2444 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 

by 1-year intervals, for a total of three 

administrations of the survey over 

slightly more than a 2 year period. All 

other members of the sample will be 

administered the survey one time only. 

The interviews with bar patrons will 

be conducted with individuals 21 years 

of age and older. Interview length will 

average approximately 5 minutes, and 

each member of the sample would 

complete one interview. Businesses are 

ineligible for the sample and would not 

be interviewed. 

The roadside survey interviews will 

be conducted with drivers 18 and older. 

Interviews would average 5 minutes, 

and each member of the sample would 

complete one interview. Businesses are 

ineligible for the sample and would not 

be interviewed. 

Estimate of the Total Annual 

Reporting and Record Keeping Burden 

Resulting from the Collection of 

Information—NHTSA estimates that 

respondents would require an average of 

10 minutes to complete the telephone 

interviews or a total of 3,917 hours for 

the 23,500 respondents. The interviews 

with bar patrons will average 5 minutes 

or a total of 125 hours for the 1,500 

respondents. The roadside survey 

interviews will also average 5 minutes 

or a total of 125 hours for the 1,500 

respondents. The total number of 

estimated reporting burden hours on the 

general public would be 4,167. The 

annual reporting burden would be 1,923 

hours based on a 26 month data 

collection period. The respondents 

would not incur any reporting cost from 

the information collection. The 

respondents also would not incur any 

record keeping burden or record 

keeping cost from the information 

collection. 

Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). 

Jeffrey Michael, 

Associate Administrator, Research and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. 2011–645 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

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 Ford Motor Company’s (Ford) 

petition for an exemption of the Fusion 

vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR 

Part 543, Exemption from the 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 partsmarking requirements of the 49 CFR 

Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2012 model year. 

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– 

2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated September 21, 2010, Ford 

requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) 

for the MY 2012 Ford Fusion vehicle 

line. 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 § 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 Fusion vehicle line 

beginning with MY 2012. 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 Fusion vehicle 

line. Ford will install its ‘‘SecuriLock’’ 

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. Ford stated that 

since it’s MY 2006 introduction, the 

Fusion has been equipped with the 

‘‘SecuriLock’’ device as standard 

equipment. The device does not 

incorporate an audible or visual alarm 

as standard equipment however, Ford 

stated that the Fusion vehicles will 

come equipped with a separate 

perimeter alarm system that utilizes 

both a visible and audible alarm if 

unauthorized access is attempted. 

Ford’s submission is considered a 

complete petition as required by 49 CFR 

543.7, in that it meets the general 

requirements contained in § 543.5 and 

the specific content requirements of 

§ 543.6. 

Ford stated that the devices 

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 control module/ 

transmission control module (PCM/ 

TCM). 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 engine starter, 

ignition and fuel systems will be 

disabled. Ford stated that the device 

functions automatically each time an 

engine start sequence occurs. Therefore, 

no owner/operator actions are required 

to deactivate the device. 

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. 

Ford stated that incorporation of 

several features in both devices further 

support reliability and durability of the 

device. Specifically, some of those 

features include: encrypted 

communication between the 

transponder, control function and the 

power train control module; no moving 

parts; inability to mechanically override 

the device to start the vehicle; and the 

body control module/remote function 

actuator and the power train control 

module share security data that form 

matched modules during vehicle 

assembly that if separated from each 

other will not function in other vehicles. 

Ford stated that the Fusion will be 

equipped with several other standard 

antitheft features (i.e., a hood release, 

counterfeit resistant VIN plates, 

secondary VINs inscribed on the body, 

and an exterior key lock that will be 

located only on the driver door to limit 

cabin access). Ford also stated that the 

device’s encrypted transponder 

technology will make key duplication 

virtually impossible. 

Additionally, Ford noted that with the 

prevalence of electronic engine 

immobilizer systems on nearly all new 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Notices 2445 

1On December 23, 2010, the Rollo Job 

Development Authority (RJDA) filed a letter in 

opposition. While the Board will not delay service 

and publication of this notice based on that letter 

alone, RJDA has a number of post-publication/ 

service options available to it, as set forth in this 

notice, should it choose to pursue the matter 

further. 

2BNSF states that the line was embargoed on 

March 29, 2007 due to soft track conditions and 

sub-grade issues and the subsequent destruction by 

fire of two bridges. 

retail vehicles, the overall theft rates 

have been decreasing and the theft rate 

for the Fusion vehicles have remained 

very close to the overall theft rate trend. 

Specifically, the agency’s data show that 

theft rates for the Fusion for MYs 2006– 

2008 are 1.7314, 1.8161 and 1.8797 

respectively. Using an average of 3 MYs 

data (2006–2008), the theft rate for the 

Fusion vehicle line is well below the 

median at 1.8090. 

Ford compared the effectiveness of its 

antitheft device with devices which 

NHTSA has previously determined to be 

as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as would 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of Part 541. Specifically, 

Ford provided information on 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 also stated that the 

‘‘SecuriLock’’ device has been installed 

as standard equipment on all North 

American Ford, Lincoln and Mercury 

vehicles except for the F–Super Duty, 

Econoline and Crown Victoria Police 

Interceptor vehicles. 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. 

Ford also stated that the proposed 

device is very similar in design and 

implementation to the device offered on 

the Ford Escape vehicle line. The 

agency granted Ford’s petition for 

exemption for the Escape vehicle line 

on April 18, 2008. Ford stated that it 

believes that the standard installation of 

the ‘‘SecuriLock’’ device on the Fusion 

vehicle line would be an effective 

deterrent against vehicle theft and that 

the low theft rate experienced by the 

line in CY 2008 is likely to continue or 

improve in future years. 

The agency agrees that the device is 

substantially similar to devices in other 

vehicle lines for which the agency has 

already granted exemptions. Based on 

the evidence submitted by Ford, the 

agency believes that the antitheft device 

for the Fusion 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). 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 

CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants a 

petition for exemption from the partsmarking 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 Ford Fusion 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). This 

conclusion is based on the information 

Ford provided about its device. 

The agency concludes that the device 

will provide four of the five types of 

performance listed in § 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. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full Ford’s petition for 

exemption for the Fusion 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 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 partsmarking 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: January 7, 2011. 

Joseph S. Carra, 

Acting, Associate Administrator for 

Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2011–567 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[Docket No. AB 6 (Sub-No. 473X)] 

BNSF Railway Company— 

Abandonment Exemption—in Rolette 

and Towner Counties, ND 

BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), filed 

a verified notice of exemption under 49 

C.F.R. pt. 1152 subpart F—Exempt 

Abandonments to abandon 17.75 miles 

of rail line between milepost 30.00, 

north of Bisbee and milepost 47.75 at 

Rolla, in Rolette and Towner Counties, 

N.D.1 The line traverses United States 

Postal Service Zip Codes 58317, 58363, 

and 58367. 

BNSF has certified that: (1) No local 

traffic has moved over the line for at 

least 2 years; 2 (2) there is no overhead 

traffic on the line; (3) no formal 

complaint filed by a user of rail service 

on the line (or by a state or local 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES