Petition to Modify an Exemption of a Previously Approved Antitheft Device; Porsche, 69321-69323 [2011-28936]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Notices
Panorama’’) requesting a foreign carrier
permit and exemption authority
authorizing Blue Panorama to conduct
operations to and from the United States
to the full extent authorized by the
United States-European Union Air
Transportation Agreement (‘‘U.S.-E.U.
Agreement’’), including authority to
engage in: (i) Scheduled and charter
foreign air transportation of persons,
property and mail from any point(s)
behind any Member State(s) of the
European Community, via any point(s)
in any Member State(s) and via
intermediate points to any point(s) in
the United States and beyond; (ii)
scheduled and charter foreign air
transportation of persons, property and
mail between any point(s) in the United
States and any point(s) in any member
of the European Common Aviation
Area; (iii) other charters; and (iv)
transportation authorized by any
additional route or other right(s) made
available to European Community
carriers in the future.
Docket Number: DOT–OST–2011–
0183.
Date Filed: September 21, 2011.
Due Date for Answers, Conforming
Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: October 13, 2011.
Description: Application of Icelandair
ehf. (‘‘lcelandair’’) requesting the
Department amend its foreign air carrier
permit so that it can exercise new rights
recently made available to Icelandic air
carriers pursuant to the Air Transport
Agreement between the United States of
America and the European Union and
its Member States and Iceland and
Norway. lcelandair also requests an
exemption to the extent necessary to
enable it to provide the services covered
by this application while lcelandair’s
request for an amended foreign air
carrier permit is pending.
Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2011–28882 Filed 11–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Aviation Administration
Intent To Rule On Request To Release
Airport Property at the Malden
Regional Airport and Industrial Park
(MAW), Malden, MO
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to rule and
invites public comment on the release of
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Nov 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
land at the Malden Regional Airport &
Industrial Park (MAW), Malden,
Missouri, under the provisions of 49
U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 8, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this
application may be mailed or delivered
to the FAA at the following address:
Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation
Administration, Airports Division,
ACE–610C, 901 Locust Room 364,
Kansas City, MO 64106.
In addition, one copy of any
comments submitted to the FAA must
be mailed or delivered to: Barbara
Crayne, Airport Manager, Malden
Regional Airport & Industrial Park, 3077
Mitchell Dr., P.O. Box 411, Malden, MO
63863–0411, (573) 276–2279
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation
Administration, Airports Division,
ACE–610C, 901 Locust Room 364,
Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 329–2644,
lynn.martin@faa.gov The request to
release property may be reviewed, by
appointment, in person at this same
location.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA
invites public comment on the request
to release approximately 2.4 acres of
airport property at the Malden Regional
Airport & Industrial Airport (MAW)
under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.
47107(h)(2). On December 20, 2010, the
Mayor of the City of Malden and the
Airport Manager at the Malden Regional
Airport requested from the FAA that
approximately 2.4 acres of property be
released for sale to Murphy Argo
Investments. On Sept. 16, 2011, the
FAA determined that the request to
release property at Malden Regional
Airport and Industrial Park (MAW)
submitted by the Sponsor meets the
procedural requirements of the Federal
Aviation Administration and the release
of the property does not and will not
impact future aviation needs at the
airport. The FAA may approve the
request, in whole or in part, no sooner
than thirty days after the publication of
this Notice.
The following is a brief overview of
the request:
Malden Regional Airport and
Industrial Park (MAW) is proposing the
release of two parcels, one of 0.8 acres
and another of 1.6 acres, for a total of
2.4 acres. The release of land is
necessary to comply with Federal
Aviation Administration Grant
Assurances that do not allow federally
acquired airport property to be used for
non-aviation purposes. The sale of the
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69321
subject property will result in the land
at the Malden Regional Airport and
Industrial Park (MAW) being changed
from aeronautical to nonaeronautical
use and release the lands from the
conditions of the AIP Grant Agreement
Grant Assurances. In accordance with
49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the
airport will receive fair market value for
the property, which will be
subsequently reinvested in another
eligible airport improvement project for
general aviation facilities at the Malden
Regional Airport and Industrial Park.
Any person may inspect, by
appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may, upon
appointment and request, inspect the
application, notice and other documents
determined by the FAA to be related to
the application in person at the Malden
Regional Airport and Industrial Park.
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on October 31,
2011.
