Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 31837 

motor carrier safety statutes and 

regulations, to ‘‘prescribe recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements’’ and to 

‘‘perform other acts the Secretary 

considers appropriate’’ (49 U.S.C. 

31133(a)(8) and (10)). The FMCSA 

Administrator has been delegated 

authority under 49 CFR 1.73(g) to carry 

out the functions vested in the Secretary 

by 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapters I 

and III, relating to CMV programs and 

safety regulation. 

Members of the motor carrier industry 

and other interested parties may access 

FMCSA’s guidance through FMCSA’s 

Internet site at http:// 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov. Specific questions 

addressing any of the interpretive 

material withdrawn in this document 

should be directed to the contact person 

listed earlier under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, or to the FMCSA 

Division Office in each State. 

Basis for the Notice 

On February 12, 2008, the 

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 

(CVSA) petitioned FMCSA to withdraw 

certain regulatory guidance concerning 

49 CFR part 393. The regulatory 

guidance that was the subject of the 

petition had been made obsolete by final 

rules concerning (1) protection against 

shifting and falling cargo, and (2) 

general amendments to Part 393 of the 

FMCSRs. 

For the reasons set forth below, 

FMCSA granted the CVSA’s petition on 

July 9, 2009: 

Protection Against Shifting and Falling 

Cargo 

FMCSA published a final rule on 

September 27, 2002 (67 FR 61212), 

revising the regulations in 49 CFR part 

393 concerning protection against 

shifting and falling cargo for CMVs 

engaged in interstate commerce. The 

previous cargo securement regulations 

required all cargo-carrying CMVs to be 

equipped with devices that provided 

protection against shifting or falling 

cargo and that met the requirements of 

one of four ‘‘options’’ (Options A, B, C, 

or D). The September 2002 cargo 

securement final rule replaced Options 

A through D with: (1) More 

comprehensive, performance-based, 

general requirements; and (2) detailed 

requirements for a number of specific 

commodities, the proper securement of 

which generated the most disagreement 

between industry and enforcement 

agencies. Because Options A through D 

are no longer a part of the cargo 

securement regulations, the regulatory 

guidance provided in questions 2, 5, 

and 6 to section 393.100 (reference 62 

FR 16419, dated April 4, 1997) is no 

longer valid and is hereby withdrawn. 

General Amendments to Part 393 

FMCSA published a final rule on 

August 15, 2005 (70 FR 48008), 

amending part 393 of the FMCSRs. As 

part of this rule, FMCSA clarified that 

CMVs must have both windshield 

wiping and windshield washing 

systems that meet the requirements of 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

No. 104, ‘‘Windshield wiping and 

washing systems.’’ As such, the 

regulatory guidance provided in 

question 1 to section 393.78 (reference 

62 FR 16418, dated April 4, 1997) is no 

longer valid and is hereby withdrawn. 

FMCSA further clarified that the 

requirements of section 393.201 apply 

to all CMVs, including trailers, and not 

only buses, trucks, and truck tractors. 

As such, the regulatory guidance 

provided in question 2 to section 

393.201 (reference 62 FR 16419, dated 

April 4, 1997) is no longer valid and is 

hereby withdrawn. 

FMCSA also revised section 

393.201(d) to make the regulation more 

practical. Paragraph (d) was intended to 

prohibit welding on vehicle frames 

constructed of certain types of steel that 

are weakened by the welding process. 

However, the previous wording was 

overly restrictive. To address this issue, 

paragraph (d) now allows welding 

which is performed in accordance with 

the vehicle manufacturer’s 

recommendations, and therefore, the 

regulatory guidance provided in 

question 3 to section 393.201 is now 

redundant, no longer necessary, and 

hereby withdrawn. 

Decision 

For the reasons presented above, 

FMCSA removes the following 

regulatory guidance: Section 393.78, 

question 1; section 393.100, questions 2, 

5, and 6; and section 393.201, questions 

2 and 3, published online at http:// 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/ 

administration/fmcsr/ 

FmcsrGuideDetails.aspx?menukey=393. 

Issued on: May 26, 2010. 

Anne S. Ferro, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13401 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; 

Mercedes-Benz 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) 

petition for an exemption of the SL– 

Class Line Chassis 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 parts-marking requirements of the 

Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 

541). 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2011 model year. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rosalind Proctor, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA,1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building, W43–302, 

Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor’s 

telephone number is (202) 366–0846. 

Her fax number is (202) 493–0073. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated April 26, 2010, MBUSA 

requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) 

for the new MY 2011 SL–Class Line 

Chassis vehicle line. The petition 

requested an exemption from partsmarking 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 an exemption 

for one vehicle line per model year. In 

its petition, MBUSA provided a detailed 

description and diagram of the identity, 

design, and location of the components 

of the antitheft device for its new 

vehicle line. MBUSA will install a 

passive ignition immobilizer (FBS III) 

and access code protected locking 

system as standard equipment on its 

new vehicle line beginning with MY 

2011. MBUSA stated that its 

immobilizer device is an interlinked 

system of control units which 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
31838 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 

collectively perform the immobilizer 

function. The interlinked system 

includes the engine, electronic ignition 

starter, transmitter key, electronic 

control unit and the fuel injection 

system which independently calculates 

and matches a unique code. MBUSA 

stated that if a relevant query from the 

vehicle to the transmitter key is valid, 

operation of the vehicle is authorized. 

