[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