Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mercedes-Benz Usa, LLC |
|---|
Topics: Smart
|
Raymond R. Posten
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
April 14, 2015
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 14, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20062-20064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08491]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Mercedes-Benz Usa, LLC
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's
(MBUSA) petition for an exemption of the smart Line Chassis vehicle
line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle 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 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (Theft Prevention Standard).
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2016 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-
443, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's
phone number is (202) 366-4139. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 17, 2014, MBUSA
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Mercedes-Benz smart Line Chassis vehicle
line beginning with MY 2016. 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 the entire vehicle line.
Under 49 CFR 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 the
smart Line Chassis vehicle line which includes the smart fortwo
vehicle. MBUSA stated that its MY 2016 smart Line Chassis vehicle line
will be equipped with its passive, transponder-based ignition
immobilizer (FBS III/FBS IV) antitheft device and an access code-
protected locking system as standard equipment. Key components of the
immobilizer antitheft device will include the immobilizer, transmitter
key, electronic ignition starter switch control unit (EIS), the body
control module (ECM), and the engine control module (ECU). MBUSA stated
that its immobilizer device is an interlinked system of control units
which collectively perform the immobilizer function. The interlinked
system includes the engine, EIS, transmitter key, ECU and ECM
(including the fuel injection system) which independently calculates
and matches a unique code. MBUSA stated that it is impossible to read
the code from the vehicle in order to defeat the system. If a relevant
query from the vehicle to the transmitter key is valid, operation of
the vehicle will be authorized. MBUSA further stated that it will offer
an audible and visible alarm
[[Page 20063]]
system as optional equipment on the line to detect unauthorized vehicle
entry. 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 the antitheft device is deactivated when the
transmitter key has been inserted in the EIS and energy is transferred
to the key to verify drive authorization. Verification of the correct
key is transmitted over an infrared link between the key and the EIS.
If the authentication check has recognized the correct key, the EIS
will allow the key to be turned to the ``Start Engine'' position. MBUSA
stated that when the key then reaches the ``Ignition on'' position, the
authentication sequence in the ECM and ECU will start. The ECM then
receives authorization from the EIS following authentication
verification. MBUSA further stated that if the values from the
authentication are identical, the ECM will authorize the start and
operation of the vehicle will be allowed. Activation of the device
occurs automatically when the key is removed from the ignition switch.
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 feature is
also incorporated into the device. An encoded data exchange between the
transmitter key and the vehicle's central controller for the lock/
unlock feature (ECM) is carried out by radio signal. When an unlocking
signal from the remote key sends a permanent and rolling code message
to the vehicle's central ECU, the device will compare the permanent
code with the stored code in the ECM. If the permanent codes match, the
rolling codes are then compared. MBUSA stated that if both codes match,
the locking system will unlock the doors, tailgate and fuel filler
cover.
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 device,
MBUSA conducted tests based on its own specified standards. MBUSA
provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the
device is reliable and durable since it complied with its own specified
requirements for each test. MBUSA also conducted performance tests
based on the Economic Commission for Europe's (ECE) specified
standards. MBUSA provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and
believes that the immobilizer device offered on the smart Line Chassis
vehicle line is reliable and durable because the device complied with
the specified requirements for each test.
MBUSA also stated that it believes that the immobilizer device
offered on the smart Line Chassis vehicle line 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 on other MBUSA vehicle lines that have been equipped with an
antitheft device, as demonstrated by the low theft rate history of
MBUSA vehicles. MBUSA stated that its proposed device is also
functionally equivalent to the antitheft devices installed on the
Mercedes-Benz S-Class, E-Class, C-Class, SLK-Class, SL-Class and NGCC
Chassis vehicles, which the agency has exempted from the parts-marking
requirements beginning with MYs 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2014
respectively. MBUSA also referenced theft rate data published by the
agency comparing its proposed device to antitheft devices already
installed in the BMW MINI, Honda Fit and Toyota Scion xB vehicle lines.
MBUSA stated that theft data published by the agency show that the
average theft rate for the BMW MINI Cooper with an immobilizer device
was 0.4422 in MY/CY 2010 and 0.3413 in MY/CY 2012. MBUSA also
referenced theft rate data published by the agency for the Honda Fit
and Toyota Scion xB vehicle lines (with immobilizers) which showed a
theft rate of 0.3118 and 0.2167 (MY/CYs 2011 and 2012) for the Honda
Fit and 1.1553 and 0.5110 (MY/CYs 2011 and 2012) for the Toyota Scion
xB respectively. MBUSA stated that it believes that this data also
indicates that the immobilizer device was effective in contributing to
an average reduction of 22.8%, 30.5%, and 47.7% reduction in the theft
rate of the BMW MINI Cooper, Honda Fit and Toyota Scion xB,
respectively. MBUSA also stated it believes that the data indicates the
immobilizer device was effective in contributing to an average
reduction of 29.9% in the theft rate for 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 its device,
the agency believes that the device is substantially similar to devices
installed in other vehicle lines for which the agency has already
granted exemptions and that the antitheft device for the smart 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 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 MBUSA has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the MBUSA smart 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 antitheft 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 MBUSA's
petition for exemption for the MBUSA smart Line Chassis 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 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 parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
[[Page 20064]]
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. 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.
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-08491 Filed 4-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P