Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Ford Motor Company, 18410-18412 [2014-07233]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18410
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Notices
prevent unauthorized entry of its
vehicles without the use of a key (i.e.,
ignition key and key cylinders will be
designed with special styling features).
Honda stated that its key cylinders are
designed to be resistant to tampering
and its key fob remote utilizes rolling
codes for the lock and unlock functions
of its vehicles. Honda will also equip its
vehicle line with a hood release,
counterfeit resistant VIN plates and
secondary VINs as standard equipment.
Honda further stated that as an
additional security measure, key
duplication will be strictly controlled by
its authorized dealers. Honda’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.
In addressing the specific content
requirements of § 543.6, Honda
provided information on the reliability
and durability of its proposed device.
To ensure reliability and durability of
the device, Honda conducted tests based
on its own specified standards. Honda
provided a detailed list of the tests it
uses to validate the integrity, durability
and reliability of the device and believes
that it follows a rigorous development
process to ensure that its antitheft
device will be reliable and robust for the
life of the vehicle and does not require
the presence of a key fob battery to
function. Additionally, Honda stated
that its antitheft device has no moving
parts (i.e., the PCM, IMOES, ignition
key, smart entry remote and the
electrical components found within its
own housing units) which reduces the
chance for deterioration or wear
resulting from normal use.
In support of its belief that its
antitheft device will be as or more
effective in reducing and deterring
vehicle theft than the parts-marking
requirement, Honda referenced data
showing several instances of the
effectiveness of its proposed
immobilizer device. Honda first
installed an immobilizer device as
standard equipment on it’s MY 1998
Accord vehicles and referenced
NHTSA’s theft rate data showing a
decrease in thefts since the installation
of its immobilizer device. NHTSA’s
theft rates for MYs 2009, 2010, and 2011
are 0.9422, 0.7039 and 0.7819
respectively. Using an average of 3 MYs
theft data (2009–2011), the theft rate for
the Accord vehicle line is well below
the median at 1.9067.
Honda also referenced a Highway
Loss Data Institute report showing an
overall reduction in theft rates for the
Honda Accord vehicles after
introduction of the immobilizer device.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Mar 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
Honda stated that the data show that
there was an immediate decrease in
MY/calendar year 1998 thefts with its
immobilizer-installed vehicles but also
showed sustained lower theft rates in
following years.
Based on the evidence submitted by
Honda on its antitheft device, the
agency believes that the antitheft device
for the Accord 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.
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 Honda has provided adequate
reasons for its belief that the antitheft
device for the Honda Accord vehicle
line is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard. This conclusion is
based on the information Honda
provided about its device.
The agency concludes that because
Honda does not plan to incorporate the
vehicle security system on the entire
vehicle line as standard equipment, 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 Honda’s petition
for exemption for the Accord vehicle
line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR Part 541,
beginning with the 2015 model year
vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR
Part 541, Appendix A–1, identifies
those lines that are exempted from the
Theft Prevention Standard for a given
model year. 49 CFR Part 543.7(f)
contains publication requirements
incident to the disposition of all Part
543 petitions. Advanced listing,
including the release of future product
nameplates, the beginning model year
for which the petition is granted and a
general description of the antitheft
device is necessary in order to notify
law enforcement agencies of new
vehicle lines exempted from the parts-
PO 00000
Frm 00154
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
If Honda 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 Honda 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 anti-theft
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.
Lori K. Summers,
Director, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014–07234 Filed 3–31–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Federal Motor 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
Ford Motor Company’s (Ford) petition
for an exemption of the Fiesta vehicle
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Notices
line in accordance with 49 CFR Part
543, Exemption from Vehicle 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 (Theft Prevention
Standard). Ford also requested
confidential treatment of specific
information in its petition. The agency
will address Ford’s request for
confidential treatment by separate letter.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2015 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Carlita Ballard, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Programs, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building, Room W43–
439, 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 December 10, 2013, Ford
requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Fiesta
vehicle line beginning with MY 2015.
The petition requested 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 the entire
vehicle line.
Under 49 CFR Part 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 Fiesta vehicle
line. Ford stated that the Model Year
(MY) 2015 Fiesta will be installed with
a passive, electronic immobilizer device
using encrypted transponder technology
as standard equipment on the entire
vehicle line. Ford also stated that
depending on the trim level of the
vehicle, the device would be equipped
with either the SecuriLock Passive AntiTheft Electronic Engine Immobilizer
system (SecuriLock/PATS) or the
Intelligent Access with Push Button
Start (IAwPB) system on its Fiesta
vehicle line. Specifically, Ford stated
that the SecuriLock/PATS system will
be installed as standard equipment on
all Fiesta trim levels except the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Mar 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
Titanium package that would instead be
equipped with the IAwPB system as
standard equipment. Along with Ford’s
passive immobilizer, key components of
the SecuriLock/PATS antitheft system
will include an electronic transponder
key, powertrain control module (PCM),
transceiver module ignition lock and
cluster. Key components of the IAwPB
system will include an electronic key
fob, remote function actuator (RFA),
Keyless Vehicle Module (KVM),
powertrain control module and Ford’s
passive immobilizer. Ford further stated
that its Titanium package will also be
offered with a separate perimeter alarm
system as standard equipment. The
perimeter alarm system activates 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 § 543.5 and
the specific content requirements of
§ 543.6.
