18166 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Notices

lines listed above have experienced an

overall 63 per cent decline in theft rate

from MY 1987 to MY 1992.

NHTSA believes that there is

substantial evidence that the antitheft

device that will be installed on the car

line that is the subject of this notice will

likely be as effective in reducing motor

vehicle theft as compliance with the

theft prevention standard (49 CFR part

541). The VW system will provide all of

the five types of performance listed in

Section 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

circumventing 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. section

33106(c)(2) and 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4), the

agency also finds that Volkswagen has

provided adequate reasons for its belief

that the antitheft device will reduce and

deter theft. This conclusion is based on

the information VW provided about its

device. This information included a

description of reliability and functional

tests conducted by VW for the antitheft

device and its components.

For the foregoing reasons, the agency

hereby exempts the car line that is the

subject of this notice in whole from the

requirements of 49 CFR part 541.

If VW decides not to use the

exemption for this car line, it should

formally notify the agency. If such a

decision is made, the car line must be

fully marked according to the

requirements of 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6

(marking of major components and

replacement parts).

The agency notes that the limited and

apparently conflicting data on the

effectiveness of the pre-standard parts

marking programs continue to make it

difficult to compare the effectiveness of

an antitheft device with the

effectiveness of the theft prevention

standard. The statute clearly invites

such a comparison, which the agency

has made on the basis of the limited

data available. With implementation of

the requirements of the ‘‘Anti Car Theft

Act of 1992,’’ NHTSA anticipates more

probative data upon which comparisons

may be made.

NHTSA notes that if VW 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 antitheft device upon

which that lines exemption is based.

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

submission of petitions ‘‘[t]o 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 which

§ 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

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.

Dated: April 4, 1995.

Howard M. Smolkin,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 95–8763 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

Petition for Exemption From the

Vehicle Theft Protection Standard;

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, Department of

Transportation (NHTSA) DOT.

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

SUMMARY: This notice grants in full the

petition of Mercedes-Benz of North

America, Inc. (‘‘Mercedes’’) for

exemption of its MY 1996 202 (‘‘CClass’’) car line from the parts marking

requirements of the vehicle theft

protection standard. This petition is

granted because the agency has

determined that the antitheft device to

be placed on the car line as standard

equipment, is likely to be as effective in

reducing and deterring motor vehicle

theft as compliance with the parts

marking requirement.

DATES: The exemption granted by this

notice is effective beginning with the

1996 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Barbara A. Gray, Office of Market

Incentives, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Gray’s

telephone number is (202) 366–1740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 29, 1994, Mercedes-Benz of

North America, Inc. (Mercedes)

submitted a petition for exemption from

the theft prevention standard for its

model year (MY) 1996 202 car line (CClass) pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543,

Exemption From Vehicle Theft

Prevention Standard, (59 FR 10756).

The petition submitted by Mercedes

meets the general requirements for a

petition contained in 49 CFR 543.5, and

the specific content requirements

of§ 543.6. Therefore, the petition is

complete as required by § 543.7.

In its petition, Mercedes provided a

detailed description of the identity,

design and location of the components

of the antitheft device for the car line,

including diagrams of the components

and their location in each vehicle. The

system consists of a central locking

system and an engine starter-interrupt

function.

Mercedes states that a microprocessor

antitheft system featuring an electronic

engine immobilizer will be installed as

standard equipment on all cars in the CClass car line beginning in December

1994. The antitheft system will be

phased in during MY 1995. The

exemption is requested to begin with

MY 1996 since the C-Class line will

then have this antitheft system as

standard equipment. The planned

beginning of production for the MY

1996 C-Class line is mid-September

1995.

Mercedes states that the system is

automatically activated either by using

the infrared remote control unit or by

locking the vehicle with the standard

door/ignition key at either of the front

door locks or at the trunk lock. The

system is deactivated by the remote

control or through the normal vehicle

unlocking procedure, when the standard

door/ignition key is turned in either of

the front door locks or the trunk lock.

An LED lamp on the radio flashes to call

attention to the antitheft system and

radio code functions.

The antitheft system of the C-Class

line for which Mercedes seeks this

exemption does not include a visual or

an audible alarm feature as standard

equipment. An enhanced antitheft

system with an additional audible/

visual alarm is available as an option.

Mercedes stated that approximately 51

percent of MY 1994 C-Class car line

customers ordered the enhanced version

of the antitheft system. Mercedes also

pointed out that NHTSA recently

granted full exemptions to two General

Motors car lines (based on theft rates)

which had installed as standard

equipment the ‘‘PASS-KEY’’ system

which also does not have a visual or

audible alarm function.

All the components of the new system

(immobilizer, battery, wiring, wiring

connections and switches) are located in

areas inaccessible from underneath the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Notices 18167

engine compartment. Locking the

vehicle with the remote control or

mechanical key causes the infrared

central locking control unit to lock the

exterior locks. The infrared remote

control unit or the key then provides a

coded signal that actuates the

immobilizer, which prevents the vehicle

from being operated under its own

power. The engine ignition and fuel

systems are electronically shut down

and the steering and shift lever are

mechanically locked.

Unlocking the vehicle with the remote

control or the mechanical key signals

the infrared remote central locking unit

to centrally unlock the exterior lock,

and provide an enabling code which deenergizes the immobilizer. Deactivation

of the immobilizer, without unlocking

the vehicle by using the remote or key,

is prevented since no electrical

connection exists between the

mechanical plungers and the keyoperated door locks. This means that if

a window is broken, lifting the door

plunger will unlock the specific door

but will not deactivate the immobilizer.

The interior central locking/unlocking

switch is not connected to the

immobilizer, ensuring that the vehicle

cannot be inadvertently immobilized,

and, at the same time, preventing the

immobilizer from being defeated by

breaking a window and depressing the

interior switch. Removing and then

reapplying battery power will not

disable the immobilizer.

