[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45587-45588]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18441]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft
Prevention Standard; Tesla

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of Tesla Motors
Inc's., (Tesla) petition for an exemption of the Model X 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). Tesla requested confidential
treatment for specific information in its petition. The agency will
address Tesla's request for confidential treatment by separate letter.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2014 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, W43-
439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated April 30, 2014, Tesla
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Model X vehicle line beginning with MY
2014. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant
to 49 CFR 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 Part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to
grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its
petition, Tesla provided a detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device for the Model X vehicle line. Tesla proposes to install a
passive, transponder-based, electronic engine immobilizer device as
standard equipment on its Model X vehicle line beginning with its MY
2014 vehicles. Key components of the antitheft device include an engine
immobilizer, central body controller, security controller, gateway
function, drive inverters and a passive entry transponder (PET). Tesla
also stated that the new design of its immobilizer device will have
enhanced security communication between its components, prevent
tampering and provide additional features to enhance its overall
effectiveness.
    Tesla further stated that in addition to its immobilizer device, it
will incorporate an audible alarm (horn) as standard equipment, but
will not include a visual feature with the alarm system. Tesla stated
that forced entry into the vehicle or any type of entry without the
correct PET will trigger the audible alarm. Tesla further stated that
in addition to an access through the doors, the alarm will also trigger
when a break-in is attempted to either the front or rear cargo areas.
Tesla further explained that its antitheft device will have a two-step
activation process with a vehicle code query conducted at each stage.
The first stage allows access to the vehicle when an authorization
cycle occurs between the PET and the Security Controller, as long as
the PET is in close proximity to the car and the driver either pushes
the lock/unlock button on the key fob, pushes the exterior door handle
to activate the handle sensors or inserts a hand into the handle to
trigger the latch release. During the second stage, vehicle operation
will be enabled when the driver has depressed the brake pedal and moves
the gear selection stalk to drive or reverse. When one of these actions
is performed, the security controller will poll to verify if the
appropriate PET is inside the vehicle. Upon location of the PET, the
security controller will run an authentication cycle with the key
confirming the correct PET is being used inside the vehicle. Tesla
stated that once authentication is successful, the security controller
initiates a coded message through the gateway. If the code exchange
matches the code stored in the drive inverters, the exchange will
authorize the drive inverter to deactivate immobilization allowing the
vehicle to be driven under its own power. Tesla stated that the
immobilizer functions to ensure maximum theft protection when the
immobilizer is active, the vehicle is off and the doors are locked.
Tesla stated that it will incorporate an additional security measure
that performs when the car is unlocked and immobilization is
deactivated. Specifically, immobilization will reactivate when there
are no user inputs to the vehicle within a programmed period of time.
Tesla stated that any attempt to operate the vehicle without performing
and completing each task, will render the vehicle inoperable.
    Tesla'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, Tesla provided information on
the reliability and durability of its proposed device. Tesla stated
that the antitheft device will be upgraded with a more robust design
than the antitheft device already installed as standard equipment on
its Model S vehicle line. To ensure reliability and durability of the
device, Tesla conducted tests based on its own specified standards.
Tesla provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and stated that
it believes that its device is reliable and durable because it complied
with its design standards. Additionally, Tesla stated that it has also
incorporated other measures of ensuring reliability and durability of
the device to protect the immobilizer device from exposure to the
elements and limits its access by unauthorized personnel. Additionally,
Tesla stated that the immobilizer relies

on electronic functions and not mechanical functions, and therefore
expects the components to last at least the life of the vehicle or
longer.
    Tesla also compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with
other devices which NHTSA has already determined to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (i.e., the
Audi Q5, GM Cadillac SRX, Volvo XC90, Ford Lincoln MKX and the Toyota
Lexus RX vehicle lines). Specifically, the agency's data show that
using an average of 3 MYs (2009-2011) theft rate data, the average
theft rates for the Audi Q5 is (0.5756), GM Cadillac SRX (0.5888),
Volvo XC90 (0.2582), Ford Lincoln MKX (0.6046) and the Toyota Lexus RX
(0.4034) which are all well below the median theft rate of 3.5826.
    Based on the evidence submitted by Tesla, the agency believes that
the antitheft device for the Model X 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 Tesla has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Model X 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.
This conclusion is based on the information Tesla provided about its
device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of
performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attract
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.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Tesla's
petition for exemption for the Model X vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2014 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 MY. 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 Tesla decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should
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).
    NHTSA notes that if Tesla 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.

David M. Hines,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2014-18441 Filed 8-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P