[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24254-24255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10247]


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

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 document grants in full the petition of Ford Motor 
Company (Ford) for an exemption of a high-theft line, the Mercury 
Sable, 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 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) 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of 
Planning and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. 
Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 13, 1999, Ford 
requested an exemption from the parts marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Mercury Sable vehicle 
line beginning in MY 2001. The petition is pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, 
Exemption From Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, which provides for 
exemptions based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard 
equipment for the entire line.
    Review of Ford's petition disclosed that certain information was 
not provided in its original petition. Consequently, by telephone call 
on February 28 and March 15, 2000, Ford was informed of its areas of 
deficiency. Subsequently on February 28 and March 17, 2000, Ford 
submitted its supplemental information addressing these deficiencies. 
Ford's February 28 and March 17, 2000 faxes together constitute 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 2001 Mercury Sable. 
The system has already been installed as standard equipment on its MY 
2000 Sable.
    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, functional, 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. Ford requested 
confidential treatment for some of the information and attachments 
submitted in support of its petition. In a letter to Ford dated August 
4, 1998, the agency granted its request for confidential treatment of 
certain aspects of its petition.
    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-

[[Page 24255]]

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 is 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 the 
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 stated that the effectiveness of its SecuriLock device is best 
reflected in the reduction of the theft rates for its Mustang GT and 
Cobra models from MY 1995 to 1996. The SecuriLock antitheft device was 
voluntarily installed on all Mustang GT and Cobra models, the Taurus LX 
and SHO models, and the Sable LS model as standard equipment in MY 
1996. In MY 1997, the SecuriLock system was installed on the entire 
Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment. Ford notes that a 
comparison of the National Crime Information Center's (NCIC) calendar 
year (CY)1995 theft data for MY 1995 Mustang GT and Cobra vehicles 
without an immobilizer device installed with MY 1997 data for Mustang 
GT and Cobra vehicles with an immobilizer device installed, shows a 
reduction in thefts of approximately 75% for the vehicles with the 
immobilizer. Additionally, Ford stated that its SecuriLock device has 
been installed as standard equipment on the entire Mustang vehicle line 
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, 
lacks an audible or visible alarm. Therefore, these devices cannot 
perform one of the 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 Mercury Sable 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 2001 Sable 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, must fully mark the line 
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: April 19, 2000.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-10247 Filed 4-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P