Jim A. Johnson,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2011–28935 Filed 11–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition to Modify an Exemption of a
Previously Approved Antitheft Device;
Porsche
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of a petition to modify an
exemption of a previously approved
antitheft device.
AGENCY:
On May 25, 1989, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) granted in full
Porsche Cars North America’s (Porsche)
petition for an exemption in accordance
with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR part 543,
Exemption from the Theft Prevention
Standard for the Porsche 911 vehicle
line beginning with model year (MY)
1990. On August 16, 2011, Porsche
submitted a petition to modify its
previously approved exemption for the
Porsche 911 vehicle line and notified
the agency that all new successor
models within the 911 line will be
installed with the proposed antitheft
device beginning with MY 2012.
NHTSA is granting Porsche’s petition to
modify the exemption in full, because it
has determined that the modified device
is also likely to be as effective in
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
69322
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Notices
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2012 MY.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carlita Ballard, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building, W43–439,
Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard’s
telephone number is (202) 366–5222.
Her fax number is (202) 493–2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 2,
1989, NHTSA published in the Federal
Register a notice granting in full a
petition from Porsche for an exemption
from the parts-marking requirements of
the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR
541) for the 911 vehicle line beginning
with its MY 1990 vehicles. The Porsche
911 is equipped with a passive antitheft
device and an audible and visible alarm.
(See 54 FR 23727)
On April 4, 1990, Porsche submitted
its first letter requesting deminimis
treatment of a modification to its
existing 911 vehicle line beginning with
its MY 1991 vehicles. Porsche’s
modification added an alarm control
unit integrated with central locking and
an interior light control unit. The
modification to the device also included
improved diagnostic capabilities to
accept inputs such as motion sensors
and an alarm control unit that
monitored the glove box for
unauthorized opening. By letter dated
May 31, 1990, the agency determined
the changes to the antitheft device
installed on the 911 line as standard
equipment were de minimis.
On September 10, 1992, the agency
received a second request for de
minimis treatment of a proposed
modification to Porsche’s existing
antitheft device for only one model
within the Porsche 911 vehicle line for
MY 1994. By letter dated December 4,
1992, the agency notified Porsche that
its de minimis request was denied. The
agency stated that the proposed change
to the device was significant and
warranted a petition for modification.
Consequently, because of the denial of
its request, Porsche met the partsmarking requirements of theft
prevention standard for the entire 911
vehicle line for its MY 1994 vehicles.
Porsche subsequently informed the
agency that beginning with its MY 1995
vehicles, it would no longer produce the
911 vehicle line with a feature exclusive
to only one model within the line, and
that for MY 1995, it would install the
antitheft device as standard equipment
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Nov 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
under the agency’s previous grant of
exemption for its MY 1991 911 vehicle
line.
On August 16, 2011, Porsche
submitted its third petition to modify a
previously approved exemption for the
911 vehicle line incorporating new
successor models into the existing
vehicle line. This notice grants in full
Porsche’s petition to modify the
exemption for the 911 vehicle line.
Porsche’s submission is a complete
petition, as required by 49 CFR 543.9(d),
in that it meets the general requirements
contained in 49 CFR 543.5 and the
specific content requirements of 49 CFR
543.6. Porsche’s petition provides a
detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design and location of the
components of the antitheft device
proposed for installation beginning with
the 2012 MY.
Porsche will install its passive,
transponder-based electronic engine
immobilizer antitheft device as standard
equipment on its Porsche 911 vehicle
line. Key components of the modified
antitheft device will include an
electronic ignition switch, a centrallocking control unit, an alarm indicator,
a remote control unit, a transponder, an
engine control unit and an electronic
ignition switch. Porsche stated that the
antitheft device consists of two major
subsystems; a microprocessor based
immobilizer device which prevents the
engine management system from
functioning when the device is engaged,
and a central-locking and alarm system.
Porsche stated that the immobilizer
device is automatically activated when
removing the key from the ignition
switch assembly. The key contains a
radio signal transponder which signals
the control unit to allow the engine to
be started. Porsche stated that as an
option, a keyless entry device can be
provided for the 911 vehicle line.
