Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft Prevention Standard; Tesla, 22056-22058 [2017-09516]
Download as PDF
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22056
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices
Using an average of three MYs’ theft
data (2012–2014), the theft rate for the
MDX vehicle line is well below the
median at 0.4630. Additionally, Honda
referenced the Highway Loss Data
Institute’s 2001–2014 Insurance Theft
Report showing an overall reduction in
theft rates for the Honda MDX vehicles
after introduction of its immobilizer
device on the line.
Additionally, Honda stated that the
immobilizer device proposed for the
2018 MDX is similar to the design
offered on its Honda Civic, Honda
Accord, Honda CR–V and Honda Pilot
vehicles. The agency granted the
petitions for the Honda Civic vehicle
line in full beginning with MY 2014 (see
61 FR 19363, March 29, 2013), the
Honda Accord vehicle line beginning
with MY 2015 (see 79 FR 18409, April
1, 2014), the Honda CR–V vehicle line
beginning with MY 2016 (see 80 FR
3733, January 23, 2015) and the Honda
Pilot beginning with MY 2017 (see 81
FR 12197, March 8, 2016). The agency
notes that the average theft rate for the
Honda Civic, Accord, CR–V and Pilot
vehicle lines using three MYs’ data
(MYs 2012 through 2014) are 0.6611,
0.7139, 0.3203 and 0.9134 respectively.
Based on the supporting evidence
submitted by Honda on its device, the
agency believes that the antitheft device
for the Acura MDX 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 541). The agency
concludes that the device will provide
the five types of performance listed in
§ 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation;
attract attention to the efforts of an
unauthorized person to enter or move 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.
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 Acura MDX 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 Sep<11>2014
16:52 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
Standard. This conclusion is based on
the information Honda provided about
its device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full Honda’s petition
for exemption for the Acura MDX
vehicle line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541,
beginning with the 2018 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 partsmarking 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 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017–09512 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft
Prevention Standard; Tesla
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
This document grants in full
the petition of Tesla Motors Inc’s.,
(Tesla) petition for an exemption of the
Model 3 vehicle line in accordance with
the 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 Federal
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (Theft Prevention Standard).
Tesla also requested confidential
treatment for specific information in its
petition. While official notification on
granting or denying Tesla’s request for
confidential treatment will be addressed
by separate letter, no confidential
information provided for purposes of
this document has been disclosed.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2017 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Hisham Mohamed, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and
Consumer Standards, NHTSA, W43–
437, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Mohamed’s
phone number is (202) 366–0307. His
fax number is (202) 493–2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated September 16, 2016,
Tesla requested an exemption from the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Model 3
vehicle line beginning with MY 2017.
The petition requested an exemption
from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR
part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard, based on the
installation of an antitheft device as
standard equipment for the entire
vehicle line.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices
Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a
manufacturer may petition NHTSA to
grant an exemption for one vehicle line
per model year. In its petition, Tesla
provided a detailed description and
diagram of the identity, design, and
location of the components of the
antitheft device for the Model 3 vehicle
line. Tesla proposes to install a passive,
transponder-based, electronic engine
immobilizer device as standard
equipment on its Model 3 vehicle line
beginning with its MY 2017 vehicles.
Key components of the antitheft device
include an engine immobilizer, central
body controller, security controller,
gateway function, drive inverters and a
passive entry transponder (PET). Tesla
also stated that the antitheft device is an
upgraded version of the successful
antitheft device currently installed as
standard equipment on all Tesla Model
S/X vehicles, and served as the basis for
NHTSA’s earlier granting of an
exemption for that vehicle line. Tesla
also noted that improvements to the
existing antitheft device include a new
coded exchange between the drive
inverters and central body controller
and, enhanced security communication
between its components. Tesla further
stated that its antitheft device will be
installed with an audible alarm system
as standard equipment on the entire
line. Tesla stated that forced entry into
the vehicle or any type of unauthorized
entry without the correct PET will
trigger an audible alarm. Tesla further
stated that in addition to an
unauthorized access through the doors,
the alarm will also trigger when a breakin is attempted through both the front
and rear cargo areas.
