24254 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Notices

positioned at one of the rear seating

positions, with its tether strap attached to the

tether anchorage.

Although the Swift owner’s manual does

not mention that user-ready tether

anchorages are provided as standard

equipment and does not show all of the

seating positions that are equipped with a

tether anchorage, the illustrations in the

manual do show the tether anchorage

location for one of the rear seating positions.

Suzuki believes that vehicle owners will

assume, based on the illustrations, that

anchorages are provided for both rear seating

positions. In addition, when you look at the

actual vehicle, it is obvious that user-ready

anchorages are provided as standard

equipment for both rear seating positions.

Since the tether anchorages are easily

recognizable in the vehicle, Suzuki believes

that failure to fully illustrate the location of

each tether anchorage in the vehicle owner’s

manual is inconsequential.

The Swift owner’s manual also does not

fully comply with the requirement for

‘‘...provide a step-by-step procedure,

including diagrams, for properly attaching a

child restraint system to the tether

anchorages...’’. Typically, because there are

differences in child restraint system design,

the vehicle owner’s manual can only provide

general instructions to hook the tether strap

hook into the anchor bracket and tighten the

tether strap. These steps are somewhat

obvious, and should be intuitively

understood by vehicle owners.

Also, each child restraint system is

required to be accompanied with its own

installation instructions. S5.6.1 of FMVSS

No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, requires

that each child restraint system ‘‘...must be

accompanied by printed installation

instructions in the English language that

provide a step-by-step procedure, including

diagrams, for installing the system in motor

vehicles...’’. Suzuki believes that vehicle

owners rely on the installation instructions

provided with the child restraint system,

rather than those provided in the vehicle

owner’s manual, for information about how

to install the child restraint system in their

vehicle. As a result, Suzuki believes that

failure to provide a step-by-step procedure,

in the vehicle owner’s manual, for attaching

a child restraint system to the vehicle’s tether

anchorages is inconsequential to safety.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written data, views, and

arguments on the application of Suzuki

described above. Comments should refer

to the docket number and be submitted

to: U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management, Room PL–401, 400

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20590. It is requested, but not required,

that two copies be submitted.

All comments received before the

close of business on the closing date

indicated below will be considered. The

application and supporting materials,

and all comments received after the

closing date, will also be filed and will

be considered to the extent possible.

When the application is granted or

denied, the notice will be published in

the Federal Register pursuant to the

authority indicated below.

Comment closing date: May 25, 2000.

(49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120; delegations of

authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

Issued on: April 19, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–10245 Filed 4–24–00; 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

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 Sable, from the partsmarking 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) 2001.

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 December 13, 1999, Ford

requested an exemption from the parts

marking requirements of the Theft

Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541)

for the Mercury Sable vehicle line

beginning in MY 2001. 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

February 28 and March 15, 2000, Ford

was informed of its areas of deficiency.

Subsequently on February 28 and March

17, 2000, Ford submitted its

supplemental information addressing

these deficiencies. Ford’s February 28

and March 17, 2000 faxes together

constitute a complete petition, as

required by 49 CFR Part 543.7, in that

it met the general requirements

contained in § 543.5 and the specific

content requirements of § 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 new line. Ford will install its

antitheft device, the SecuriLock Passive

Anti-Theft Electronic Engine

Immobilizer System (SecuriLock) as

standard equipment on the MY 2001

Mercury Sable. The system has already

been installed as standard equipment on

its MY 2000 Sable.

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. In a letter to Ford dated August

4, 1998, the agency granted its request

for confidential treatment of certain

aspects of its petition.

The Ford SecuriLock is a transponderbased 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.

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 hardVerDate 18<APR>2000 12:55 Apr 24, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25APN1.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 25APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 25, 2000 / Notices 24255

coded with a unique code at the time of

manufacture. Additionally, Ford stated

that the communication between the

SecuriLock control function and the

powertrain’s electronic control module

is encrypted.

Ford stated that its SecuriLock system

incorporates a theft indicator using a

light-emitting diode (LED) that provides

information 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 the proper

‘‘unset’’ state of the device. When the

ignition is turned to ‘‘OFF’’, a flashing

LED indicates the ‘‘set’’ state of the

device 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 prevents any inadvertent activation

of the device.

Ford believes that it would be very

difficult for a thief to defeat this type of

electronic immobilizer system. 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 drive-away thefts are

virtually eliminated with the

sophisticated design and operation of

the electronic engine immobilizer

system which makes conventional theft

methods (i.e., hot-wiring or attacking

the ignition-lock cylinder) ineffective.

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, the

Taurus LX and SHO models, and the

Sable LS model 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 75% for the

vehicles with the immobilizer.

Additionally, Ford stated that its

SecuriLock device has been installed as

standard equipment on the entire

Mustang vehicle line since MY 1997.

As part of its submission, Ford also

provided a Highway Loss Data Institute

(HLDI)’s 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 of 25% and 10%

respectively on premiums for

comprehensive insurance for all Ford

vehicles equipped with the device.

Ford’s proposed device, as well as

other comparable devices that have

received full exemptions from the partsmarking 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 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 Sable

vehicle line is likely to be as effective

in reducing and deterring motor vehicle

theft as compliance with the partsmarking 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 2001 Sable 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 anti-theft

device on which the line’s exemption is

based. Further, § 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

§ 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: April 19, 2000.

Stephen R. Kratzke,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 00–10247 Filed 4–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P