Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Ford Motor Company, 16472-16474 [2011-6724]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
16472
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Reports, Forms and Record Keeping
Requirements; Agency Information
Collection Activity Under OMB Review
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice
announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted
below has been forwarded to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and comment. The ICR describes
the nature of the information collections
and their expected burden. The Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period was published on September 3,
2010 [FR Doc. 2010–22008].
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before April 22, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KilJae Hong, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., W52–232, NPO–520,
Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Hong’s
telephone number is (202) 493–0524
and e-mail address is kiljae.hong@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Title: 49 CFR 575—Consumer
Information Regulations (sections 103
and 105) Qualitative Research.
OMB Number: Not Assigned.
Type of Request: Request for public
comment on collection of information
request.
Abstract: The Energy Independence
and Security Act of 2007 (EISA),
enacted in December 2007, included a
requirement that the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
develop a consumer information and
education campaign to improve
consumer understanding of automobile
performance with regard to fuel
economy, Greenhouse Gases (GHG)
emissions and other pollutant
emissions; of automobile use of
alternative fuels; and of thermal
management technologies used on
automobiles to save fuel. A critical step
in developing the consumer information
program is to conduct proper market
research to understand consumers’
knowledge surrounding these issues,
evaluate potential consumer-facing
messages in terms of clarity and
understand the communications
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:46 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
channels in which these messages
should be present. The research will
allow NHTSA to refine messaging to
enhance comprehension and usefulness
and will guide the development of an
effective communications plan. NHTSA
proposes a multi-phased research
project to gather the data and apply
analyses and results from the project to
develop the consumer information
program and education campaign.
Affected Public: Passenger vehicle
consumers.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 128.
ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30
days, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, 725–17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503,
Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
Comments are invited on: Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Department,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of
the Departments estimate of the burden
of the proposed information collection;
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
A Comment to OMB is most effective if
OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.
Gregory A. Walter,
Senior Associate Administrator, Policy and
Operations.
help caregivers find a child restraint
system (‘‘child safety seat’’) that fits their
vehicle. This document corrects the
public comments submission due date.
DATES: Comments should be submitted
early enough to ensure that they are
received no later than April 26, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues related to the VehicleChild Restraint System (CRS) Fit
program, you may contact Ms. Jennifer
N. Dang, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards (Telephone: 202–493–0598).
For legal issues, you may contact Ms.
Deirdre Fujita, Office of Chief Counsel
(Telephone: 202–366–2992). You may
send mail to these officials at the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., West Building,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA
published in the Federal Register of
February 25, 2011 (76 FR 10637), a
request for comments notice describing
the new consumer information program
that will help caregivers find a child
restraint system that fits their vehicle. In
that document, on page 10637, in the
DATES section, it states that ‘‘comments
should be submitted early enough to
ensure that they are received no later
than March 28, 2011.’’ In that section,
change the date from ‘‘March 28, 2011’’
to ‘‘April 26, 2011.’’
Issued on: March 17, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for
Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011–6729 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
[FR Doc. 2011–6849 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket NHTSA–2010–00062]
Consumer Information; Program for
Child Restraint Systems; Correction
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Request for comments;
correction.
