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. Ford stated that since it's MY 2006
introduction, the Fusion has been equipped with the ``SecuriLock''
device as standard equipment. The device does not incorporate an
audible or visual alarm as standard equipment however, Ford stated that
the Fusion vehicles will come equipped with a separate perimeter alarm
system that utilizes both a visible and audible alarm if unauthorized
access is attempted. 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.
Ford stated that the devices 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 control module/transmission control module
(PCM/TCM). 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 engine starter, ignition and fuel
systems will be disabled. Ford stated that the device functions
automatically each time an engine start sequence occurs. Therefore, no
owner/operator actions are required to deactivate the device.
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.
Ford stated that incorporation of several features in both devices
further support reliability and durability of the device. Specifically,
some of those features include: encrypted communication between the
transponder, control function and the power train control module; no
moving parts; inability to mechanically override the device to start
the vehicle; and the body control module/remote function actuator and
the power train control module share security data that form matched
modules during vehicle assembly that if separated from each other will
not function in other vehicles. Ford stated that the Fusion will be
equipped with several other standard antitheft features (i.e., a hood
release, counterfeit resistant VIN plates, secondary VINs inscribed on
the body, and an exterior key lock that will be located only on the
driver door to limit cabin access). Ford also stated that the device's
encrypted transponder technology will make key duplication virtually
impossible.
Additionally, Ford noted that with the prevalence of electronic
engine immobilizer systems on nearly all new
[[Page 2445]]
retail vehicles, the overall theft rates have been decreasing and the
theft rate for the Fusion vehicles have remained very close to the
overall theft rate trend. Specifically, the agency's data show that
theft rates for the Fusion for MYs 2006-2008 are 1.7314, 1.8161 and
1.8797 respectively. Using an average of 3 MYs data (2006-2008), the
theft rate for the Fusion vehicle line is well below the median at
1.8090.
Ford compared the effectiveness of its antitheft device with
devices which NHTSA has previously determined to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of Part 541. Specifically, Ford provided
information on 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 also
stated that the ``SecuriLock'' device has been installed as standard
equipment on all North American Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles
except for the F-Super Duty, Econoline and Crown Victoria Police
Interceptor vehicles. 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. Ford also stated that
the proposed device is very similar in design and implementation to the
device offered on the Ford Escape vehicle line. The agency granted
Ford's petition for exemption for the Escape vehicle line on April 18,
2008. Ford stated that it believes that the standard installation of
the ``SecuriLock'' device on the Fusion vehicle line would be an
effective deterrent against vehicle theft and that the low theft rate
experienced by the line in CY 2008 is likely to continue or improve in
future years.
The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to
devices in other vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted
exemptions. Based on the evidence submitted by Ford, the agency
believes that the antitheft device for the Fusion 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).
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 Ford Fusion 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 Ford
provided about its device.
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.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Ford's
petition for exemption for the Fusion 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. 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: January 7, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-567 Filed 1-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P