[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 25, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71721-71722]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-27962]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard; Ford Motor Company

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) in accordance with Sec.  543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543, 
Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard, for the Ford Mercury 
Mariner vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 2010. 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) 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone 
number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated September 18, 2008, Ford 
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Mercury Mariner vehicle 
line beginning with MY 2010. The petition requested an exemption from 
parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device 
as standard equipment for an entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant 
exemptions for one vehicle line per model year. Ford has petitioned the 
agency to grant an exemption for its Mercury Mariner vehicle line 
beginning with MY 2010. 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 Mercury Mariner vehicle 
line. Ford will install its passive transponder-based electronic 
immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment on the vehicle line. 
Features of the antitheft device will include an electronic key, 
ignition lock, and a passive immobilizer. The system does not include 
an audible or visual alarm as standard equipment. Ford's submission 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.
    The antitheft device to be installed on the MY 2010 Mercury Mariner 
is the SecuriLock Passive Antitheft Electronic Engine Immobilizer 
System (SecuriLock). 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 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 also stated that the SecuriLock electronic engine 
immobilizer device makes conventional theft methods such as hot-wiring 
or attacking the ignition lock cylinder ineffective and virtually 
eliminates drive-away thefts. The cluster and PCM share security data 
when first installed during vehicle assembly form matched modules. Ford 
stated that as an additional measure of security, these matched modules 
will not function in other vehicles if they are separated from each 
other. Ford also stated that key duplication would virtually be 
impossible because its key is encrypted with many different codes (18 
quintillion).
    Ford stated that there were only two years of reported theft rates 
available for the Mercury Mariner, but its Escape vehicle line which is 
comparable in design, size and equipment to the Mariner is installed 
with the proposed device. The Ford Escape vehicle line had an average 
theft rate using 5 MY's data (2001-2005) of 1.4215 and was granted an 
exemption from the parts marking standard (Part 541) beginning with the 
2009 model year. Ford stated that the exceptionally low theft rate 
(0.6968) for MY 2006 Mariner vehicles is likely to continue or improve 
in future years. The theft rate using an average of two MY's data 
(2005-2006) for Mariner vehicles is 0.7913.
    Additionally, Ford noted the reduction in the theft rate for other 
vehicle lines equipped with the SecuriLock device. Ford's SecuriLock 
device was first introduced as standard equipment on it's MY 1996 
Mustang GT and Cobra vehicle lines. The SecuriLock system was installed 
on the entire Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment in MY 1997. 
Ford stated that according to National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) 
theft statistics, the 1997 model year Mustang with SecuriLock showed a 
70% reduction in theft compared to its MY 1995 Mustang vehicles. 
Comparatively, Ford stated that there were 149 thefts reported in 1997 
and 500 thefts reported in 1995.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Ford 
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed 
device. To ensure 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 believes that the device is 
reliable and durable since the device complied with its specified 
requirements for each test.
    The agency also notes that the device will provide four of the five 
types of performance listed in Sec.  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.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants 
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part 
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon 
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely 
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as 
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency 
finds that Ford has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the 
antitheft device for the Mercury Mariner vehicle

[[Page 71722]]

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). This conclusion is based 
on the information Ford provided about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Ford's 
petition for exemption for the Mercury Mariner vehicle line from the 
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. The agency notes that 49 
CFR Part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted 
from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR Part 
543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition 
of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of 
future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the 
petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device 
is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle 
lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard.
    If Ford decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must 
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must 
be fully marked according to the requirements under 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, Part 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 Part 
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: November 20, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-27962 Filed 11-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P