Porsche stated that the antitheft device
will remain the same, but the ignition
key is substituted with a special key that
contains a radio signal transmitter
similar to that in the standard ignition
key. The immobilizer system is
automatically activated after the engine
is turned off with the optional keyless
entry device. Porsche stated that only by
inserting the correct key into the
ignition switch or by having the special
keyless entry device within the
compartment of the car, will the correct
signal be sent to the control unit
allowing start and operation of the
engine. When the key is removed from
the ignition or the keyless entry key is
removed from the vehicle, the device
will return to its normal ‘‘OFF’’ state
disallowing engine start and operation.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In order to ensure the reliability and
durability of the device, Porsche
conducted tests based on its own
specified standards. Porsche provided a
detailed list of tests conducted and
believes that its device is reliable and
durable since the device complied with
its specified requirements for each test.
The test conducted included extreme
temperature tests, voltage spike tests,
reverse polarity tests, electromagnetic
interference tests, vibration tests and
endurance tests. Porsche stated that its
antitheft device also features a built-in
self-diagnostic that constantly checks
for system failures. If a failure is
detected, the operator receives a signal
via the alarm indicator.
In Porsche’s petition to modify its
exemption, it stated that for MY 2012,
the 911 vehicle line will be modified to
accommodate the introduction of the
antitheft device and strategies provided
for the previously exempted MY 2010
Panamera vehicle line (see 75 FR
22174). Specifically, Porsche stated that
the MY 2012 device will include all of
the antitheft features of the MY 2010
Panamera including an electronically
activated parking brake. Porsche stated
that if the control unit does not receive
the correct signal from the key or
keyless entry system, the parking brake
will remain activated and the vehicle
cannot be towed away. Porsche also
stated that an alarm system will monitor
the opening of the doors, rear luggage
compartment, and front deck lid while
monitoring interior movement through
an ultrasonic sensor. If any violation of
these areas is detected, the horn will
sound and the lights will flash. Porsche
also stated that disconnection of power
to the antitheft device and/or engine
management device does not affect the
operation of either device. Therefore, an
unauthorized person cannot operate the
car unless they obtain the key or
optional keyless entry device for the
vehicle.
Porsche stated that another additional
theft prevention feature to the 911
vehicle line is the implementation of a
new off-board antitheft strategy which
involves making it impossible to use
stolen electronic control units to repair
other Porsche vehicles. Porsche stated
that the goal of the off-board theft
protection strategy is to reduce the
marketability of stolen electronic
components. Specifically, Porsche
explained that during the production
process of the vehicle, initialization and
registration of various antitheft related
electronic components are recorded in a
central database. Changes to these
components are only possible with
authorized on-line access to the central
database. Porsche stated that if the
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2011 / Notices
components have to be replaced or
repaired while authorized access to the
central database is unavailable or the
components are unauthorized, further
operation and use of the vehicle is
restricted or even impossible.
In its MY 2012 modification, Porsche
stated that it believes its new 911
antitheft device will prove to be even
more effective in reducing and deterring
theft than its antitheft devices have
proven in the past. Porsche also
compared its device with other devices
without alarms that NHTSA has
determined to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as would compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. Porsche
stated that similar systems without
alarms, (i.e., GM PASS-Key, Mercedes
Benz 202 vehicle line, Porsche Boxster
(Cayman) as well as earlier 911 vehicle
line devices were determined to be as
effective as parts-marking. Porsche also
referenced the agency’s theft rate data
for the 911 vehicle line which indicates
that its theft rates (2002–2009) are still
below the median theft rate of 3.5826.
The theft rate for the 911 vehicle line
using the most current 3 MY’s theft rate
data is 0.6339.
The agency has evaluated Porsche’s
MY 2012 petition to modify the
exemption for the 911 vehicle line from
the parts-marking requirements of 49
CFR Part 541, and has decided to grant
it. The agency believes that the
proposed device will continue to
provide the five types of performance
listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting
activation; attracting attention to the
efforts of unauthorized persons to enter
or operate 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.
If Porsche decides not to use the
exemption for this line, it should
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 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:29 Nov 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Issued on: October 28, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011–28936 Filed 11–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. DOT–NHTSA–2011–0157,
Notice 1]
Notice of Receipt of Petition for
Decision that Nonconforming 1987–
1994 ALPINA Burkard Bovensiepen
GmbH B11 Sedan Model Passenger
Cars Are Eligible for Importation
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This document announces
receipt by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a
petition for a decision that 1987–1994
ALPINA B11 sedan model passenger
cars that were not originally
manufactured to comply with all
applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for
importation into the United States
because they have safety features that
comply with, or are capable of being
altered to comply with, all such
standards.
