[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 103 (Friday, May 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30103-30105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12948]


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

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 Explorer vehicle line in accordance 
with Sec.  543.9(c)(2) of 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 parts-marking 
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541). Ford 
requested confidential treatment for the attachments it submitted in 
support of its petition. The agency will address Ford's request for 
confidential treatment by separate letter.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2011 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 December 11, 2009, Ford 
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2011 Ford Explorer 
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 Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant 
exemptions for one vehicle line per model year. 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 Explorer 
vehicle line. Ford will install its SecuriLock antitheft device (also 
known as the Passive Antitheft System or PATS) on the 2011 Explorer as 
standard equipment. Ford stated that it will also offer its Intelligent 
Access with Push Button Start (IAwPB) antitheft device as optional 
equipment. Ford stated that both systems are passive, electronic 
immobilizer devices that use encrypted transponder technology. Key 
components of the Securilock/PATS antitheft device will include an 
electronic transponder key, transceiver module, ignition lock, and a 
passive immobilizer. Key components of the IAwPB device is an 
electronic keyfob, remote function actuator, body control module, power 
train control module and a passive immobilizer. Ford stated that its MY 
2011 Explorer vehicle line will also be equipped with several other 
standard antitheft features common to Ford vehicles, (i.e., counterfeit 
resistant VIN labels; secondary VINs, cabin accessibility through the 
use of a valid key fob or keycode). Ford further stated that there will 
also be a separate visible and audible perimeter alarm available on its 
Explorer vehicle line. The alarm will be available as an option on 
vehicles with the Securilock/PATS device and included as standard 
equipment on vehicles with the IAwPB device. Ford's submission is 
considered

[[Page 30104]]

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 stated that the devices integration of the transponder into 
the normal operation of the ignition key assures activation of the 
system. Ford further stated that both devices are always active and 
require no other operator action. Specifically, in the SecuriLock 
device, when the ignition key is turned to the ``start'' position, the 
transceiver module reads the ignition key code and transmits an 
encrypted message from the keycode to the control module, which then 
determines key validity and authorizes engine starting by sending a 
separate encrypted message to the powertrain contol module (PCM). In 
the IAwPB device, when the ``startstop'' button is pressed, the 
transceiver module reads the key code and transmits an encrypted 
message from the keycode to the control module to determine validity 
and authorizes engine starting by sending a separate encrypted message 
to the body control module (BCM), the PEP/RFA module and the PCM. Ford 
pointed out that in addition to the programmed key, the three modules 
that must be matched to allow start of the vehicle adds even an 
additional level of security to the IAwPB device and in both devices, 
if the codes do not match, the powertrain engine starter, spark and 
fuel will be disabled.
    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 also stated that incorporation of several features in both 
devices further support reliability and durability of the devices. 
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 
during vehicle assembly form matched modules that if separated from 
each other will not function in other vehicles.
    Ford compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with other 
devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and 
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-
marking requirements. Ford stated that it believes that the standard 
installation of either the SecuriLock device or the IAwPB device would 
be an effective deterrent against vehicle theft.
    Ford stated that it installed the SecuriLock device on all MY 1996 
Ford Mustang GT and Cobra models and other selected models. Ford stated 
that in the 1997 model, the SecuriLock device was extended to the 
complete Ford Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment. Ford also 
stated that according to the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) 
theft statistics, MY 1997 Mustangs installed with the SecuriLock device 
showed a 70% reduction in theft rate compared to the MY 1995 Mustangs. 
Ford also reported that the SecuriLock device is currently offered as 
standard equipment on most of its North American Ford, Lincoln and 
Mercury vehicles but is offered as optional equipment on its F-series 
Super Duty pickups, Econoline and Transit Connect vehicles. Ford stated 
that with MY 2011, the IAwPB device will be offered as standard 
equipment on the Lincoln MKT and optionally on the Lincoln MKS, MKX, 
Taurus, Edge and the Explorer vehicles.
    Ford also referenced theft rate data published by NHTSA showing 
that the theft rate for the Explorer is lower than the median theft 
rate for all vehicles from MY's 2000-2006. Ford stated that the 2011 
Explorer will be comparable in vehicle segment, size and equipment 
(including the SecuriLock device) to those Explorer/Mercury Mountaineer 
vehicles for which theft rate data is currently available (between MYs 
2004 and 2006). Ford stated that since either the SecuriLock device or 
the IAwPB device is the primary theft deterrent on Ford Explorer 
vehicles, it believes that theft rates for the Explorer will improve or 
continue comparatively lower in the future than the theft rates 
experienced by its Explorer/Mercury Mountaineer vehicles between MYs' 
2004-2006. The theft rate for the Ford Explorer using two MYs' data 
(2004-2005) data is 1.6797 and theft rate for the Mercury Mountaineer 
using three MYs data is 1.3361.
    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 Explorer 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 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 Ford Explorer 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 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.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Ford's 
petition for exemption for the Explorer 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

[[Page 30105]]

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: May 25, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-12948 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P