Ford stated that when the ignition key
is turned to the ‘‘Run/Start’’ position on
the SecuriLock/PATS system or the
‘‘Start/Stop’’ button is pressed on the
IAwPB system, the transceiver module
reads the ignition key code and
transmits an encrypted message from
the keycode to the control module. Once
the key is validated, starting of the
engine is authorized by sending a
separate encrypted message to the
powertrain control module (PCM). Ford
stated that the powertrain will function
only if the keycode matches the unique
identification keycode previously
programmed into the cluster of the
SecuriLock/PATS-equipped vehicles or
the RFA in the IAwPB-equipped
vehicles. In both systems, if the codes
do not match, the vehicle will be
inoperable. Ford stated that in both
systems, an electronic key will be
programmed into the vehicle during
system initialization performed at the
manufacturing plant. With the IAwPB
system, Ford stated that if the
programmed key is not present in the
vehicle, the engine will not start.
Additionally, Ford further stated that
the powertrain will function only if the
keycode matches the unique
identification keycode previously
programmed into the Cluster/RFA. Ford
also pointed out that in addition to the
programmed key, there are three
modules that must be matched together
in order to start the vehicle, adding an
additional level of security to both
systems. Specifically, Ford stated that
both the SecuriLock/PATS and IAwPB
systems’ Cluster/RFA and PCM
respectively share security data that
PO 00000
Frm 00155
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18411
during vehicle assembly form matched
modules that if separated from each
other will not function in other vehicles.
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 own specified
requirements for each test.
Ford stated that its MY 2015 Fiesta
vehicle line will also be equipped with
several other standard antitheft features
common to Ford vehicles, (i.e., hood
release located inside the vehicle,
counterfeit resistant VIN labels,
secondary VINs and secured cabin
accessibility). Ford also stated that
incorporation of several other features
in both systems further support
reliability and durability of the device.
Specifically, some of those features
include: Encrypted communication
between the transponder and the control
function (Cluster/RFA module) and the
PCM; numerous code combinations
making key duplication virtually
impossible; inability to mechanically
override the device to start the vehicle;
and any attempt to slam-pull the
ignition lock cylinder or short the
‘‘Start/Stop’’ button will have no effect
on an intruder’s ability to start the
vehicle without the correct code being
transmitted to the electronic control
modules.
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 SecuriLock/PATS system or
the IAwPB system would be an effective
deterrent against vehicle theft.
Ford stated that the SecuriLock/PATS
system was introduced as standard
equipment on all of its MY 1996 Ford
Mustang GT, Cobra and other selected
models. Ford also stated that in MY
1997, the SecuriLock/PATS system was
extended to the complete Ford Mustang
vehicle line as standard equipment.
Ford further stated that according to the
National Insurance Crime Bureau
(NICB) theft statistics, there was a 70%
reduction in the theft rate for the MY
1997 Ford Mustang vehicle line
installed with its SecuriLock/PATS
system as compared to the theft rate for
its MY 1995 Ford Mustang vehicle line
not installed with the system.
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
18412
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 2014 / Notices
Ford also reported that beginning
with MY 2010, the SecuriLock system
was installed as standard equipment on
all of its North American Ford, Lincoln
and Mercury vehicles but was offered as
optional equipment on its 2010 F-series
Super Duty pickups, Econoline and
Transit Connect vehicles. Ford further
stated that beginning with MY 2010, the
IAwPB system was installed as standard
equipment on the Lincoln MKT vehicles
and offered as standard equipment on
the Lincoln MKX and optionally on the
Lincoln MKS, Taurus, Edge, Explorer
and the Focus vehicles beginning with
MY 2011. Starting with 2013, the
IAwPB has been offered as standard
equipment on the Lincoln MKZ and as
optional equipment on the Ford Fusion,
C-Max and Escape vehicles.
