[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 67 (Monday, April 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17606-17607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6527]


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

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 the Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., 
Inc.'s (FUSA) petition for exemption of the Subaru Impreza 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). FUSA requested 
confidential treatment for the information and attachments it submitted 
in support of

[[Page 17607]]

its petition. In a letter dated November 27, 2006, the agency granted 
the petitioner's request for confidential treatment of the indicated 
areas of its petition.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of 
International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number 
is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated October 31, 2006, FUSA 
requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft 
prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Subaru Impreza vehicle 
line, beginning with the 2008 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 
exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines 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 Impreza vehicle line. FUSA stated that all Impreza 
vehicles will be equipped with a passive, transponder-based electronic 
immobilizer device as standard equipment beginning with MY 2008. 
Features of the antitheft device will include an electronic key, a 
passive immobilizer system which includes a key ring antenna and an 
engine control unit (ECU). The system immobilization is automatically 
activated when the key is removed from the vehicle's ignition switch or 
after 30 seconds if the ignition is simply moved to the off position 
(key not removed). The device will also have a visible and audible 
alarm feature. The alarm system will monitor the door status and key 
identification. Unauthorized opening of a door will activate the alarm 
system horn and lamps. 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.
    FUSA also provided information on the reliability and durability of 
its proposed device, conducting tests based on its own specified 
standards. In a letter dated November 27, 2006, NHTSA granted FUSA 
confidential treatment for the test information. FUSA provided a list 
of the tests it conducted. FUSA based its belief that the device is 
reliable and durable on the fact that the device complied with the 
specific requirements for each test.
    FUSA stated that theft rates for its Subaru vehicles have typically 
been low and that based on the most recent National Insurance Crime 
Bureau's (NICB) state-by-state theft results, only in 2 out 48 states, 
including the District of Columbia have any Subaru vehicle appeared in 
the top ten list of stolen vehicles. Review of the theft rates 
published by the agency through MY/CY 2004 also revealed that, while 
there is some variation, the theft rates for Subaru vehicles has on 
average, remained below the median theft rate of 3.5826. On December 
21, 2006, by email, FUSA provided a list of similar devices for which 
NHTSA has already granted parts marking exemptions. FUSA believes that 
this comparison supports its claim that its MY 2008 immobilizer device 
will be at least as effective in reducing theft as similar devices for 
which the agency has already granted exemptions. Additionally, FUSA 
referred to the most recent Highway Loss Data Institute's (HLDI) 
reports that support the effectiveness of immobilizing antitheft 
devices and believes that the enhancement of electronic immobilization 
will further help to reduce its lower theft rates. The agency agrees 
that the device is substantially similar to devices in other vehicles 
lines for which the agency has already granted exemptions.
    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 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 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 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: April 3, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E7-6527 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P