Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc. |
|---|
Topics: Subaru
|
Christopher J. Bonanti
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
August 29, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53498-53499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21125]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc.
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants in full Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A.,
Inc.'s (FUSA) petition for exemption of the Subaru [confidential]
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, Federal
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. FUSA requested confidential
treatment for specific information in its petition. The agency has
addressed FUSA's request for confidential treatment by letter dated
June 28, 2013. However, FUSA has stated that it will provide the agency
with the nameplate of the vehicle prior to its introduction for sale
into commerce in order to allow the agency to notify law enforcement
agencies and the public of a new vehicle line exempted from the parts-
marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2015 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, W43-
302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's
phone number is (202) 366-4807. Her fax number is (202) 493-0073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated June 6, 2013, FUSA
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Subaru [confidential]
vehicle line, beginning with the 2015 MY. 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, FUSA
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design,
and location of the components of the antitheft device for the Subaru
[confidential] vehicle line. FUSA stated that it will install a
passive, electronic-immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment
on its Subaru [confidential] vehicle line. The device will control
[[Page 53499]]
engine ignition, fuel delivery and starter motor operation.
FUSA stated that its device immobilization will facilitate and
encourage activation by motorists because it requires nothing more than
normal removal of the key from the ignition switch when the vehicle is
not in use. The device will also include a visible and audible alarm
with a panic mode feature. The alarm system will monitor the vehicle's
door status and key identification. Any unauthorized effort to open a
door or enter or move the vehicle will activate the alarm system
causing the horn to sound and the hazard lamps to flash. FUSA'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, FUSA
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, FUSA
conducted tests based on its own specified standards and provided a
list of information of the tests it conducted. FUSA believes that its
device is reliable and durable because the device complied with its own
specific requirements for each test. Additionally, FUSA stated that
because the immobilization features are designed and constructed within
the vehicle's overall Controller Area Network Electrical Architecture,
the antitheft device cannot be separated and controlled independently
of this network. Furthermore, availability of a correct key will not
defeat the electronic immobilization features of the key/vehicle
antitheft device interface.
FUSA stated that it believes that historically, NHTSA has seen a
decreasing theft rate trend when electronic immobilization has been
added to alarm systems. FUSA stated that it presently has immobilizer
devices on all of its product lines (Forester, Tribeca, Impreza, XV
Crosstrek, Legacy, and Outback models) and it believes the data shows
immobilization has had a demonstrable effect in lowering its theft
rates. FUSA also noted that recent state-by-state theft results from
the National Insurance Crime Bureau reported that in only 6 of the 50
states listed in its results, and the District of Columbia, not any
Subaru vehicle appeared in its top 10 list of stolen vehicles. Review
of the theft rates published by the agency for Subaru vehicles through
the years (2007-2010) revealed that, while there is some variation, the
theft rates for Subaru vehicles have on average, remained below the
median theft rate of 3.5826.
FUSA also provided a comparative table showing how its device is
similar to other manufacturers' devices that have already been granted
an exemption by NHTSA. In its comparison, FUSA makes note of Federal
Register notices published by NHTSA in which manufacturers have stated
that they have seen reductions in theft due to the immobilization
systems being used. Specifically, FUSA notes claims by Ford Motor
Company that its 1997 Mustangs with immobilizers saw a 70% reduction in
theft compared to its 1995 Mustangs without immobilizers. FUSA also
noted its reliance on theft rates published by the agency which showed
that theft rates were lower for Jeep Grand Cherokee immobilizer-
equipped vehicles (model year 1999 through 2003) compared to older
parts-marked Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles (model year 1995 through
1998). FUSA stated that it believes its device is likely to be no less
effective than those installed on lines for which the agency has
already granted full exemption from the parts-marking requirements.
The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to
devices in other vehicles lines for which the agency has already
granted exemptions. Based on the evidence submitted by FUSA, the agency
believes that the antitheft device for the Subaru [confidential]
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 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 FUSA has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based
on the information FUSA 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;
attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or
operate 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 FUSA's
petition for exemption for the Subaru 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 FUSA 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 FUSA 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 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 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: August 16, 2013.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-21125 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P