In addition to the immobilizer the CClass car line has other features. The

large diameter of the car line’s lock

cylinder helps increase the resistance to

screwdrivers or lock-pullers. Standard

anti-slim-jim covers placed over the

front and rear door locking mechanisms

further increase the vehicle’s resistance

to break-in attempts. Rear door lock/

unlock mechanisms are routed to make

the rods inaccessible to slim-jim type

devices. The hood locking mechanism is

shielded and the hood cable is routed so

as to make it inaccessible from

underneath the vehicle. The battery is

located in the trunk compartment,

preventing access from the exterior of

the vehicle.

The door/ignition key is of a unique,

internal cut design which is extremely

difficult to duplicate. A copy of the steel

key must be ordered directly from an

authorized Mercedes dealer by using the

vehicle identification number. Mercedes

also states that owner verification

measures are also in place at

dealerships. The C-Class vehicle

includes a ratcheting steering wheel

lock as standard equipment. Instead of

the lock pin breaking completely when

forced, such as when the wheel is

turned with a breaker bar, the C-Class

line’s steering wheel lock will yield

when the force exceeds a set level; then

re-lock itself automatically when the

force drops below the set level. The high

force level at which the mechanism is

designed to yield effectively prevents

the vehicle from being steered.

Mercedes stated that the

microprocessor control unit and all

related system components have been

subjected to a series of design and

production tests. These tests include

reversed polarity tests, over and under

voltage tests, short circuit tests,

electromagnetic interference tests,

temperature and humidity tests,

corrosion tests, vibration life cycle tests,

and drop impact tests.

The entire system utilizes a

microprocessor control unit with builtin self-test features which recognize and

exclude sensor failures and allow the

system to be easily maintained out in

the field.

In discussing why it believes that this

antitheft device will be as effective as

parts marking in reducing and deterring

motor vehicle theft, Mercedes states that

the immobilizer for this theft deterrent

system for the C-Class line is an

improvement of the starter-interlock

relay module which was incorporated

into the 124 line (E-Class) and the 140

line (S-Class). The agency granted a

petition for exemption for the 124 line

and the 140 line was designated as a

likely low-theft line.

Mercedes reiterated that even though

the antitheft system on the C-Class line

does not have any audible or visual

alarm functions, theft data for exempted

General Motors car lines without

audible or visual alarm functions

indicates that the lack of alarm

functions has not prevented the systems

from being effective. On January 19,

1995, Mercedes provided two charts

indicating the reduction of theft rates of

car lines that have installed as standard

equipment an antitheft device without

an audible or visual alarm function. One

chart listed four lines, the Buick Riviera,

Cadillac Eldorado, Cadillac DeVille, and

Oldsmobile Toronado. Mercedes listed

theft lines beginning with the MY 1986

through MY 1990. The antitheft systems

were offered as standard equipment on

these lines beginning with MY 1990.

Two of the lines, (Buick Riviera and

Cadillac DeVille), decreased 33 percent

and 54 percent respectively from the

1986 MY. The other two, (Cadillac

Eldorado and Oldsmobile Toronado)

increased 9 percent and 16 percent

respectively. Coincidentally, the

Eldorado and Toronado parts were

interchangeable. The other chart

provided by Mercedes depicted the theft

experience of the Chevrolet Camaro and

Pontiac Firebird for MYs 1989–1992.

Both lines continue to decrease in theft

rates, 28 percent decrease for the

Camaro and 41 percent decrease for the

Firebird.

NHTSA believes that there is

substantial evidence that the antitheft

device that will be installed on the 1996

Mercedes C-Class car line will likely be

as effective in reducing motor vehicle

theft as compliance with the theft

prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541).

The Mercedes system will provide four

of the five types of performance listed

in Section 543.6(a)(3): Promoting

activation; preventing defeat or

circumventing of the device by

unauthorized persons; preventing

operation of the vehicle by

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the

reliability and durability of the device.

It does not provide a means for

attracting attention to the efforts of an

unauthorized person to enter or move a

vehicle by means other than a key.

However, the agency believes that

Mercedes has provided substantial

evidence that a system that lacks a

device for attracting attention to

unauthorized entry nevertheless can be

as effective as parts marking in deterring

motor vehicle theft.

As required by 49 U.S.C. section

33106(c)(2) and 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4), the

agency also finds that Mercedes has

provided adequate reasons for its belief

that the antitheft device will reduce and

deter theft. This conclusion is based on

the information Mercedes provided on

its device. This information included a

description of reliability and functional

tests conducted by Mercedes for the

antitheft device and its components.

For the foregoing reasons, the agency

hereby exempts the MY 1996 Mercedes

C-Class car line in whole from the

requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.

If Mercedes decides not to use the

exemption for this car line, it should

formally notify the agency. If such a

decision is made, the car line must be

fully marked according to the

requirements of 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6

(marking of major components and

replacement parts).

The agency notes that the limited and

apparently conflicting data on the

effectiveness of the pre-standard parts

marking programs continue to make it

difficult to compare the effectiveness of

an antitheft device with the

effectiveness of the theft prevention

standard. The statute clearly invites

such a comparison, which the agency

has made on the basis of the limited

data available. With implementation of

the requirements of the ‘‘Anti Car Theft

Act of 1992,’’ NHTSA anticipates more
18168 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Notices

probative data upon which comparisons

may be made.

NHTSA notes that if Mercedes 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 antitheft device upon

which that line exemption is based.

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

submission of petitions ‘‘[t]o 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 which

§ 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

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.

Dated: April 4, 1995.

Howard M. Smolkin,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 95–8770 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P