AGENCY:
NHTSA published in the
Federal Register of February 25, 2011 a
request for comments notice detailing
observations from an agency pilot study
conducted to determine reasonable
conditions for participation in a new
consumer information program, as part
of the New Car Assessment Program, to
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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)
petition for an exemption of the C–MAX
vehicle line in accordance with
§ 543.9(c)(2) of 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM
23MRN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Notices
the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part
541). Ford requested confidential
treatment for an attachment it submitted
in support of its petition. The agency
has addressed Ford’s request for
confidential treatment by letter dated
March 1, 2011.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2013 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)
366–5222. Her fax number is (202) 493–
2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated January 25, 2011, Ford
requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541)
for the MY 2013 Ford C–MAX 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. 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 C–MAX
vehicle line. Ford will install its Passive
Antitheft Electronic Immobilizer System
(PATS) on the 2013 C–MAX as standard
equipment. Ford stated that it will also
offer its Intelligent Access with Push
Button Start (IAwPB) antitheft device as
optional equipment. Ford stated that
both systems are passive, electronic
immobilizer devices that use encrypted
transponder technology with 28 trillion
different possible electronic key codes
for the PATS system and 400 million
different possible electronic key codes
for the IAwPB system. Key components
of the PATS antitheft device will
include an electronic transponder key,
transceiver module, ignition lock, and a
passive immobilizer. Key components of
the IAwPB device is an electronic
keyfob, remote function actuator, body
control module, power train control
module and a passive immobilizer. Ford
stated that its MY 2013 C–MAX vehicle
line will also be equipped with several
other standard antitheft features
common to Ford vehicles, (i.e.,
counterfeit resistant VIN labels;
secondary VINs, hood release inside
vehicle, and cabin accessibility through
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:46 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
the use of a valid key fob or keycode).
Ford further stated that its C–MAX
vehicles will also be available with an
optional perimeter alarm system. The
perimeter alarm system will utilize both
an audible and visible 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 § 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. Ford
further stated that both devices are
always active and require no other
operator action. Specifically, in the
PATS device, when the ignition key is
turned to the ‘‘start’’ position, the
transceiver module reads the ignition
key code and transmits an encrypted
message from the keycode to the control
module, which then determines key
validity and authorizes engine starting
by sending a separate encrypted
message to the powertrain control
module (PCM). In the IAwPB device,
when the ‘‘startstop’’ button is pressed,
the transceiver module reads the key
code and transmits an encrypted
message from the keycode to the control
module to determine validity and
authorizes engine starting by sending a
separate encrypted message to the body
control module, the PEP/RFA module
and the PCM. Ford pointed out that in
addition to the programmed key, the
three modules that must be matched to
start the vehicle adds even an additional
level of security to the IAwPB device. In
both devices, if the codes do not match,
the vehicle will be inoperable.
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 compared the device proposed
for its vehicle line with other devices
which NHTSA has determined to be as
effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as would
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements. Ford stated that it
believes that the standard installation of
either the PATS device or the IAwPB
device would be an effective deterrent
against vehicle theft.
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
16473
Ford stated that it installed the PATS
device on all MY 1996 Ford Mustang GT
and Cobra models as standard
equipment. Ford also stated that the
PATS device was extended to the
complete Ford Mustang vehicle line as
standard equipment in MY 1997. Ford
also stated that according to the
National Insurance Crime Bureau
(NICB) theft statistics, MY 1997
Mustangs installed with the PATS
device showed a 70% reduction in theft
rate when compared to MY 1995
Mustangs. Ford also stated that the
PATS device is currently offered as
standard equipment on most of its North
American Ford, Lincoln and Mercury
vehicles but is offered as optional
equipment on its F-series Super Duty
pickups, Econoline and Transit Connect
vehicle. Ford stated that beginning with
MY 2011, the IAwPB device will also be
offered as standard equipment on the
Lincoln MKT and optionally on the
Lincoln MKS, MKX, Ford Taurus, Edge,
Explorer, Focus and Fiesta vehicles.
Ford referenced the agency’s
published theft rate data for the Volvo
S60 for comparison purposes because it
stated that the Ford C–MAX is a new
vehicle and would utilize the PATS and
IAwPB systems that would be similar to
the Volvo S60 in design and
architecture. Ford stated that the Volvo
S60’s theft rate is lower than the vehicle
theft rate for all vehicles in four of the
last five calendar years for which
published data is available. Specifically,
the agency’s data show that theft rates
for the Volvo S60 for MYs 2006–2008
are 1.3803, 0.6907 and 2.3543
respectively. Using an average of 3 MYs
data (2006–2008), the theft rate for the
Volvo S60 vehicle line is well below the
median at 1.4751. Ford stated that since
either the PATS device or the IAwPB
device are the primary theft devices on
Ford C–MAX vehicles, it believes that
theft rates similar to Volvo S60 are
likely to continue or improve in the
future.