Tesla explained that its antitheft
device will have a two-step activation
process with a vehicle code query
conducted at each stage. The first stage
allows access to the vehicle when an
authorization cycle occurs between the
PET and the Security Controller, as long
as the PET is in close proximity to the
car and the driver either pushes the
lock/unlock button on the key fob,
pushes the exterior door handle to
activate the handle sensors or inserts a
hand into the handle to trigger the latch
release. During the second stage, vehicle
operation will be enabled when the
driver sits in the driver’s seat and has
depressed the brake pedal. The driver
can then move the gear selection stalk
to drive or reverse. When one of these
actions is performed, the security
controller will poll to verify if the
appropriate PET is inside the vehicle.
Upon location of the PET, the security
controller will run an authentication
cycle with the key confirming the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
correct PET is being used inside the
vehicle. Tesla stated that once
authentication is successful, the security
controller initiates a coded message
through the gateway. If the code
exchange matches the code stored in the
drive inverters, the exchange will
authorize the drive inverter to
deactivate immobilization and allow the
vehicle to be driven under its own
power. Tesla stated that the immobilizer
is active when the vehicle is turned off
and the doors are locked. Any attempt
to operate the vehicle without
performing and completing each task
will render the vehicle inoperable.
Additionally, Tesla has incorporated an
additional security measure to protect
its Model 3 vehicle line. Tesla stated
that when there are no user inputs to the
vehicle within a programmed period of
time, immobilization of the antitheft
device will be reactivated, even if the
car is unlocked or has the antitheft
device has already been deactivated.
Tesla’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, Tesla provided
information on the reliability and
durability of its proposed device. Tesla
stated that all components of its
antitheft device are contained inside the
vehicle’s passenger compartment in
locations not readily accessible, or are
contained within other vehicle
components. Tesla stated that this will
protect the antitheft device from
exposure to the elements as well as
significantly limit accessibility to those
components by unauthorized personnel.
Additionally, Tesla stated that it expects
the components of the antitheft device
to be reliable because the antitheft
device relies on electronic functions and
not mechanical functions. Tesla also
provided the agency with a reliability
engineering test report. Tesla believes
the report provides sufficient reliability
and durability information as required
by 49 CFR 543.6(a)(1)(v). Tesla stated
that the reliability and durability testing
completed on its Tesla Model 3 Security
Controller PCBA has shown to meet the
requirements based on Tesla Reliability
Testing and Validation Specification
and the Model 3 product launch
reliability targets.
Tesla stated that the Model 3 antitheft
device will be similar to the version
designed to deter theft of its Model S
and X vehicles. It noted that similar to
the Model S and X vehicle lines, its
antitheft device requires coded
communication between the security
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22057
controller and drive inverters. Tesla
further stated that even gaining access to
the 12V power supply to the Security
Controller or Gateway will not allow a
thief to bypass the system because only
inputs from a correct code can
deactivate the system and allow the
vehicle to function. Tesla also stated
that it expects the Model 3 vehicle line
to achieve very, low theft rates with the
installation of its antitheft immobilizer
device. Tesla further stated it believes
that having a powerful antitheft device,
with electronic locks and an alarm
system installed on its Model 3 vehicle
line strongly indicates that its Model 3
vehicle line will have significantly
lower theft rates than comparable
vehicles that have only been parts
marked in accordance with 49 CFR part
541.
Comparatively, Tesla stated that the
antitheft device proposed for its Model
3 vehicle line is similar to other
antitheft devices which NHTSA has
already determined to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as the parts marking requirements
(i.e., the Tesla Model S and X vehicle
lines). Specifically, the agency’s data
show that using an average of 3 MY’s
(final 2012–2013 and preliminary 2014)
theft rate data, the average theft rate for
the Tesla Model S vehicle line is
(0.1123), which is well below the
median theft rate of 3.5826. There is no
theft rate data available for the Model X
vehicle line because it is a newly
introduced vehicle.
Based on the evidence submitted by
Tesla, the agency believes that the
antitheft device for the Model 3 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 (49 CFR 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 Tesla has provided adequate
reasons for its belief that the antitheft
device for the Model 3 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. This conclusion is based on
the information Tesla provided about its
device.