Ford stated that both antitheft systems
with a standard equipment immobilizer
are of the same design and performance
as that of the MY 2006 Ford Focus
vehicle line. Ford was granted an
exemption for the Focus vehicle line on
February 14, 2006 by NHTSA (See 71
FR 7824) beginning with its MY 2006
vehicles. Since the agency granted
Ford’s exemption for its MY 2006 Focus
vehicle line, Ford referenced theft rate
data published by NHTSA showing that
theft rates for the Focus vehicle line
have been gradually decreasing and is
currently very close to the theft rate for
all vehicles published for MY’s 2000–
2010. Ford stated that since the
SecuriLock or the IAwPB systems (with
a standard equipment immobilizer
device) will be the primary theft
deterrents on Ford Fiesta vehicles, it
believes that the very low theft rates are
likely to continue or improve in the
future. The current theft rate for the MY
2011 Ford Focus is 1.3840 and the
average theft rate using three MYs’ data
(2009–2011) is 1.5179.
The agency agrees that the device is
substantially similar to devices installed
on other vehicle lines for which the
agency has already granted exemptions.
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 Fiesta 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:02 Mar 31, 2014
Jkt 232001
Standard (49 CFR Part 541). This
conclusion is based on the information
Ford provided about its device.
Based on the supporting evidence
submitted by Ford on the device, the
agency believes that the antitheft device
for the Fiesta vehicle line is likely to be
as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with
the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part
541). The agency concludes that the
device will provide 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 Fiesta vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of
49 CFR Part 541. The agency notes that
49 CFR Part 541, Appendix A–1,
identifies those lines that are exempted
from the Theft Prevention Standard for
a given model year. 49 CFR Part 543.7(f)
contains publication requirements
incident to the disposition of all Part
543 petitions. Advanced listing,
including the release of future product
nameplates, the beginning model year
for which the petition is granted and a
general description of the antitheft
device is necessary in order to notify
law enforcement agencies of new
vehicle lines exempted from the 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00156
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
Lori K. Summers,
Director, Office of Crashworthiness
Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014–07233 Filed 3–31–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
Notice and Request for Comments
AGENCY:
Surface Transportation Board,
DOT.
30-day notice of request for
approval: Waybill Sample.
ACTION:
As part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork burdens, and as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–3519 (PRA),
the Surface Transportation Board
(Board) gives notice that it is requesting
from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) approval of the
information collection—the Waybill
Sample—further described below. The
Board previously published a notice
about this collection in the Federal
Register on January 16, 2014, at 79 FR
2,938. That notice allowed for a 60-day
public review and comment period. No
comments were received.
Comments are may now be submitted
to OMB concerning: (1) The accuracy of
the Board’s burden estimates; (2) ways
to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information collected; (3)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology
when appropriate; and (4) whether the
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Board, including
whether the collection has practical
utility. Submitted comments will be
summarized and included in the
Board’s request for OMB approval.
SUMMARY:
Description of Collection
Title: Waybill Sample.
E:\FR\FM\01APN1.SGM
01APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 62 (Tuesday, April 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18410-18412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07233]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor 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 Ford Motor Company's (Ford)
petition for an exemption of the Fiesta vehicle
[[Page 18411]]
line in accordance with 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle 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 (Theft Prevention Standard). Ford also requested
confidential treatment of specific information in its petition. The
agency will address Ford's request for confidential treatment by
separate letter.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2015 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Room W43-439, 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 December 10, 2013, Ford
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Fiesta vehicle line beginning with MY 2015.
The petition requested 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 the
entire vehicle line.
Under 49 CFR Part 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
Fiesta vehicle line. Ford stated that the Model Year (MY) 2015 Fiesta
will be installed with a passive, electronic immobilizer device using
encrypted transponder technology as standard equipment on the entire
vehicle line. Ford also stated that depending on the trim level of the
vehicle, the device would be equipped with either the SecuriLock
Passive Anti-Theft Electronic Engine Immobilizer system (SecuriLock/
PATS) or the Intelligent Access with Push Button Start (IAwPB) system
on its Fiesta vehicle line. Specifically, Ford stated that the
SecuriLock/PATS system will be installed as standard equipment on all
Fiesta trim levels except the Titanium package that would instead be
equipped with the IAwPB system as standard equipment. Along with Ford's
passive immobilizer, key components of the SecuriLock/PATS antitheft
system will include an electronic transponder key, powertrain control
module (PCM), transceiver module ignition lock and cluster. Key
components of the IAwPB system will include an electronic key fob,
remote function actuator (RFA), Keyless Vehicle Module (KVM),
powertrain control module and Ford's passive immobilizer. Ford further
stated that its Titanium package will also be offered with a separate
perimeter alarm system as standard equipment. The perimeter alarm
system activates 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 when the ignition key is turned to the ``Run/
Start'' position on the SecuriLock/PATS system or the ``Start/Stop''
button is pressed on the IAwPB system, the transceiver module reads the
ignition key code and transmits an encrypted message from the keycode
to the control module. Once the key is validated, starting of the
engine is authorized by sending a separate encrypted message to the
powertrain control module (PCM). Ford stated that the powertrain will
function only if the keycode matches the unique identification keycode
previously programmed into the cluster of the SecuriLock/PATS-equipped
vehicles or the RFA in the IAwPB-equipped vehicles. In both systems, if
the codes do not match, the vehicle will be inoperable. Ford stated
that in both systems, an electronic key will be programmed into the
vehicle during system initialization performed at the manufacturing
plant. With the IAwPB system, Ford stated that if the programmed key is
not present in the vehicle, the engine will not start. Additionally,
Ford further stated that the powertrain will function only if the
keycode matches the unique identification keycode previously programmed
into the Cluster/RFA. Ford also pointed out that in addition to the
programmed key, there are three modules that must be matched together
in order to start the vehicle, adding an additional level of security
to both systems. Specifically, Ford stated that both the SecuriLock/
PATS and IAwPB systems' Cluster/RFA and PCM respectively share security
data that during vehicle assembly form matched modules that if
separated from each other will not function in other vehicles.
