Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Ford Motor Company, 60243-60245 [2015-25202]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Notices
Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping
Burden:
Estimated number of responses:
2,702.
Estimated annual burden hours:
127,328.
Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
3. Title: Pipeline Safety: Integrity
Management Program for Gas
Distribution Pipelines.
OMB Control Number: 2137–0625.
Current Expiration Date: 3/31/2016.
Type of Request: Extension without
change of a currently approved
collection.
Abstract: The Federal Pipeline Safety
Regulations require operators of gas
distribution pipelines to develop and
implement integrity management
programs. The purpose of these
programs is to enhance safety by
identifying and reducing pipeline
integrity risks. The regulations require
that operators maintain records
demonstrating compliance with these
requirements.
Affected Public: Operators of gas
distribution pipeline systems.
Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping
Burden:
Estimated number of responses:
9,343.
Estimated annual burden hours:
865,178.
Frequency of collection: On occasion.
4. Title: Response Plans for Onshore
Oil Pipelines.
OMB Control Number: 2137–0589.
Current Expiration Date: 3/31/2016.
Type of Request: Revision of a
currently approved information
collection.
Abstract: The Oil Pipeline Response
Plan regulations in 49 CFR part 194
require an operator of an onshore oil
pipeline facility to prepare and submit
an oil spill response plan to PHMSA for
review and approval. This revision only
updates the number of respondents to
accurately reflect the current usage of
this collection.
Affected Public: Operators of onshore
oil pipeline facilities
Estimated number of responses: 434.
Estimated annual burden hours:
59,458.
Frequency of collection: On occasion.
Comments are invited on:
(a) The need for the renewal and
revision of these collections of
information for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 Oct 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
(c) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including the use
of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended;
and 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued in Washington, DC, on September
30, 2015, under authority delegated in 49
CFR 1.97.
Linda Daugherty,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Field
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2015–25224 Filed 10–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–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
the Ford Motor Company’s (Ford)
petition for an exemption of the MKC
vehicle 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 for specific
information in its petition that the
agency will address by separate letter.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2017 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah Mazyck, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Programs, NHTSA, W43–443, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590. Ms. Mazyck’s phone number is
(202) 366–4139. Her fax number is (202)
493–2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated June 25, 2015, Ford
requested an exemption from the partsSUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00130
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60243
marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Lincoln
MKC vehicle line beginning with MY
2017. 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 an exemption 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 its Lincoln MKC
vehicle line. Ford stated that the
Lincoln MKC will be installed with its
Intelligent Access with Push Button
Start (IAwPB) system as standard
equipment on the entire vehicle line.
The IAwPB system is a passive,
electronic engine immobilizer device
that uses encrypted transponder
technology. Key components of the
IAwPB device will include an
Intelligent Access electronic PushButton Start key fob, keyless ignition
system, body control module (BCM),
powertrain control module (PCM) and a
passive immobilizer. Ford further stated
that its Lincoln MKC vehicle line will
be offered with a perimeter alarm
system as standard equipment. The
perimeter alarm system will activate a
visible and audible alarm whenever
unauthorized access is attempted.
Ford stated that the device’s
integration of the transponder into the
normal operation of the ignition key
assures activation of the system. Ford
also stated that the MKC vehicle line’s
electronic key will be programmed into
the vehicle during system initialization
at the manufacturing plant. Ford further
stated that the vehicle engine can only
be started when the key is present in the
vehicle and the ‘‘StartStop’’ button
inside the vehicle is pressed. Ford
stated that when the ‘‘StartStop’’ button
is pressed, the transceiver module will
read a key code and transmit an
encrypted message to the control
module to determine key validity and
engine start by sending a separate
encrypted message to the BCM and the
PCM. The powertrain will function only
if the key code matches the unique
identification key code previously
programmed into the BCM. If the codes
do not match, the powertrain engine
will be inoperable. Ford also expressed
that any attempt to short the ‘‘StartStop’’
button will have no effect on a thief’s
ability to start the vehicle without the
correct code being transmitted to the
electronic control modules. Ford stated
E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM
05OCN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
60244
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Notices
that the two modules must be matched
together in order for the vehicle to start.
According to Ford, deactivation of the
device occurs automatically each time
the engine is started.
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.
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 incorporation of
several features in the device further
support the reliability and durability of
the device. Specifically, some of those
features include: Encrypted
communication between the
transponder, BCM control function and
the PCM; virtually impossible key
duplication; and shared security data
between the body control module/
remote function actuator and the
powertrain control module.