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 C–MAX 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 partsmarking requirements of Part 541 either
in whole or in part, if it determines that,
based upon substantial evidence, the
E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM
23MRN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
16474
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 23, 2011 / Notices
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 C–MAX 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 C–MAX 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 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. 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 antitheft device on
which the line’s exemption is based.
Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ‘‘to modify an
exemption to permit the use of an
antitheft device similar to but differing
from the one specified in that
exemption.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:46 Mar 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
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: March 17, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for
Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011–6724 Filed 3–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. AB 33 (Sub-No. 296X)]
Union Pacific Railroad Company—
Abandonment Exemption—in
Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties, CA
On March 3, 2011, Union Pacific
Railroad Company (UP) filed with the
Surface Transportation Board (Board) a
petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for
exemption from the prior approval
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to
abandon 2 segments, totaling 5.0 miles,
of the Riverside Industrial Lead in
Riverside and San Bernardino Counties,
Cal. The northern segment begins at
milepost 540.15 near Colton and ends at
milepost 543.88 near Riverside (North
Segment), a distance of 3.73 miles, of
which 2.27 miles are in San Bernardino
County and 1.46 miles are in Riverside
County. The southern segment begins at
milepost 544.56 and extends to the end
of the line at milepost 545.83 (South
Segment), a distance of 1.27 miles in
Riverside County (both segments
collectively referred to as the Line). The
Line traverses United States Postal
Service Zip Codes 92324, 92313, 92507,
and 92506.
In addition to an exemption from the
prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C.
10903, UP seeks exemption from 49
U.S.C. 10904 (offer of financial
assistance (OFA) procedures) and 49
U.S.C. 10905 (public use conditions). In
support, UP contends that exemption
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
from these provisions is necessary to
ensure that a portion of the underlying
right-of-way will be available for
conveyance to the California State Road
Authority for its Interstate 215 Project.
Further, UP states that exemption from
these provisions will allow the
Interstate 215 Project to avoid costs
associated with building a replacement
bridge on the North Segment of the
Line. These requests will be addressed
in the final decision.
UP is not seeking authority to
abandon the portion of the Riverside
Industrial Lead between the North
Segment and the South Segment (from
milepost 543.88 to milepost 544.56), a
distance of .68 miles (the Remaining
Segment). UP states that the Remaining
Segment will still be part of the UP
railroad system and will continue to
serve the shippers on the Remaining
Segment with BNSF Railway (BNSF)
providing service via a haulage
agreement and trackage rights, over a
connection to be constructed between
the Remaining Segment and a line of
railroad owned by the Riverside County
Transportation Commission. UP will
remain the primary railroad obligated to
serve the Remaining Segment.
The Line does not contain Federally
granted rights-of-way. Any
documentation in UP’s possession will
be made available promptly to those
requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees
will be protected by the conditions set
forth in Oregon Short Line—
Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch
Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham &
Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C.
91 (1979).
By issuance of this notice, the Board
is instituting an exemption proceeding
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final
decision will be issued by June 21,
2011.
Any OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2)
will be due no later than 10 days after
service of a decision granting the
petition for exemption. Each OFA must
be accompanied by a $1,500 filing fee.
See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).
All interested persons should be
aware that, following abandonment of
rail service and salvage of the Line, the
Line may be suitable for other public
use, including interim trail use. Any
request for a public use condition under
49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail
banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be
due no later than April 12, 2011. Each
trail request must be accompanied by a
$250 filing fee. See 49 CFR
1002.2(f)(27).
All filings in response to this notice
must refer to Docket No. AB 33 (Sub-No.