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 own specified
requirements for each test.
Ford stated that its MY 2015 Fiesta vehicle line will also be
equipped with several other standard antitheft features common to Ford
vehicles, (i.e., hood release located inside the vehicle, counterfeit
resistant VIN labels, secondary VINs and secured cabin accessibility).
Ford also stated that incorporation of several other features in both
systems further support reliability and durability of the device.
Specifically, some of those features include: Encrypted communication
between the transponder and the control function (Cluster/RFA module)
and the PCM; numerous code combinations making key duplication
virtually impossible; inability to mechanically override the device to
start the vehicle; and any attempt to slam-pull the ignition lock
cylinder or short the ``Start/Stop'' button will have no effect on an
intruder's ability to start the vehicle without the correct code being
transmitted to the electronic control modules.
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 SecuriLock/PATS system or the IAwPB system
would be an effective deterrent against vehicle theft.
Ford stated that the SecuriLock/PATS system was introduced as
standard equipment on all of its MY 1996 Ford Mustang GT, Cobra and
other selected models. Ford also stated that in MY 1997, the
SecuriLock/PATS system was extended to the complete Ford Mustang
vehicle line as standard equipment. Ford further stated that according
to the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) theft statistics, there
was a 70% reduction in the theft rate for the MY 1997 Ford Mustang
vehicle line installed with its SecuriLock/PATS system as compared to
the theft rate for its MY 1995 Ford Mustang vehicle line not installed
with the system.
[[Page 18412]]
Ford also reported that beginning with MY 2010, the SecuriLock
system was installed as standard equipment on all of its North American
Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles but was offered as optional
equipment on its 2010 F-series Super Duty pickups, Econoline and
Transit Connect vehicles. Ford further stated that beginning with MY
2010, the IAwPB system was installed as standard equipment on the
Lincoln MKT vehicles and offered as standard equipment on the Lincoln
MKX and optionally on the Lincoln MKS, Taurus, Edge, Explorer and the
Focus vehicles beginning with MY 2011. Starting with 2013, the IAwPB
has been offered as standard equipment on the Lincoln MKZ and as
optional equipment on the Ford Fusion, C-Max and Escape vehicles.
Ford stated that both antitheft systems with a standard equipment
immobilizer are of the same design and performance as that of the MY
2006 Ford Focus vehicle line. Ford was granted an exemption for the
Focus vehicle line on February 14, 2006 by NHTSA (See 71 FR 7824)
beginning with its MY 2006 vehicles. Since the agency granted Ford's
exemption for its MY 2006 Focus vehicle line, Ford referenced theft
rate data published by NHTSA showing that theft rates for the Focus
vehicle line have been gradually decreasing and is currently very close
to the theft rate for all vehicles published for MY's 2000-2010. Ford
stated that since the SecuriLock or the IAwPB systems (with a standard
equipment immobilizer device) will be the primary theft deterrents on
Ford Fiesta vehicles, it believes that the very low theft rates are
likely to continue or improve in the future. The current theft rate for
the MY 2011 Ford Focus is 1.3840 and the average theft rate using three
MYs' data (2009-2011) is 1.5179.
The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to
devices installed on other vehicle lines for which the agency has
already granted exemptions.
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 Fiesta 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.
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Ford on the device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Fiesta vehicle
line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor
vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541). The agency concludes that
the device will provide 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 Fiesta vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR
Part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from
the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR Part
543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition
of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of
future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the
petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device
is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle
lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
If Ford decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR Parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Ford wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543
exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under
this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's
exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
Lori K. Summers,
Director, Office of Crashworthiness Standards.
[FR Doc. 2014-07233 Filed 3-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
