[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 176 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48784-48786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24489]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard; Ford

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

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This notice grants in full the petition of Ford Motor Company 
(Ford) for an exemption of a high-theft line, the Ford Mustang, from 
the parts-marking requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has 
determined that the antitheft device

[[Page 48785]]

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 Theft Prevention Standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of 
Planning and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, 
Washington DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. 
Her fax number is (202) 493-2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated January 21, 1998, Ford 
requested an exemption from the parts marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Crown Victoria and Grand 
Marquis vehicle lines beginning in MY 1999. Ford also requested that 
the agency also consider its petition for its Taurus and Sable vehicle 
lines beginning in MY 2000 which will also be equipped with the same 
standard equipment antitheft system as Ford proposes for installation 
on its Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis vehicle lines for the 1999 
model year.
    However, Section 543.5(a) specifically states that ``For each of 
model years 1997 through 2000, a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to 
grant an exemption for one additional line of its passenger motor 
vehicles from the requirements of Part 541 of this chapter.'' 
Therefore, the agency advised Ford that the company must decide which 
of the two lines it would request to petition for exemption from the 
parts-marking requirements for MYs 1999 and 2000 respectively. 
Subsequently by letter dated May 4, 1998, Ford chose to withdraw its 
original petition for exemption for the MY 1999 Crown Victoria and 
Grand Marquis lines, and the MY 2000 Taurus and Sable vehicle lines. In 
Ford's May 4 withdrawal letter, it also requested an exemption from the 
parts-marking requirements for its Mustang vehicle line beginning with 
MY 1999. Accordingly, May 4, 1998, is the date on which the statutory 
120-day period for processing Ford's petition began. The petition is 
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 line.
    Ford's submittal is considered a complete petition, as required by 
49 CFR Part 543.7, in that it met the general requirements contained in 
Sec. 543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec. 543.6.
    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 new line. Ford will install its antitheft 
device, the SecuriLock Passive Anti-Theft Electronic Engine Immobilizer 
System (SecuriLock) as standard equipment on the MY 1999 Ford Mustang.
    In order to ensure the 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 stated its belief 
that the device is reliable and durable since it complied with Ford's 
specified requirements for each test. The environmental and functional 
tests conducted were for thermal shock, high temperature exposure, low-
temperature exposure, powered/thermal cycle, temperature/humidity 
cycling, constant humidity, end-of-line, random vibration, tri-
temperature parametric, bench drop, transmit current, lead/lock 
strength/integrity, output frequency, resistance to solvents, output 
field strength, dust, and electromagnetic compatibility.
    The Ford SecuriLock is a transponder-based electronic immobilizer 
system. The device is activated when the driver/operator turns off the 
engine by using the properly coded ignition key. When the ignition key 
is turned to the start position, the transponder (located in the head 
of the key) transmits a code to the powertrain's electronic control 
module. The vehicle's engine can only be started if the transponder 
code matches the code previously programmed into the powertrain's 
electronic control module. If the code does not match, the engine will 
be disabled. Ford stated that there are seventy-two quadrillion 
different codes and each transponder is hard-coded with a unique code 
at the time of manufacture. Additionally, Ford stated that the 
communication between the SecuriLock control function and the 
powertrain's electronic control module are encrypted.
    Ford stated that its SecuriLock system incorporates a theft 
indicator using a light-emitting diode (LED) that provides information 
to the driver/operator as to the ``set'' and ``unset'' condition of the 
device. When the ignition is initially turned to the ``ON'' position, a 
3-second continuous LED indicates the proper ``unset'' state of the 
device. When the ignition is turned to ``OFF'', a flashing LED 
indicates the ``set'' state of the device and provides visual 
information that the vehicle is protected by the SecuriLock system. 
Ford states that the integration of the setting/unsetting device 
(transponder) into the ignition key prevents any inadvertent activation 
of the device.
    Ford believes that it would be very difficult for a thief to defeat 
this type of electronic immobilizer system. Ford believes that its new 
device is reliable and durable because its does not have any moving 
parts, nor does it require a separate battery in the key. If the 
correct code is not transmitted to the electronic control module 
(accomplished only by having the correct key), there is no way to 
mechanically override the system and start the vehicle. Furthermore, 
Ford stated that drive-away thefts are virtually eliminated with 
SecuriLock's sophisticated design and operation of the electronic 
engine immobilizer system which makes conventional theft methods (i.e., 
hot-wiring or attacking the ignition-lock cylinder) ineffective. Ford 
reemphasized that any attempt to slam-pull the ignition-lock cylinder 
will have no effect on a thief's ability to start the vehicle.
    Ford's SecuriLock antitheft device was voluntarily installed on all 
Mustang GT and Cobra models as standard equipment in MY 1996. Ford 
notes that in comparing the National Crime Information Center's (NCIC) 
CY 1995-1996 theft data for MY 1995 Mustang GT and Cobra vehicles 
without an immobilizer device installed with MY 1996 data for Mustang 
GT and Cobra vehicles with an immobilizer device installed, 
approximately a 75% reduction in theft is shown. Additionally, Ford 
stated that its SecuriLock device has been installed on the entire 
Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment since MY 1997.
    As part of its submission, Ford also provided a Highway Loss Data 
Institute (HLDI)'s theft loss bulletin, Vol. 15, No. 1, September 1997, 
which evaluated 1996 Ford Mustang and Taurus models fitted with the 
SecuriLock device and corresponding 1995 models without the SecuriLock 
device. The results as reported by HLDI indicated a reduction in 
overall theft losses by approximately 50% for both Mustang and Taurus 
models.
    Additionally, Ford stated that its SecuriLock device has been 
demonstrated to various insurance companies, and as a result AAA 
Michigan and State Farm now give an antitheft discount of 25% and 10% 
respectively on premiums for comprehensive insurance for all Ford 
vehicles equipped with the device.
    Ford's proposed device, as well as other comparable devices that 
have received full exemptions from the parts-marking requirements, lack 
an audible or visible alarm. Therefore, these devices cannot perform 
one of the

[[Page 48786]]

functions listed in 49 CFR Part 542.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention 
to unauthorized attempts to enter or move the vehicle. However, theft 
data have indicated a decline in theft rates for vehicle lines that 
have been equipped with antitheft devices similar to that which Ford 
proposes. In these instances, the agency has concluded that the lack of 
a visual or audio alarm has not prevented these antitheft devices from 
being effective protection against theft.
    On the basis of comparison, Ford has concluded that the antitheft 
device proposed for its vehicle line is no less effective than those 
devices in the lines for which NHTSA has already granted full 
exemptions from the parts-marking requirements.
    Based on the evidence submitted by Ford, the agency believes that 
the antitheft device for the Ford Mustang 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 believes that the device will provide four of the five 
types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 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.
    As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(4) and (5), 
the agency finds that Ford has provided adequate reasons for its belief 
that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion 
is based on the information Ford provided about its antitheft device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Ford 
Motor Company's petition for an exemption for the MY 1999 Mustang 
vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.
    If Ford decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must 
formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, the line must be fully 
marked as required by 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 anti-theft 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 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.

    Issued on September 4, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-24489 Filed 9-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P