[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 68 (Monday, April 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18166-18168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8770]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Protection 
Standard; Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of 
Transportation (NHTSA) DOT.

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice grants in full the petition of Mercedes-Benz of 
North America, Inc. (``Mercedes'') for exemption of its MY 1996 202 
(``C-Class'') car line from the parts marking requirements of the 
vehicle theft protection standard. This petition is granted because the 
agency has determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the car 
line as standard equipment, is likely to be as effective in reducing 
and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts marking 
requirement.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 1996 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara A. Gray, Office of Market 
Incentives, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 
Gray's telephone number is (202) 366-1740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 29, 1994, Mercedes-Benz of North 
America, Inc. (Mercedes) submitted a petition for exemption from the 
theft prevention standard for its model year (MY) 1996 202 car line (C-
Class) pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption From Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard, (59 FR 10756). The petition submitted by Mercedes 
meets the general requirements for a petition contained in 49 CFR 
543.5, and the specific content requirements ofSec. 543.6. Therefore, 
the petition is complete as required by Sec. 543.7.
    In its petition, Mercedes provided a detailed description of the 
identity, design and location of the components of the antitheft device 
for the car line, including diagrams of the components and their 
location in each vehicle. The system consists of a central locking 
system and an engine starter-interrupt function.
    Mercedes states that a microprocessor antitheft system featuring an 
electronic engine immobilizer will be installed as standard equipment 
on all cars in the C-Class car line beginning in December 1994. The 
antitheft system will be phased in during MY 1995. The exemption is 
requested to begin with MY 1996 since the C-Class line will then have 
this antitheft system as standard equipment. The planned beginning of 
production for the MY 1996 C-Class line is mid-September 1995.
    Mercedes states that the system is automatically activated either 
by using the infrared remote control unit or by locking the vehicle 
with the standard door/ignition key at either of the front door locks 
or at the trunk lock. The system is deactivated by the remote control 
or through the normal vehicle unlocking procedure, when the standard 
door/ignition key is turned in either of the front door locks or the 
trunk lock. An LED lamp on the radio flashes to call attention to the 
antitheft system and radio code functions.
    The antitheft system of the C-Class line for which Mercedes seeks 
this exemption does not include a visual or an audible alarm feature as 
standard equipment. An enhanced antitheft system with an additional 
audible/visual alarm is available as an option. Mercedes stated that 
approximately 51 percent of MY 1994 C-Class car line customers ordered 
the enhanced version of the antitheft system. Mercedes also pointed out 
that NHTSA recently granted full exemptions to two General Motors car 
lines (based on theft rates) which had installed as standard equipment 
the ``PASS-KEY'' system which also does not have a visual or audible 
alarm function.
    All the components of the new system (immobilizer, battery, wiring, 
wiring connections and switches) are located in areas inaccessible from 
underneath the [[Page 18167]] engine compartment. Locking the vehicle 
with the remote control or mechanical key causes the infrared central 
locking control unit to lock the exterior locks. The infrared remote 
control unit or the key then provides a coded signal that actuates the 
immobilizer, which prevents the vehicle from being operated under its 
own power. The engine ignition and fuel systems are electronically shut 
down and the steering and shift lever are mechanically locked.
    Unlocking the vehicle with the remote control or the mechanical key 
signals the infrared remote central locking unit to centrally unlock 
the exterior lock, and provide an enabling code which de-energizes the 
immobilizer. Deactivation of the immobilizer, without unlocking the 
vehicle by using the remote or key, is prevented since no electrical 
connection exists between the mechanical plungers and the key-operated 
door locks. This means that if a window is broken, lifting the door 
plunger will unlock the specific door but will not deactivate the 
immobilizer. The interior central locking/unlocking switch is not 
connected to the immobilizer, ensuring that the vehicle cannot be 
inadvertently immobilized, and, at the same time, preventing the 
immobilizer from being defeated by breaking a window and depressing the 
interior switch. Removing and then reapplying battery power will not 
disable the immobilizer.
    In addition to the immobilizer the C-Class car line has other 
features. The large diameter of the car line's lock cylinder helps 
increase the resistance to screwdrivers or lock-pullers. Standard anti-
slim-jim covers placed over the front and rear door locking mechanisms 
further increase the vehicle's resistance to break-in attempts. Rear 
door lock/unlock mechanisms are routed to make the rods inaccessible to 
slim-jim type devices. The hood locking mechanism is shielded and the 
hood cable is routed so as to make it inaccessible from underneath the 
vehicle. The battery is located in the trunk compartment, preventing 
access from the exterior of the vehicle.