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22058
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices
The agency concludes that the device
will provide the five types of
performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3):
Promoting activation; attract attention to
the efforts of an unauthorized person to
enter or move 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 Tesla’s petition for
exemption for the Model 3 vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of
49 CFR part 541, beginning with the
2017 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 MY. 49 CFR
543.7(f) contains publication
requirements incident to the disposition
of all part 543 petitions. Advanced
listing, including the release of future
product nameplates, the beginning
model year for which the petition is
granted and a general description of the
antitheft device is necessary in order to
notify law enforcement agencies of new
vehicle lines exempted from the parts
marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
If Tesla 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 notes that if Tesla wishes in
the future to modify the device on
which this exemption is based, the
company may have to submit a petition
to modify the exemption. Section
543.7(d) states that a part 543 exemption
applies only to vehicles that belong to
a line exempted under this part and
equipped with the antitheft device on
which the line’s exemption is based.
Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ‘‘to modify an
exemption to permit the use of an
antitheft device similar to, but differing
from the one specified in that
exemption.’’
The agency wishes to minimize the
administrative burden that § 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 CFR 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017–09516 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2016–0140; Notice 1]
General Motors, LLC, Receipt of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Receipt of petition.
AGENCY:
General Motors, LLC (GM),
has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2014–2016 GM motor vehicles do
not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor
Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load
Carrying Capacity Information for Motor
Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less. GM
filed a noncompliance report dated
December 6, 2016, and revised it on
April 6, 2017. GM also petitioned
NHTSA on January 5, 2017, and
submitted a revised petition on April 7,
2017, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
DATES: The closing date for comments
on the petition is June 12, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
invited to submit written data, views,
and arguments on this petition.
Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited in the title of this
notice and submitted by any of the
following methods:
• Mail: Send comments by mail
addressed to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver comments
by hand to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket
Section is open on weekdays from 10
a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• Electronically: Submit comments
electronically by logging onto the
Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at https://
www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
• Comments may also be faxed to
(202) 493–2251.
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 comments you have
submitted by mail 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.
All comments and supporting
materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated
above will be filed in the docket and
will be considered. All comments and
supporting materials received after the
closing date will also be filed and will
be considered to the fullest extent
possible.
When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will also
be published in the Federal Register
pursuant to the authority indicated at
the end of this notice.
All comments, background
documentation, and supporting
materials submitted to the docket may
be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may
also be viewed on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by following the
online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number for this
petition is shown in the heading of this
notice.
DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477–78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: General Motors, LLC
(GM), has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2014–2016 GM motor
vehicles do not fully comply with
paragraph S4.4.2(e) of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor
Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load
Carrying Capacity Information for Motor
Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less. GM
filed a noncompliance report dated
December 6, 2016, and revised it on
April 6, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR part
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22056-22058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09516]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft
Prevention Standard; Tesla
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of Tesla Motors
Inc's., (Tesla) petition for an exemption of the Model 3 vehicle line
in accordance with the 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
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (Theft Prevention
Standard). Tesla also requested confidential treatment for specific
information in its petition. While official notification on granting or
denying Tesla's request for confidential treatment will be addressed by
separate letter, no confidential information provided for purposes of
this document has been disclosed.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2017 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Hisham Mohamed, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, W43-
437, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Mohamed's
phone number is (202) 366-0307. His fax number is (202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated September 16, 2016,
Tesla requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard for the Model 3 vehicle line beginning with
MY 2017. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard
equipment for the entire vehicle line.
[[Page 22057]]
Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition,
Tesla provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity,
design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the
Model 3 vehicle line. Tesla proposes to install a passive, transponder-
based, electronic engine immobilizer device as standard equipment on
its Model 3 vehicle line beginning with its MY 2017 vehicles. Key
components of the antitheft device include an engine immobilizer,
central body controller, security controller, gateway function, drive
inverters and a passive entry transponder (PET). Tesla also stated that
the antitheft device is an upgraded version of the successful antitheft
device currently installed as standard equipment on all Tesla Model S/X
vehicles, and served as the basis for NHTSA's earlier granting of an
exemption for that vehicle line. Tesla also noted that improvements to
the existing antitheft device include a new coded exchange between the
drive inverters and central body controller and, enhanced security
communication between its components. Tesla further stated that its
antitheft device will be installed with an audible alarm system as
standard equipment on the entire line. Tesla stated that forced entry
into the vehicle or any type of unauthorized entry without the correct
PET will trigger an audible alarm. Tesla further stated that in
addition to an unauthorized access through the doors, the alarm will
also trigger when a break-in is attempted through both the front and
rear cargo areas.
Tesla explained that its antitheft device will have a two-step
activation process with a vehicle code query conducted at each stage.
