
[Federal Register: July 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 140)]
[Notices]               
[Page 36545-36547]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23jy09-96]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.'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).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2010 model year.

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.

SUPPLEMENTARY 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 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 the SLK-
Class Chassis vehicle line. MBUSA stated that

[[Page 36546]]

all 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 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. 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, Sec.  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

[[Page 36547]]

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.

Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-17557 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