    The door/ignition key is of a unique, internal cut design which is 
extremely difficult to duplicate. A copy of the steel key must be 
ordered directly from an authorized Mercedes dealer by using the 
vehicle identification number. Mercedes also states that owner 
verification measures are also in place at dealerships. The C-Class 
vehicle includes a ratcheting steering wheel lock as standard 
equipment. Instead of the lock pin breaking completely when forced, 
such as when the wheel is turned with a breaker bar, the C-Class line's 
steering wheel lock will yield when the force exceeds a set level; then 
re-lock itself automatically when the force drops below the set level. 
The high force level at which the mechanism is designed to yield 
effectively prevents the vehicle from being steered.
    Mercedes stated that the microprocessor control unit and all 
related system components have been subjected to a series of design and 
production tests. These tests include reversed polarity tests, over and 
under voltage tests, short circuit tests, electromagnetic interference 
tests, temperature and humidity tests, corrosion tests, vibration life 
cycle tests, and drop impact tests.
    The entire system utilizes a microprocessor control unit with 
built-in self-test features which recognize and exclude sensor failures 
and allow the system to be easily maintained out in the field.
    In discussing why it believes that this antitheft device will be as 
effective as parts marking in reducing and deterring motor vehicle 
theft, Mercedes states that the immobilizer for this theft deterrent 
system for the C-Class line is an improvement of the starter-interlock 
relay module which was incorporated into the 124 line (E-Class) and the 
140 line (S-Class). The agency granted a petition for exemption for the 
124 line and the 140 line was designated as a likely low-theft line.
    Mercedes reiterated that even though the antitheft system on the C-
Class line does not have any audible or visual alarm functions, theft 
data for exempted General Motors car lines without audible or visual 
alarm functions indicates that the lack of alarm functions has not 
prevented the systems from being effective. On January 19, 1995, 
Mercedes provided two charts indicating the reduction of theft rates of 
car lines that have installed as standard equipment an antitheft device 
without an audible or visual alarm function. One chart listed four 
lines, the Buick Riviera, Cadillac Eldorado, Cadillac DeVille, and 
Oldsmobile Toronado. Mercedes listed theft lines beginning with the MY 
1986 through MY 1990. The antitheft systems were offered as standard 
equipment on these lines beginning with MY 1990.
    Two of the lines, (Buick Riviera and Cadillac DeVille), decreased 
33 percent and 54 percent respectively from the 1986 MY. The other two, 
(Cadillac Eldorado and Oldsmobile Toronado) increased 9 percent and 16 
percent respectively. Coincidentally, the Eldorado and Toronado parts 
were interchangeable. The other chart provided by Mercedes depicted the 
theft experience of the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird for MYs 
1989-1992. Both lines continue to decrease in theft rates, 28 percent 
decrease for the Camaro and 41 percent decrease for the Firebird.
    NHTSA believes that there is substantial evidence that the 
antitheft device that will be installed on the 1996 Mercedes C-Class 
car line will likely be as effective in reducing motor vehicle theft as 
compliance with the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541). The 
Mercedes system will provide four of the five types of performance 
listed in Section 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; preventing defeat 
or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing 
operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 
reliability and durability of the device. It does not provide a means 
for attracting attention to the efforts of an unauthorized person to 
enter or move a vehicle by means other than a key. However, the agency 
believes that Mercedes has provided substantial evidence that a system 
that lacks a device for attracting attention to unauthorized entry 
nevertheless can be as effective as parts marking in deterring motor 
vehicle theft.
    As required by 49 U.S.C. section 33106(c)(2) and 49 CFR 
543.6(a)(4), the agency also finds that Mercedes has provided adequate 
reasons for its belief that the antitheft device will reduce and deter 
theft. This conclusion is based on the information Mercedes provided on 
its device. This information included a description of reliability and 
functional tests conducted by Mercedes for the antitheft device and its 
components.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby exempts the MY 1996 
Mercedes C-Class car line in whole from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 
541.
    If Mercedes decides not to use the exemption for this car line, it 
should formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the car 
line must be fully marked according to the requirements of 49 CFR 541.5 
and 541.6 (marking of major components and replacement parts).
    The agency notes that the limited and apparently conflicting data 
on the effectiveness of the pre-standard parts marking programs 
continue to make it difficult to compare the effectiveness of an 
antitheft device with the effectiveness of the theft prevention 
standard. The statute clearly invites such a comparison, which the 
agency has made on the basis of the limited data available. With 
implementation of the requirements of the ``Anti Car Theft Act of 
1992,'' NHTSA anticipates more [[Page 18168]] probative data upon which 
comparisons may be made.
    NHTSA notes that if Mercedes 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 upon which that 
line exemption is based. Further, Sec. 543.9(c)(2) provides for the 
submission of petitions ``[t]o 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 which 
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 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.

    Dated: April 4, 1995.
Howard M. Smolkin,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 95-8770 Filed 4-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P