SUMMARY:
The closing date for comments on
the petition is December 8, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to
the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted by any of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility:
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001
• Hand Delivery or Courier: West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251
Instructions: 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 confirmation that your
DATE:
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69323
comments were received, please enclose
a stamped, self-addressed postcard with
the comments. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477–78).
How to Read Comments submitted to
the Docket: You may read the comments
received by Docket Management at the
address and times given above. You may
also view the documents from the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID
number and title of this notice are
shown at the heading of this document
notice. Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue
to file relevant information in the
Docket as it becomes available. Further,
some people may submit late comments.
Accordingly, we recommend that you
periodically search the Docket for new
material.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George Stevens, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA (202) 366–5308).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), a
motor vehicle that was not originally
manufactured to conform to all
applicable FMVSS, and has no
substantially similar U.S.-certified
counterpart, shall be refused admission
into the United States unless NHTSA
has decided that the motor vehicle has
safety features that comply with, or are
capable of being altered to comply with,
all applicable FMVSS based on
destructive test data or such other
evidence as NHTSA decides to be
adequate.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may
be submitted by either manufacturers or
importers who have registered with
NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As
specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA
publishes notice in the Federal Register
of each petition that it receives, and
affords interested persons an
opportunity to comment on the petition.
At the close of the comment period,
NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM
08NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69321-69323]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28936]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition to Modify an Exemption of a Previously Approved
Antitheft Device; Porsche
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of a petition to modify an exemption of a previously
approved antitheft device.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 25, 1989, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) granted in full Porsche Cars North America's
(Porsche) petition for an exemption in accordance with Sec.
543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention
Standard for the Porsche 911 vehicle line beginning with model year
(MY) 1990. On August 16, 2011, Porsche submitted a petition to modify
its previously approved exemption for the Porsche 911 vehicle line and
notified the agency that all new successor models within the 911 line
will be installed with the proposed antitheft device beginning with MY
2012. NHTSA is granting Porsche's petition to modify the exemption in
full, because it has determined that the modified device is also likely
to be as effective in
[[Page 69322]]
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2012 MY.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, W43-439, Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Ballard's telephone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is
(202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 2, 1989, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register a notice granting in full a petition from Porsche for
an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541) for the 911 vehicle line beginning
with its MY 1990 vehicles. The Porsche 911 is equipped with a passive
antitheft device and an audible and visible alarm. (See 54 FR 23727)
On April 4, 1990, Porsche submitted its first letter requesting
deminimis treatment of a modification to its existing 911 vehicle line
beginning with its MY 1991 vehicles. Porsche's modification added an
alarm control unit integrated with central locking and an interior
light control unit. The modification to the device also included
improved diagnostic capabilities to accept inputs such as motion
sensors and an alarm control unit that monitored the glove box for
unauthorized opening. By letter dated May 31, 1990, the agency
determined the changes to the antitheft device installed on the 911
line as standard equipment were de minimis.
On September 10, 1992, the agency received a second request for de
minimis treatment of a proposed modification to Porsche's existing
antitheft device for only one model within the Porsche 911 vehicle line
for MY 1994. By letter dated December 4, 1992, the agency notified
Porsche that its de minimis request was denied. The agency stated that
the proposed change to the device was significant and warranted a
petition for modification. Consequently, because of the denial of its
request, Porsche met the parts-marking requirements of theft prevention
standard for the entire 911 vehicle line for its MY 1994 vehicles.
Porsche subsequently informed the agency that beginning with its MY
1995 vehicles, it would no longer produce the 911 vehicle line with a
feature exclusive to only one model within the line, and that for MY
1995, it would install the antitheft device as standard equipment under
the agency's previous grant of exemption for its MY 1991 911 vehicle
line.
On August 16, 2011, Porsche submitted its third petition to modify
a previously approved exemption for the 911 vehicle line incorporating
new successor models into the existing vehicle line. This notice grants
in full Porsche's petition to modify the exemption for the 911 vehicle
line. Porsche's submission is a complete petition, as required by 49
CFR 543.9(d), in that it meets the general requirements contained in 49
CFR 543.5 and the specific content requirements of 49 CFR 543.6.
Porsche's petition provides a detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design and location of the components of the antitheft device
proposed for installation beginning with the 2012 MY.