296X), and must be sent to: (1) Surface
E:\FR\FM\23MRN1.SGM
23MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16472-16474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6724]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 C-MAX vehicle line in accordance with
Sec. 543.9(c)(2) of 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
[[Page 16473]]
the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR
part 541). Ford requested confidential treatment for an attachment it
submitted in support of its petition. The agency has addressed Ford's
request for confidential treatment by letter dated March 1, 2011.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2013 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) 366-5222. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated January 25, 2011, Ford
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the MY 2013 Ford C-MAX
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. 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 C-MAX
vehicle line. Ford will install its Passive Antitheft Electronic
Immobilizer System (PATS) on the 2013 C-MAX as standard equipment. Ford
stated that it will also offer its Intelligent Access with Push Button
Start (IAwPB) antitheft device as optional equipment. Ford stated that
both systems are passive, electronic immobilizer devices that use
encrypted transponder technology with 28 trillion different possible
electronic key codes for the PATS system and 400 million different
possible electronic key codes for the IAwPB system. Key components of
the PATS antitheft device will include an electronic transponder key,
transceiver module, ignition lock, and a passive immobilizer. Key
components of the IAwPB device is an electronic keyfob, remote function
actuator, body control module, power train control module and a passive
immobilizer. Ford stated that its MY 2013 C-MAX vehicle line will also
be equipped with several other standard antitheft features common to
Ford vehicles, (i.e., counterfeit resistant VIN labels; secondary VINs,
hood release inside vehicle, and cabin accessibility through the use of
a valid key fob or keycode). Ford further stated that its C-MAX
vehicles will also be available with an optional perimeter alarm
system. The perimeter alarm system will utilize both an audible and
visible 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. Ford further stated that both devices are always active and
require no other operator action. Specifically, in the PATS device,
when the ignition key is turned to the ``start'' position, the
transceiver module reads the ignition key code and transmits an
encrypted message from the keycode to the control module, which then
determines key validity and authorizes engine starting by sending a
separate encrypted message to the powertrain control module (PCM). In
the IAwPB device, when the ``startstop'' button is pressed, the
transceiver module reads the key code and transmits an encrypted
message from the keycode to the control module to determine validity
and authorizes engine starting by sending a separate encrypted message
to the body control module, the PEP/RFA module and the PCM. Ford
pointed out that in addition to the programmed key, the three modules
that must be matched to start the vehicle adds even an additional level
of security to the IAwPB device. In both devices, if the codes do not
match, the vehicle will be inoperable.
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 compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with other
devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-
marking requirements. Ford stated that it believes that the standard
installation of either the PATS device or the IAwPB device would be an
effective deterrent against vehicle theft.
Ford stated that it installed the PATS device on all MY 1996 Ford
Mustang GT and Cobra models as standard equipment. Ford also stated
that the PATS device was extended to the complete Ford Mustang vehicle
line as standard equipment in MY 1997. Ford also stated that according
to the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) theft statistics, MY 1997
Mustangs installed with the PATS device showed a 70% reduction in theft
rate when compared to MY 1995 Mustangs. Ford also stated that the PATS
device is currently offered as standard equipment on most of its North
American Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles but is offered as optional
equipment on its F-series Super Duty pickups, Econoline and Transit
Connect vehicle. Ford stated that beginning with MY 2011, the IAwPB
device will also be offered as standard equipment on the Lincoln MKT
and optionally on the Lincoln MKS, MKX, Ford Taurus, Edge, Explorer,
Focus and Fiesta vehicles.
Ford referenced the agency's published theft rate data for the
Volvo S60 for comparison purposes because it stated that the Ford C-MAX
is a new vehicle and would utilize the PATS and IAwPB systems that
would be similar to the Volvo S60 in design and architecture. Ford
stated that the Volvo S60's theft rate is lower than the vehicle theft
rate for all vehicles in four of the last five calendar years for which
published data is available. Specifically, the agency's data show that
theft rates for the Volvo S60 for MYs 2006-2008 are 1.3803, 0.6907 and
2.3543 respectively. Using an average of 3 MYs data (2006-2008), the
theft rate for the Volvo S60 vehicle line is well below the median at
1.4751. Ford stated that since either the PATS device or the IAwPB
device are the primary theft devices on Ford C-MAX vehicles, it
believes that theft rates similar to Volvo S60 are likely to continue
or improve in the future.
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 C-MAX 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
[[Page 16474]]
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 C-MAX 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 C-MAX 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 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. 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 antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Sec. 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend 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: March 17, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-6724 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