The first stage allows access to the vehicle when an authorization
cycle occurs between the PET and the Security Controller, as long as
the PET is in close proximity to the car and the driver either pushes
the lock/unlock button on the key fob, pushes the exterior door handle
to activate the handle sensors or inserts a hand into the handle to
trigger the latch release. During the second stage, vehicle operation
will be enabled when the driver sits in the driver's seat and has
depressed the brake pedal. The driver can then move the gear selection
stalk to drive or reverse. When one of these actions is performed, the
security controller will poll to verify if the appropriate PET is
inside the vehicle. Upon location of the PET, the security controller
will run an authentication cycle with the key confirming the correct
PET is being used inside the vehicle. Tesla stated that once
authentication is successful, the security controller initiates a coded
message through the gateway. If the code exchange matches the code
stored in the drive inverters, the exchange will authorize the drive
inverter to deactivate immobilization and allow the vehicle to be
driven under its own power. Tesla stated that the immobilizer is active
when the vehicle is turned off and the doors are locked. Any attempt to
operate the vehicle without performing and completing each task will
render the vehicle inoperable. Additionally, Tesla has incorporated an
additional security measure to protect its Model 3 vehicle line. Tesla
stated that when there are no user inputs to the vehicle within a
programmed period of time, immobilization of the antitheft device will
be reactivated, even if the car is unlocked or has the antitheft device
has already been deactivated.
Tesla'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 Sec. 543.6,
Tesla provided information on the reliability and durability of its
proposed device. Tesla stated that all components of its antitheft
device are contained inside the vehicle's passenger compartment in
locations not readily accessible, or are contained within other vehicle
components. Tesla stated that this will protect the antitheft device
from exposure to the elements as well as significantly limit
accessibility to those components by unauthorized personnel.
Additionally, Tesla stated that it expects the components of the
antitheft device to be reliable because the antitheft device relies on
electronic functions and not mechanical functions. Tesla also provided
the agency with a reliability engineering test report. Tesla believes
the report provides sufficient reliability and durability information
as required by 49 CFR 543.6(a)(1)(v). Tesla stated that the reliability
and durability testing completed on its Tesla Model 3 Security
Controller PCBA has shown to meet the requirements based on Tesla
Reliability Testing and Validation Specification and the Model 3
product launch reliability targets.
Tesla stated that the Model 3 antitheft device will be similar to
the version designed to deter theft of its Model S and X vehicles. It
noted that similar to the Model S and X vehicle lines, its antitheft
device requires coded communication between the security controller and
drive inverters. Tesla further stated that even gaining access to the
12V power supply to the Security Controller or Gateway will not allow a
thief to bypass the system because only inputs from a correct code can
deactivate the system and allow the vehicle to function. Tesla also
stated that it expects the Model 3 vehicle line to achieve very, low
theft rates with the installation of its antitheft immobilizer device.
Tesla further stated it believes that having a powerful antitheft
device, with electronic locks and an alarm system installed on its
Model 3 vehicle line strongly indicates that its Model 3 vehicle line
will have significantly lower theft rates than comparable vehicles that
have only been parts marked in accordance with 49 CFR part 541.
Comparatively, Tesla stated that the antitheft device proposed for
its Model 3 vehicle line is similar to other antitheft devices which
NHTSA has already determined to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as the parts marking requirements (i.e.,
the Tesla Model S and X vehicle lines). Specifically, the agency's data
show that using an average of 3 MY's (final 2012-2013 and preliminary
2014) theft rate data, the average theft rate for the Tesla Model S
vehicle line is (0.1123), which is well below the median theft rate of
3.5826. There is no theft rate data available for the Model X vehicle
line because it is a newly introduced vehicle.
Based on the evidence submitted by Tesla, the agency believes that
the antitheft device for the Model 3 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 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 Tesla has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Model 3 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.
This conclusion is based on the information Tesla provided about its
device.
[[Page 22058]]
The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of
performance listed in Sec. 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attract
attention to the efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or move 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 Tesla's
petition for exemption for the Model 3 vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2017 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 MY. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains publication
requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions.
Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates,
the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a
general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to
notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the
parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
If Tesla 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 notes that if Tesla wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.7(d) states that a part
543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted
under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Sec. 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to, but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Sec.
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 CFR 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-09516 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P