National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full the Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.'s (MBUSA) petition for exemption of the SLK Class Line Chassis (SLK-Class) 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).
The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2010 model year.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West Building, W43-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's phone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-0073.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
In a petition dated June 19, 2009, MBUSA requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the SLK-Class Line Chassis vehicle line, beginning with the 2010 model year. The petition has been filed 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 § 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 SLK-Class Chassis vehicle line. MBUSA stated that Start Printed Page 36546all SLK-Class Chassis vehicles will be equipped with a passive, transponder-based electronic immobilizer device and a locking system as standard equipment beginning with MY 2010. Features of the antitheft device will include an electronic transmitter key, a passive immobilizer system (FBS III) which includes an electronic ignition starter switch control unit (EIS) and an engine control unit (ECU). MBUSA stated that the transmitter key, the electronic ignition starter switch control unit and the engine control unit will work collectively to perform the immobilizer function. The immobilizer will prevent the engine from running unless a valid key is used in the ignition switch. Immobilization is activated when the key is removed from the ignition switch, whether the doors are open or closed. Once activated, a valid, coded-key must be inserted into the ignition switch to disable immobilization and permit the vehicle to start.
The device also incorporates an access code-protected locking system. MBUSA stated that there is an encoded data exchange that occurs between the transmitter key and the central controller for the lock/unlock function of the locking system to be carried out. The unlocking signal from the remote key triggers a message to the vehicle's central electronic control unit using a permanent and rolling code. Once the codes are verified and matched, the locking system unlocks the doors, tailgate and fuel filler cover. MBUSA stated that the device will not incorporate a visible and audible alarm. MBUSA's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in 543.5 and the specific content requirements of 543.6.
In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, MBUSA provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device and to verify its ability to satisfactorily perform under extreme conditions, MBUSA conducted various tests based on its own specified standards. MBUSA provided a detailed list of the various tests conducted and believes that the device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its own specific test conditions.
MBUSA also 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. MBUSA stated that its proposed device is functionally equivalent to the systems used in the C-Line Chassis, E-Line Chassis and S-Line Chassis vehicles which the agency has granted exemptions from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard. The theft rates using an average of three model years' data (2005-2007) are 1.4366, 0.7416 and 1.5975 respectively. MBUSA concluded that the antitheft device for its SLK-Class Chassis vehicle line is no less effective than those devices in lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption. The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices in other vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted exemptions.
MBUSA informed the agency that the theft rate for the SLK-Class Chassis vehicle line decreased following installation of an immobilizer device in MY 2006. MBUSA stated that based on NHTSA's theft rates from 2005 to 2006, the average theft rate of the SLK-Class Chassis vehicles without the immobilizer was 1.6489 (CY 2005) and 0.1484 after installation of the immobilizer device (CY 2006). MBUSA concluded that the data indicates that the immobilizer was effective in contributing to the theft rate reduction for its SLK-Class Chassis vehicles. MBUSA also stated that its overall experience with other vehicles indicates that low theft rates can also be expected from other vehicles equipped with immobilizer devices as standard equipment. In its petition, MBUSA compared the theft rates of the SLK-Class Chassis to its competitive lines before and after installation of a standard equipment immobilizer device. The data showed that theft rates for the Honda S2000, BMW Z4, Audi TT and the Porsche Boxster vehicle lines also decreased following installation of a standard equipment immobilizer device.
Based on the evidence submitted by MBUSA, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the SLK-Class 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).
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a petition for an 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 will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based on the information MBUSA provided about its device.
The agency concludes that the device will provide the four types of performance listed in § 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. The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices in other vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted exemptions. In addition, the theft rate has reduced since the installation of this device on the line.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full MBUSA's petition for exemption for the 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 MBUSA decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR parts 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, § 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 Part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the Start Printed Page 36547components 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.Start Signature
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-17557 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P