[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 96 (Friday, May 17, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35189-35191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-12424]


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

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.

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

[[Page 35190]]

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of Ford Motor 
Company (Ford) for an exemption of a high-theft line, the Lincoln Town 
Car, 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) 2003.

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) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated January 25, 2002, Ford 
requested an exemption from the parts marking requirements of 49 CFR 
part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, for the 
Lincoln Town Car vehicle line beginning in MY 2003. The petition was 
filed 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. Based on the evidence 
submitted by Ford, the agency believes that the antitheft device for 
the Ford Lincoln Town Car 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).
    Section 331066(b)(2)(D) of Title 49, United States Code, authorized 
the Secretary of Transportation to grant an exemption from the parts-
marking requirements for not more than one additional line of a 
manufacturer for MYs 1997-2000. However, it does not address the 
contingency of what to do after model year 2000 in the absence of a 
decision under Section 33103(d). 49 U.S.C. 33103(d)(3) states that the 
number of lines for which the agency can grant an exemption is to be 
decided after the Attorney General completes a review of the 
effectiveness of antitheft devices and finds that antitheft devices are 
an effective substitute for parts-marking. The Attorney General has not 
yet made a finding and has not decided the number of lines, if any, for 
which the agency will be authorized to grant an exemption. Upon 
consultation with the Department of Justice, we determined that the 
appropriate reading of Section 33103(d) is that NHTSA may continue to 
grant parts-marking exemptions for not more than one additional model 
line each year, as specified for model years 1997-2000 by 49 U.S.C. 
33106(b)(2)(C). This is the level contemplated by the Act for the 
period before the Attorney General's decision. The final decision on 
whether to continue granting exemptions will be made by the Attorney 
General at the conclusion of the review pursuant to Section 
330103(d)(3).
    Ford's submittal 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. Ford 
requested confidential treatment for information and attachments in 
support of its petition. In a letter to the manufacturer dated March 
14, 2002, the agency granted Ford's request for confidential treatment 
of its petition.
    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 2003 Lincoln Town Car. The 
system has been voluntarily installed as standard equipment on its 
Lincoln Town Car line since MY 1998.
    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.
    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 (PCM). The vehicle's engine can only be started if the 
transponder code matches the code previously 2 programmed into the 
powertrain's electronic control module. If the code does not match, the 
engine will be disabled.
    Ford stated that there are four 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, making key duplication nearly impossible.
    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

[[Page 35191]]

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 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 granted full exemptions from 
the parts-marking requirements.
    Based on the evidence submitted by Ford, the agency believes that 
the antitheft device for the Lincoln Town Car 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 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 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 2003 Lincoln Town 
Car 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 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. 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 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.

    Issued on: May 13, 2002.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 02-12424 Filed 5-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P