Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Ford Motor Company |
|---|
Topics: Ford Edge
|
Christopher J. Bonanti
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
January 18, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 13 (Friday, January 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4192-4193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00996]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Edge 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
also requested confidential treatment of specific information in 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 2014 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's telephone
number is (202) 366-4139. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated October 15, 2012, Ford
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the MY 2014 Ford Edge 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 Edge
vehicle line. Ford stated that the 2014 Edge will be equipped with the
Ford SecuriLock device (also known as the Passive Antitheft System or
PATS) as standard equipment or the Ford Intelligent Access with Push
Button Start (IAwPB) antitheft device as optional equipment. Ford
further stated that the Edge vehicles with base trim (SE) will only be
offered with PATS. However, the entire vehicle line will be installed
with a passive, electronic immobilizer device using encrypted
transponder technology. Key components of the Securilock/PATS antitheft
device will include an electronic transponder key, powertrain control
module, transceiver module, ignition lock, and a passive immobilizer.
Key components of the IAwPB device are electronic keyfob, remote
function actuator (RFA), body control module (BCM) or Smart Power
Distribution Junction Box (SPDJB), the PEPS/RFA module, the power train
control module and a passive immobilizer. Ford stated that its MY 2014
Edge vehicle line will also be equipped with several other standard
antitheft features common to Ford vehicles (i.e., hood release located
inside the vehicle, counterfeit resistant VIN labels and secondary
VINs, cabin accessibility only with the use of a valid key fob or
keycode). Ford further stated that there will also be a separate
perimeter alarm available on its Edge vehicle line. The perimeter alarm
activates a visible and audible alarm if unauthorized access is
attempted. Ford'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.
In the SecuriLock device, when the ignition key is turned to the
``Run/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
control 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), and the
PCM. Ford stated that the powertrain will function only if the keycode
matches the unique identification keycode previously programmed into
the BCM/RFA. In both devices, if the codes do not match, the vehicle
will be inoperable. Ford pointed out that in addition to the programmed
key, there are three modules that must be matched together in order to
start the vehicle adding even an additional level of security to the
IAwPB device.
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 own specified
requirements for each test.
Ford also stated that incorporation of several features in both
devices further supports 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; 18 quintillion possible codes making key
duplication virtually impossible; 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
[[Page 4193]]
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 beginning with MY 2010, the SecuriLock
device was installed as standard equipment on all of its North American
Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles but was offered as optional
equipment on its 2010 F-series Super Duty pickups, Econoline and
Transit Connect vehicles. Ford further stated that beginning with MY
2010, the IAwPB was standard equipment on the Lincoln MKT vehicles and
starting with MY 2011, the device was offered as standard equipment on
the Lincoln MKX and optionally on the Lincoln MKS, Taurus, Edge,
Explorer and the Focus vehicles. Starting with 2013, the IAwPB was
offered as standard equipment on the Lincoln MKZ and offered as
optional equipment on the Ford Fusion, C-Max and Escape vehicles. Theft
rate data is not available for model years' (MYs') 2011-2013.
Ford stated that both antitheft devices are of the same design and
performance as that of the MY 2011 Ford Explorer vehicle line. Ford was
granted an exemption for the Explorer vehicle line on May 28, 2010 by
NHTSA (See 75 FR 30103) beginning with its MY 2011 vehicles. Since the
agency granted Ford's exemption for its MY 2011 Explorer vehicle line,
there has been no available theft rate information for this vehicle.
The Explorer was granted an exemption from the parts marking
requirements on May 28, 2010 (75 FR 30103). Ford also referenced theft
rate data published by NHTSA showing that the theft rates for the Edge
is lower than the median theft rate for all vehicles from MY's 2000-
2009. Ford stated that since the SecuriLock or the IAwPB devices are
the primary theft deterrents on Ford Edge vehicles, it believes that
the very low theft rates are likely to continue or improve in the
future. The theft rate data for the MY 2010 Ford Edge is 0.8783 and the
average theft rate using three MYs' (2008-2010) data is 1.1655.
The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to
devices installed on other vehicle lines for which the agency has
already granted exemptions.
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 Edge 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.
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Ford on the device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Edge 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 unauthorized persons to enter or operate 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Ford's
petition for exemption for the Edge 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 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 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 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: January 11, 2013.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-00996 Filed 1-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P