Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Suzuki |
|---|
Topics: Suzuki Kizashi
|
Joseph S. Carra
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
January 276, 2011
[Federal Register: January 27, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 18)]
[Notices]
[Page 4991-4992]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27ja11-135]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Suzuki
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants in full the American Suzuki Motor
Corporation's (Suzuki) petition for an exemption of the Kizashi 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 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2012 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's phone number is
(202) 366-4139. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated October 22, 2010, Suzuki
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the MY 2012 Suzuki Kizashi
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. The agency informed Suzuki by
telephone on November 29, 2010, of the areas of insufficiency with
respect to its October 22, 2010 petition for exemption. On December 10,
2010, Suzuki submitted supplementary information to the agency
addressing its areas of insufficiency.
Under Sec. 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines per year. In its petition,
Suzuki provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity,
design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for its
Kazashi vehicle line. Suzuki will install its passive antitheft device
as standard equipment on the line. Key features of the antitheft device
will include an electronically coded key fob, Body Control Module
(BCM), Engine Control Module (ECM) and a passive immobilizer. Suzuki's
submission, along with its supplementary information 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. Suzuki stated that the proposed device is
designed to be active at all times without direct intervention by the
vehicle operator and is fully armed immediately after the ignition has
been turned off and the key is removed. The device will provide
protection against unauthorized starting and fueling of the engine.
Suzuki further stated that the device will also incorporate an audible
and visible alarm feature as standard equipment. The lights will flash
and the horn will sound in the event of unauthorized vehicle entry.
Suzuki stated that the antitheft device will also utilize a special
ignition key and decoder module. Before the vehicle can be operated,
the coded key fob must be confirmed to authorize start and fuel of the
engine. Specifically, Suzuki stated that the BCM sends a signal and an
electronically-coded identification number to the key fob. If the
correct key fob is used, it conducts a calculation and sends the result
to the BCM. The BCM also conducts its own calculation and verifies that
the BCM and key fob calculation result are identical. If the results
are identical, the BCM will send data to the ECM allowing the vehicle
to start. If either the key fob identification number or calculation
result are not an exact match with the BCM information, Suzuki stated
that the ECM will prohibit operation of the vehicle.
In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Suzuki
provided information on the reliability and durability of the proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Suzuki
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Suzuki provided a
detailed list of the tests conducted on the components of its
immobilizer device and believes that the device is reliable and durable
since it complied with the specified requirements for each test.
According to the information provided by Suzuki, the components of the
device were tested and the results confirm that the device performed as
designed, meeting compliance in climatic, chemical environments, and
immunity to various electromagnetic radiations.
Suzuki stated that although there is no theft data available to
show the theft reduction benefits for the Kizashi vehicle line at this
time, it has compared the effectiveness of its antitheft device with
devices which it believes are functionally and operationally similar to
its proposed device. Suzuki stated that data published by the agency,
the Highway Loss data Institute and the National Insurance Crime Bureau
show the effectiveness of passive immobilizer devices at reducing and
deterring theft. Suzuki stated that the agency's theft data show that
the theft rate for the 1999 Nissan Maxima equipped with a standard
passive immobilizer is 2.5 thefts per thousand vehicles, compared to a
theft rate of 5.2 thefts for the 1998 Nissan Maxima without a passive
immobilizer, a reduction of more than 50 percent. Additionally, Suzuki
noted that data from the Highway Loss Data Institute show that overall
theft losses for the 1999 Nissan Maxima (with a passive immobilizer)
were reduced by over 85 percent compared to the overall losses for the
1998 Nissan Maxima (without a passive immobilizer). Suzuki provided
further information showing
[[Page 4992]]
that data from the National Insurance Crime Bureau showed a 70 percent
reduction in theft when comparing MY 1997 Ford Mustang vehicles (with a
standard immobilizer) to MY 1995 Ford Mustang vehicles (without and
immobilizer). Suzuki believes that its antitheft device will be no less
effective than these devices and similar devices for which NHTSA has
already granted exemptions from the parts-marking requirements.
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Suzuki on the device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Kizashi 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 Suzuki 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
Suzuki's petition for exemption for the Kizashi 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 Suzuki 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 as required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major
component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Suzuki 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, 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 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: January 21, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-1772 Filed 1-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P