MBUSA stated that the device will also 

incorporate an audible and visible alarm 

feature as standard equipment. 

MBUSA’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. 

MBUSA stated that activation of the 

device occurs automatically when the 

key is removed from the ignition switch, 

whether the doors are open or not. Once 

activated, only a valid key with the 

correct code inserted into the ignition 

switch will disable immobilization and 

allow the vehicle to start and operate. 

MBUSA further stated that no other 

action by the operator other than 

turning the key is required to activate or 

deactivate the immobilizer. 

In its submission, MBUSA stated that 

a locking/unlocking function is also 

incorporated into the device. The data 

exchange between the transmitter key 

and the vehicle’s central controller for 

the lock/unlock function is carried out 

by radio signal. The unlocking signal 

from the remote key sends a message to 

the vehicle’s central electronic control 

unit and a permanent code is verified 

and compared to the stored code in the 

Signal Acquisition Module (SAM). 

MBUSA stated that the locking system 

will only unlock the doors, tailgate and 

fuel filler cover when both codes match. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of § 543.6, MBUSA 

provided information on the reliability 

and durability of its proposed device. 

To ensure reliability and durability of 

the immobilizer device, MBUSA 

conducted performance tests based on 

its Economic Commission for Europe 

(ECE) specified standards. MBUSA 

provided a detailed list of the tests 

conducted and believes that the device 

is reliable and durable since the device 

complied with the specified 

requirements for each test. MBUSA also 

stated that it believes that the 

immobilizer device offered on the SLclass vehicle will be at least as effective 

as compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard and as effective in deterring 

theft as it has been in other MBUSA 

vehicle lines for which theft data has 

been published. MBUSA submitted theft 

rate data published by the agency 

comparing its proposed device to 

antitheft devices already installed in the 

Aston Martin Vantage, BMW 6-series 

and Porsche 911 vehicle lines. MBUSA 

stated it believes that an immobilizer 

device was effective in contributing to a 

63.5% reduction in the theft rate for the 

Aston Martin Vantage Line. Specifically, 

data published by the agency showed a 

theft rate of 0.0000 for the calendar year 

(CY) 2006 Aston Martin Vantage vehicle 

line and 0.6784 for the MY 2007. 

MBUSA also referenced theft data 

published by the agency which showed 

that the average theft rate for the BMW 

6-series with an immobilizer was 2.3505 

in MY/CY 2005 and 1.6227 in MY/CY 

2007. MBUSA stated that it believes that 

this data also indicates that the 

immobilizer device was effective in 

contributing to an additional (31%) 

reduction in the theft rate of the BMW 

6-series vehicle line. MBUSA also 

referenced theft rate data published by 

the agency for the Porsche 911 vehicle 

line (with an immobilizer) showing a 

theft rate experience of 0.8342 and 0.000 

for MY/CY’s 2005 and 2006 

respectively. MBUSA stated that it 

believes that the data indicates that the 

immobilizer device was effective in 

contributing to a 13.8% reduction in the 

theft rate of the Porsche 911 vehicle 

line. 

MBUSA stated that its proposed 

device is also functionally similar to the 

antitheft devices installed on the 

Mercedes-Benz E–Class, C–Class and 

SLK Class chassis vehicles which the 

agency has already exempted from the 

parts-marking requirements. In its 

submission, MBUSA concluded that 

lower theft rates could be expected from 

vehicles equipped with immobilizer 

devices as standard equipment. MBUSA 

stated it believes that the data indicated 

the immobilizer device was effective in 

contributing to an average reduction of 

29.9% in the theft rate of the SL–Line 

Chassis when theft rates for the vehicle 

line dropped from 1.4170 (CY 2005) to 

1.0460 (CY 2007). 

Based on the supporting evidence 

submitted by MBUSA on the device, the 

agency believes that the antitheft device 

for the SL–Class Line Chassis 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 concludes that the device 

will provide the five types of 

performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): 

promoting activation; attracting 

attention to the efforts of an 

unauthorized person to enter or move 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. 

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 MBUSA has provided 

adequate reasons for its belief that the 

antitheft device for the MBUSA new 

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). 

This conclusion is based on the 

information MBUSA provided about its 

device. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full MBUSA’s petition 

for exemption for the SL–Class line 

Chassis vehicle line from the partsmarking requirements of 49 CFR part 

541, beginning with the 2011 model 

year vehicles. 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 parts-marking 

requirements of the Theft Prevention 

Standard. 

If MBUSA 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 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major 

component parts and replacement 

parts). 

NHTSA notes that if MBUSA 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 anti-theft device on 

which the line’s exemption is based. 

Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 107 / Friday, June 4, 2010 / Notices 31839 

1Ford is a domestic manufacturer of motor 

vehicles, incorporated under the laws of the State 

of Delaware, with offices at The American Road, 

Dearborn, Michigan. 

2Ford additionally notes that the nonconforming 

windshields installed in the subject vehicles were 

manufactured by Zeledyne, Inc. (Zeledyne), at their 

facility located at 7200 W. Centennial Boulevard, 

Nashville, TN 37209. 

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: June 1, 2010. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13466 Filed 6–3–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0060; Notice 1] 

Ford Motor Company, Receipt of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

The Ford Motor Company (Ford) 1 has 

determined that certain model year 2010 

Ford Taurus passenger cars, built from 

June 1, 2009, through October 5, 2009, 

and certain model year 2010 Lincoln 

MKT multi-purpose vehicles, built from 

June 29, 2009, through October 8, 2009, 

do not fully meet the windshield 

marking requirements of paragraph S6.2 

of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 205 Glazing 

Materials. On November 12, 2009, Ford 

filed an appropriate report pursuant to 

49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 

CFR part 556), Ford has petitioned for 

an exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 on the basis that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. 

This notice of receipt of Ford’s 

petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120 and does not represent 

any agency decision or other exercise of 

judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

Ford estimates approximately 15,663 

model year 2010 Ford Taurus passenger 

car models, built from June 1, 2009, 

through October 5, 2009, at Ford’s 

Chicago Assembly Plant, and 

approximately 3,565 model year 2010 

Lincoln MKT multi-purpose vehicle 

models, built from June 29, 2009, 

through October 8, 2009, at Ford’s 

Oakville Assembly Plant, a total of 

approximately 19,228 vehicles are not 

in compliance with paragraph S6.2 of 

FMVSS No. 205 relating to windshield 

marking.2

Paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 

requires in pertinent part: 

S6.2 A prime glazing manufacturer certifies 

its glazing by adding to the marks required 

by section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1–1996, in 

letters and numerals of the same size, the 

symbol ‘‘DOT’’ and a manufacturer’s code 

mark that NHTSA assigns to the 

manufacturer. * * * 

Ford describes the noncompliance as 

the improper location of the ‘‘AS1’’ 

glazing marking. The standard requires 

that the ‘‘AS1’’ glazing marking be 

located in close proximity to the official 

designated trademark area (lower 

portion) of the windshield. However, 

Ford said that the ‘‘AS1’’ symbol is 

marked in the upper portion of the 

windshield, on both sides of the affected 

windshields and that the windshields 

conform to all other FMVSS No. 205 

requirements. 

Ford states the basis for why they 

believe this noncompliance is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety 

as: 

No other Ford vehicles are affected by this 

condition and we are not aware of any field 

or owner complaints related to this 

condition. In our judgment, the condition 

does not present a risk to motor vehicle 

safety because the windshield fully meets the 

performance and physical requirements of 

FMVSS [No.] 205. Additionally repair service 

will be unaffected because the selection of 

replacement windshields is typically done 

utilizing a distributor, a catalog, or NAGS 

[National Auto Glass Specification] number. 

Furthermore, repairers will be able to 

determine the appropriate glazing because 

the upper portions of the windshield are 

properly labeled with the ‘‘AS1,’’ designation, 

the glazing is clearly marked as ‘‘Laminated,’’ 

and all other markings required by FMVSS 

[No.] 205 are properly labeled. 

Additionally, Ford stated that 

Zeledyne discovered the noncompliance 

during its trademark content project 

study in which its laboratory personnel 

noticed that the ‘‘AS1’’ symbol was 

missing from the designated trademark 

location on the lower corner of the 

windshields for the affected vehicles. 

Ford also has informed NHTSA that it 

has corrected the problem that caused 

these errors so that they will not be 

repeated in future production. 

Therefore, Ford believes that the 

described noncompliance does not 

present a risk to motor vehicle safety. 

Thus, Ford requests that its petition, to 

exempt it from providing recall 

notification of noncompliance as 

required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 

remedying the recall noncompliance as 

required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be 

granted. 

NHTSA notes that the statutory 

provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to 

file petitions for a determination of 

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to 

exempt manufacturers only from the 

duties found in sections 30118 and 

30120, respectively, to notify owners, 

purchasers, and dealers of a defect or 

noncompliance and to remedy the 

defect or noncompliance. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written data, views, and 

arguments on this petition. Comments 

must refer to the docket and notice 

number cited at the beginning of this 

notice and be submitted by any of the 

following methods: 

a. By mail addressed to: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

b. By hand delivery to U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. The Docket Section is open 

on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

except Federal Holidays. 

c. Electronically: by logging onto the 

Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) Web site at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Comments may also be faxed to 1–202– 

493–2251. 

Comments must be written in the 

English language, and be no greater than 

15 pages in length, although there is no 

limit to the length of necessary 

attachments to the comments. If 

comments are submitted in hard copy 

form, please ensure that two copies are 

provided. If you wish to receive 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES