[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29374-29376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-13553]


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

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 Grand 
Marquis, 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

[[Page 29375]]

the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 2002.

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 April 9, 2001, Ford 
requested an exemption from the parts marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Mercury Grand Marquis 
vehicle line beginning in MY 2002.
    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 April 16, 2001, Ford was informed of its areas of deficiency. 
Subsequently on May 9, 2001, Ford submitted its supplemental 
information addressing these deficiencies. Ford's April 9 and May 9, 
2001 submissions 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 line. Ford will install its antitheft device, 
the SecuriLock Passive Anti-Theft Electronic Engine Immobilizer System 
(SecuriLock) as standard equipment on the MY 2002 Mercury Grand 
Marquis. The system has been voluntarily installed as standard 
equipment on its Mercury Grand Marquis line since MY 2000.
    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. Ford's request for confidential 
treatment will be addressed by separate notification.
    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 transceiver module reads the 
ignition key code and transmits the code to the powertrain's electronic 
control module (PCM). 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 
vehicle assembly. Additionally, Ford stated that communication between 
the SecuriLock transponder and the powertrain's electronic control 
module is encrypted and share security data, making them a matching 
pair. Consequently, the paired modules will not function in other 
vehicles if separated from each other.
    Ford stated that its SecuriLock system incorporates a theft 
indicator using a light-emitting diode (LED) that provides a visual 
indicator 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 that the device is 
``unset.'' When the ignition is turned to ``OFF,'' a flashing LED 
indicates the device is ``set'' 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 assures activation of the device.
    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 with the sophisticated design 
and operation of the electronic engine immobilizer system, conventional 
theft methods are ineffective (i.e., hot-wiring or attacking the 
ignition-lock cylinder). 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, and the 
Taurus LX and SHO models 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 70% for the vehicles with the immobilizer. With the 
introduction of SecuriLock on all 2000 Taurus models, the NCIC data 
show a 63% drop in theft rate compared with the non-SecuriLock equipped 
1999 Taurus models.
    As part of its submission, Ford also provided a Highway Loss Data 
Institute (HLDI) 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 for all Ford 
vehicles equipped with the SecuriLock 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

[[Page 29376]]

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 Grand Marquis 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 2002 Mercury Grand 
Marquis 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 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 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.

    Issued on: May 23, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-13553 Filed 5-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P