[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31837-31839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13466]


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

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 parts-marking 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 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 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

[[Page 31838]]

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 Sec.  543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 SL-class 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 parts-marking 
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 Sec.  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 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 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 parts-marking 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 parts-marking 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, Sec.  543.9(c)(2) provides for the

[[Page 31839]]

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 Sec.  
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