Additionally, Ford stated that its
antitheft device has no moving parts
(i.e., BCM, PCM, and electrical
components) to perform system
functions which eliminate the
possibility for physical damage or
deterioration from normal use; and
mechanically overriding the device to
start the vehicle is also impossible.
Ford stated that its MY 2017 Lincoln
MKC 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 cabin accessibility
only with the use of a valid key fob).
Ford compared the device proposed
for its vehicle line with other antitheft
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
the IAwPB device would be an effective
deterrent against vehicle theft.
Ford further stated that its antitheft
device was installed on all MY 1996
Ford Mustang GT and Cobra models as
well as other selected models. Ford
stated that on its 1997 models, the
installation of its antitheft device was
extended to the entire Ford Mustang
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 Oct 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
vehicle line as standard equipment.
Ford also stated that according to the
National Insurance Crime Bureau
(NICB) theft statistics, MY 1997
Mustangs installed with the SecuriLock
device showed a 70% reduction in theft
rate compared to its MY 1995 Mustangs
without an antitheft device.
Ford stated that the proposed antitheft
device is very similar to the system that
was offered in its MY 2016 Lincoln
MKX vehicle line. The Lincoln MKX
vehicle line was granted a parts-marking
exemption on November 25, 2014 by
NHTSA (See 79 FR 70276) beginning
with its MY 2016 vehicles. The agency
notes that current theft rate data for MYs
2010 through 2012 Lincoln MKX
vehicle line are 0.5670, 0.4056 and
0.5841 respectively.
Ford also reported that beginning
with MY 2010, its antitheft device 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 was installed as standard
equipment on its Lincoln MKT vehicles
and starting in MY 2011, offered as
standard equipment on the Lincoln
MKX and optionally on the Lincoln
MKS, Ford Taurus, Edge, Explorer and
the Focus vehicles. Beginning with MY
2013, the device was offered as standard
equipment on the Lincoln MKZ and
optionally on the Ford Fusion, C-Max
and Escape vehicles.
Ford referenced the agency’s
published theft rate data by calendar
year for all vehicles and the Ford Escape
for comparison purposes because it
stated that the Lincoln MKC will use the
IAwPB system that will be similar to the
Ford Escape in design and architecture.
Ford further stated that the Lincoln
MKC is comparably similar to the Ford
Escape in vehicle segment, size and
equipment. Ford reported that the
Escape’s theft rate is lower than the
vehicle theft rate for all vehicles in each
of the last five calendar years for which
published data is available. Specifically,
the agency’s data show that theft rates
for the Ford Escape for MYs 2010–2012
are 0.7265, 0.6409, and 0.8336
respectively. Using an average of the
most current of three MYs data (2010–
2012), the theft rate for the Ford Escape
vehicle line is well below the median at
0.7336. Ford stated that with the
installation of its IAwPB device as
standard equipment, the Lincoln MKC
will have a very low theft rate
comparable to the theft rate of the Ford
Escape vehicle line.
PO 00000
Frm 00131
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The agency agrees that the device is
substantially similar to devices installed
on other vehicle lines for which the
agency has already granted exemptions.
Based on the supporting evidence
submitted by Ford on the device, the
agency believes that the antitheft device
for the Lincoln MKC 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
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 Lincoln MKC 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 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full Ford’s petition for
exemption for the Lincoln MKC 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.
E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM
05OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 192 / Monday, October 5, 2015 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:34 Oct 02, 2015
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
60245
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.
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015–25202 Filed 10–2–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM
05OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60243-60245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25202]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 the Ford Motor Company's (Ford)
petition for an exemption of the MKC vehicle 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 for specific
information in its petition that the agency will address by separate
letter.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2017 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-
443, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's
phone number is (202) 366-4139. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated June 25, 2015, Ford
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Lincoln MKC vehicle line beginning with MY
2017. 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 an exemption 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 its Lincoln MKC vehicle line. Ford stated that the Lincoln
MKC will be installed with its Intelligent Access with Push Button
Start (IAwPB) system as standard equipment on the entire vehicle line.
The IAwPB system is a passive, electronic engine immobilizer device
that uses encrypted transponder technology. Key components of the IAwPB
device will include an Intelligent Access electronic Push-Button Start
key fob, keyless ignition system, body control module (BCM), powertrain
control module (PCM) and a passive immobilizer. Ford further stated
that its Lincoln MKC vehicle line will be offered with a perimeter
alarm system as standard equipment. The perimeter alarm system will
activate a visible and audible alarm whenever unauthorized access is
attempted.
Ford stated that the device's integration of the transponder into
the normal operation of the ignition key assures activation of the
system. Ford also stated that the MKC vehicle line's electronic key
will be programmed into the vehicle during system initialization at the
manufacturing plant. Ford further stated that the vehicle engine can
only be started when the key is present in the vehicle and the
``StartStop'' button inside the vehicle is pressed. Ford stated that
when the ``StartStop'' button is pressed, the transceiver module will
read a key code and transmit an encrypted message to the control module
to determine key validity and engine start by sending a separate
encrypted message to the BCM and the PCM. The powertrain will function
only if the key code matches the unique identification key code
previously programmed into the BCM. If the codes do not match, the
powertrain engine will be inoperable. Ford also expressed that any
attempt to short the ``StartStop'' button will have no effect on a
thief's ability to start the vehicle without the correct code being
transmitted to the electronic control modules. Ford stated
[[Page 60244]]
that the two modules must be matched together in order for the vehicle
to start. According to Ford, deactivation of the device occurs
automatically each time the engine is started.
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.
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 incorporation of several features in the device
further support the reliability and durability of the device.
Specifically, some of those features include: Encrypted communication
between the transponder, BCM control function and the PCM; virtually
impossible key duplication; and shared security data between the body
control module/remote function actuator and the powertrain control
module. Additionally, Ford stated that its antitheft device has no
moving parts (i.e., BCM, PCM, and electrical components) to perform
system functions which eliminate the possibility for physical damage or
deterioration from normal use; and mechanically overriding the device
to start the vehicle is also impossible.
Ford stated that its MY 2017 Lincoln MKC 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 cabin accessibility only with
the use of a valid key fob).
Ford compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with other
antitheft 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 the IAwPB device would be an effective
deterrent against vehicle theft.
Ford further stated that its antitheft device was installed on all
MY 1996 Ford Mustang GT and Cobra models as well as other selected
models. Ford stated that on its 1997 models, the installation of its
antitheft device was extended to the entire Ford Mustang vehicle line
as standard equipment. Ford also stated that according to the National
Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) theft statistics, MY 1997 Mustangs
installed with the SecuriLock device showed a 70% reduction in theft
rate compared to its MY 1995 Mustangs without an antitheft device.
Ford stated that the proposed antitheft device is very similar to
the system that was offered in its MY 2016 Lincoln MKX vehicle line.
The Lincoln MKX vehicle line was granted a parts-marking exemption on
November 25, 2014 by NHTSA (See 79 FR 70276) beginning with its MY 2016
vehicles. The agency notes that current theft rate data for MYs 2010
through 2012 Lincoln MKX vehicle line are 0.5670, 0.4056 and 0.5841
respectively.
Ford also reported that beginning with MY 2010, its antitheft
device 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 was installed as standard equipment on its Lincoln MKT
vehicles and starting in MY 2011, offered as standard equipment on the
Lincoln MKX and optionally on the Lincoln MKS, Ford Taurus, Edge,
Explorer and the Focus vehicles. Beginning with MY 2013, the device was
offered as standard equipment on the Lincoln MKZ and optionally on the
Ford Fusion, C-Max and Escape vehicles.
Ford referenced the agency's published theft rate data by calendar
year for all vehicles and the Ford Escape for comparison purposes
because it stated that the Lincoln MKC will use the IAwPB system that
will be similar to the Ford Escape in design and architecture. Ford
further stated that the Lincoln MKC is comparably similar to the Ford
Escape in vehicle segment, size and equipment. Ford reported that the
Escape's theft rate is lower than the vehicle theft rate for all
vehicles in each of the last five calendar years for which published
data is available. Specifically, the agency's data show that theft
rates for the Ford Escape for MYs 2010-2012 are 0.7265, 0.6409, and
0.8336 respectively. Using an average of the most current of three MYs
data (2010-2012), the theft rate for the Ford Escape vehicle line is
well below the median at 0.7336. Ford stated that with the installation
of its IAwPB device as standard equipment, the Lincoln MKC will have a
very low theft rate comparable to the theft rate of the Ford Escape
vehicle line.
The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to
devices installed on other vehicle lines for which the agency has
already granted exemptions.
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Ford on the device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Lincoln MKC
vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements
of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541).
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that Ford has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Lincoln MKC 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 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Ford's
petition for exemption for the Lincoln MKC 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.
[[Page 60245]]
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.
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-25202 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P