[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12780-12782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5038]


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

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 Ford 
Thunderbird, 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 12781]]

the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Consumer Standards 
Division, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington DC 20590. Ms. 
Mazyck's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 
493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 20, 2004, Ford 
requested an exemption from the parts marking requirements of 49 CFR 
part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, for the Ford 
Thunderbird vehicle line beginning in MY 2006. 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 Thunderbird 
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.
    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 2006 Ford Thunderbird. The 
system has been voluntarily installed as standard equipment on its Ford 
Thunderbird line since MY 2002. The antitheft device installed on the 
Ford Thunderbird includes both an audible and visual alarm system and 
an engine immobilizer system. The Ford Thunderbird will also have a 
standard perimeter alarm system which will monitor all the doors, 
decklid and hood of the vehicle.
    The visual and audible features of the standard perimeter alarm 
system will attract attention to the efforts of an unauthorized person 
to enter the vehicle by sounding the vehicle's horn and illuminating 
the front lights. The lights will flash from 4.5 to 5 minutes and the 
horn will sound 25 to 30 seconds on illegal entry. Once armed, the 
perimeter alarm system is activated.
    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 supporting 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. Ford stated that the integration of the transponder into the 
normal operation of the ignition key assures activation of the system. 
When the ignition key is turned to the start position, the transceiver 
module reads the ignition key code and transmits an encrypted message 
to the cluster. Validation of the key is determined and start of the 
engine is authorized once a separate encrypted message is sent to the 
powertrain's electronic control module (PCM). The powertrain will 
function only if the key code matches the unique identification key 
code previously programmed into the PCM. If the codes do not match, the 
powertrain engine starter, spark and fuel will be disabled.
    Ford stated that there are now 18 quintillion possible codes, and 
at the time of vehicle assembly, each transponder is also hard-coded 
with a unique code. Additionally, Ford stated that in model year 2003, 
the SecuriLock system was upgraded from Read Only Transponder 
technology to Encrypted Transponder technology. Communication between 
the SecuriLock transponder, Cluster and the PCM is also encrypted, 
making key duplication nearly impossible.
    Ford stated that its SecuriLock system incorporates an indicator 
light, 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, the 
SecuriLock electronic engine immobilizer device makes conventional 
theft methods such as hot-wiring or attacking the ignition lock 
cylinder ineffective, virtually eliminating drive-away thefts.
    The effectiveness of Ford's SecuriLock device was first introduced 
as standard equipment on its MY 1996 Mustang GT and Cobra. In MY 1997, 
the SecuriLock system was installed on the entire Mustang vehicle line 
as standard equipment. Ford stated that the 1997 model year Mustang 
with SecuriLock shows a 70% reduction in theft compared to the MY 1995 
Mustang, according to National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) theft 
statistics. There

[[Page 12782]]

were 149 reported theft for 1997 compared to 500 reported thefts in 
1995.
    As part of its submission, Ford also provided a Highway Loss Data 
Institute (HLDI) Injury, Collision & Theft Losses publication, dated 
September 2004, which evaluated the 2002-2003 Ford Thunderbird models 
equipped with the SecuriLock device. On a scale where one hundred (100) 
represents the average result for all cars in each loss category, the 
results as reported by HLDI indicated an average theft loss of eighty-
seven convertible Thunderbirds over a two model year period. Results 
are based on the loss experience of 2001-2003 models from their first 
sales through 2004. HLDI loss results for 2001-2003 models are stated 
in relative terms. Since the reintroduction of the Ford Thunderbird 
equipped with the SecuriLock anti-theft device and Perimeter alarm 
system as standard equipment, it has seen a very low theft rate. Ford 
also presented information from NHTSA's Final Theft Data report (69 FR 
53354, September 1, 2004) on thefts of 2002 model year passenger motor 
vehicles that occurred in calendar year 2002. The report showed the 
Ford Thunderbird having only fourteen thefts out of a production of 
28,639 vehicles for the 2002 model year, with a theft rate of 0.4888.
    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.
    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 Ford Thunderbird 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 concludes that the device will provide the types of 
performance listed in 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; 
attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or 
operate a vehicle by means other than a key; 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 2006 Ford 
Thunderbird 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: March 9, 2005.
H. Keith Brewer,
Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards.
[FR Doc. 05-5038 Filed 3-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P