Porsche will install its passive, transponder-based electronic
engine immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment on its
Porsche 911 vehicle line. Key components of the modified antitheft
device will include an electronic ignition switch, a central-locking
control unit, an alarm indicator, a remote control unit, a transponder,
an engine control unit and an electronic ignition switch. Porsche
stated that the antitheft device consists of two major subsystems; a
microprocessor based immobilizer device which prevents the engine
management system from functioning when the device is engaged, and a
central-locking and alarm system.
Porsche stated that the immobilizer device is automatically
activated when removing the key from the ignition switch assembly. The
key contains a radio signal transponder which signals the control unit
to allow the engine to be started. Porsche stated that as an option, a
keyless entry device can be provided for the 911 vehicle line. Porsche
stated that the antitheft device will remain the same, but the ignition
key is substituted with a special key that contains a radio signal
transmitter similar to that in the standard ignition key. The
immobilizer system is automatically activated after the engine is
turned off with the optional keyless entry device. Porsche stated that
only by inserting the correct key into the ignition switch or by having
the special keyless entry device within the compartment of the car,
will the correct signal be sent to the control unit allowing start and
operation of the engine. When the key is removed from the ignition or
the keyless entry key is removed from the vehicle, the device will
return to its normal ``OFF'' state disallowing engine start and
operation.
In order to ensure the reliability and durability of the device,
Porsche conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Porsche
provided a detailed list of tests conducted and believes that its
device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its
specified requirements for each test. The test conducted included
extreme temperature tests, voltage spike tests, reverse polarity tests,
electromagnetic interference tests, vibration tests and endurance
tests. Porsche stated that its antitheft device also features a built-
in self-diagnostic that constantly checks for system failures. If a
failure is detected, the operator receives a signal via the alarm
indicator.
In Porsche's petition to modify its exemption, it stated that for
MY 2012, the 911 vehicle line will be modified to accommodate the
introduction of the antitheft device and strategies provided for the
previously exempted MY 2010 Panamera vehicle line (see 75 FR 22174).
Specifically, Porsche stated that the MY 2012 device will include all
of the antitheft features of the MY 2010 Panamera including an
electronically activated parking brake. Porsche stated that if the
control unit does not receive the correct signal from the key or
keyless entry system, the parking brake will remain activated and the
vehicle cannot be towed away. Porsche also stated that an alarm system
will monitor the opening of the doors, rear luggage compartment, and
front deck lid while monitoring interior movement through an ultrasonic
sensor. If any violation of these areas is detected, the horn will
sound and the lights will flash. Porsche also stated that disconnection
of power to the antitheft device and/or engine management device does
not affect the operation of either device. Therefore, an unauthorized
person cannot operate the car unless they obtain the key or optional
keyless entry device for the vehicle.
Porsche stated that another additional theft prevention feature to
the 911 vehicle line is the implementation of a new off-board antitheft
strategy which involves making it impossible to use stolen electronic
control units to repair other Porsche vehicles. Porsche stated that the
goal of the off-board theft protection strategy is to reduce the
marketability of stolen electronic components. Specifically, Porsche
explained that during the production process of the vehicle,
initialization and registration of various antitheft related electronic
components are recorded in a central database. Changes to these
components are only possible with authorized on-line access to the
central database. Porsche stated that if the
[[Page 69323]]
components have to be replaced or repaired while authorized access to
the central database is unavailable or the components are unauthorized,
further operation and use of the vehicle is restricted or even
impossible.
In its MY 2012 modification, Porsche stated that it believes its
new 911 antitheft device will prove to be even more effective in
reducing and deterring theft than its antitheft devices have proven in
the past. Porsche also compared its device with other devices without
alarms that NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-
marking requirements. Porsche stated that similar systems without
alarms, (i.e., GM PASS-Key, Mercedes Benz 202 vehicle line, Porsche
Boxster (Cayman) as well as earlier 911 vehicle line devices were
determined to be as effective as parts-marking. Porsche also referenced
the agency's theft rate data for the 911 vehicle line which indicates
that its theft rates (2002-2009) are still below the median theft rate
of 3.5826. The theft rate for the 911 vehicle line using the most
current 3 MY's theft rate data is 0.6339.
The agency has evaluated Porsche's MY 2012 petition to modify the
exemption for the 911 vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements
of 49 CFR Part 541, and has decided to grant it. The agency believes
that the proposed device will continue to provide the five types of
performance listed in Sec. 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation;
attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or
operate 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.
If Porsche decides not to use the exemption for this line, it
should 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 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: October 28, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-28936 Filed 11-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P