58788 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Identification 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note 

that all comments received will be 

posted without change to http:// 

dms.dot.gov, including any personal 

information provided. 

Docket: For access to the docket in 

order to read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–

401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal Holidays. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov. 

We shall consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

below. To the extent possible, we shall 

also consider comments filed after the 

closing date. We shall publish a notice 

of final action on the application in the 

Federal Register pursuant to the 

authority indicated below. 

(49 U.S.C. 30113; delegations of authority at 

49 CFR 1.50. and 501.8) 

Dated: October 4, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05–20277 Filed 10–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

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 notice grants in full the 

petition of Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., 

Inc. (Fuji) for an exemption in 

accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR 

part 543, Exemption from the Theft 

Prevention Standard, for the Subaru B9 

Tribeca vehicle line beginning with 

model year (MY) 2006. 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 partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective September 1, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rosalind Proctor, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Proctor’s telephone number is (202) 

366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–

2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated July 19, 2005, Fuji Heavy 

Industries U.S.A., Inc. (Fuji), requested 

an exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard (49 CFR part 541) for the 

Subaru B9 Tribeca vehicle line. 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. Fuji’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. Under 

§ 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition 

NHTSA to grant exemptions for one line 

of its vehicle lines per year. 

In its petition, Fuji provided a 

detailed description and diagram of the 

identity, design, and location of the 

components of the antitheft device for 

the vehicle line. The antitheft device is 

a passive transponder-based, electronic, 

immobilizer system. The device is 

automatically activated after 30 seconds 

if the ignition is simply moved to the 

‘‘off’’ position or when the engine is 

shut off and the vehicle key is removed 

from the ignition. Fuji will install its 

antitheft device as standard equipment 

on its B9 Tribeca vehicle line beginning 

with MY 2006. 

Fuji stated that the antitheft device 

controls engine ignition, fuel delivery 

and starter motor operation. This device 

prevents the engine from unauthorized 

operation such as ‘‘hot-wiring’’. The 

proposed device will also have an alarm 

feature that will monitor the doors and 

key identification. The visual and audio 

features (and ‘‘panic’’ mode) of the 

standard equipment antitheft device 

will attract attention to the efforts of an 

unauthorized person to enter or move 

the vehicle by sounding the vehicle’s 

horn and illuminating its 4-way flashing 

hazard lamps. 

The immobilization feature of the 

device will prevent the vehicle from 

being driven away under its own engine 

power in the event the ignition lock and 

doors have been manipulated. Fuji 

stated that integration of the antitheft 

device immobilization with the overall 

vehicle Controller Area Network (CAN) 

electrical architecture and control 

modules makes it nearly impossible for 

the immobilization features to be 

disabled or bypassed without also 

disabling all other body and engine 

controls. The engine will not start or run 

unless the ID code registered in the 

ignition key coincides with the code 

registered in the immobilizer engine 

control unit (ECU) of the vehicle. When 

the engine ECU receives a signal that the 

ID code matches, it allows engine fuel 

delivery and ignition. If the codes are 

not received, even with the use of a 

correct mechanical key, the electronic 

immobilization features of the key/ 

vehicle antitheft system interface will 

not be defeated. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of 543.6, Fuji provided 

information on the reliability and 

durability of its device. To ensure 

reliability and durability of the device, 

Fuji conducted tests based on its own 

specified standards. Fuji also provided 

a detailed list of the tests conducted and 

believes that the device is reliable and 

durable since the device complied with 

its specified requirements for each test. 

Fuji stated its belief that NHTSA has 

seen a trend in the past that theft rates 

drop dramatically on vehicles when 

electronic immobilization has been 

added to the alarm system. Fuji has 

concluded that the antitheft device 

proposed for its vehicle line is no less 

effective than those devices in the lines 

for which NHTSA has already granted 

full exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

Fuji, the agency believes that the 

antitheft device for the Subaru B9 

Tribeca 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). 

The agency concludes that the device 

will provide five of the types of 

performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): 

promoting activation; attracting 

attention to the efforts of an 

unauthorized person 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 58789 

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 

reliability and durability of the device. 

As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 

49 CFR 543.6 (a)(4) and (5), the agency 

finds that Fuji has provided adequate 

reasons for its belief that the antitheft 

device will reduce and deter theft. This 

conclusion is based on the information 

Fuji provided about its device. For the 

foregoing reasons, the agency hereby 

grants in full Fuji’s petition for 

exemption for the vehicle line from the 

parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR 

part 541. 

If Fuji 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 Fuji 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, 

§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: October 3, 2005. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 05–20186 Filed 10–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft 

Prevention Standard; Mazda 

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 Mazda Motor 

Corporation, (Mazda) for an exemption 

in accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 

CFR part 543, Exemption from the Theft 

Prevention Standard, for the Mazda CX–

7 vehicle line beginning with model 

year (MY) 2007. 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. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with model 

year (MY) 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rosalind Proctor, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington DC 20590. Ms. 

Proctor’s phone number is (202) 366–

0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated June 21, 2005, Mazda 

Motor Corporation (Mazda), requested 

an exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements of the theft prevention 

standard (49 CFR part 541) for the 

Mazda CX–7 vehicle line beginning 

with MY 2007. 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 the 

entire vehicle line. 

Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may 

petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for 

one line of its vehicle lines per year. In 

its petition, Mazda provided a detailed 

description and diagram of the identity, 

design, and location of the components 

of the antitheft device for the new 

vehicle line. The anti-theft device is a 

transponder-based, electronic, 

immobilizer system. Mazda will install 

its antitheft device, as standard 

equipment on its CX–7 vehicle line 

beginning with MY 2007. Mazda’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. 

Mazda’s antitheft device is activated 

when the driver/operator turns off the 

engine using the properly coded 

ignition key. When the ignition key is 

turned to the ‘‘ON’’ position, the 

transponder (located in the head of the 

key) transmits a code to an immobilizer 

control module which then 

communicates with powertrain’s 

electronic control module. The vehicle’s 

engine can only be started if the 

transponder code matches the code 

previously programmed into the 

immobilizer control module. If the code 

does not match, the engine will be 

disabled. Mazda stated that 

communications between the 

immobilizer system control function 

and the powertrains electronic control 

module are encrypted with 18 × 1018

different codes, and each transponder is 

hard coded with a unique code at time 

of manufacture. Mazda also stated that 

its immobilizer system incorporates a 

light-emitting diode (LED) that provides 

information as to when the system is 

‘‘set and ‘‘unset’’. When the ignition is 

initially turned to the ‘‘ON’’ position, a 

three-second continuous LED indicates 

the proper ‘‘unset’’ state of the device. 

When the ignition is turned to ‘‘OFF’’, 

a flashing LED indicates the ‘‘set’’ state 

of the system and provides a visual 

confirmation that the vehicle is 

protected by the immobilizer system. 

The integration of the setting/unsetting 

device (transponder) into the ignition 

key prevents any inadvertent activation 

of the system. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of 543.6, Mazda provided 

information on the reliability and 

durability of its proposed device. To 

ensure reliability and durability of the 

device, Mazda conducted tests based on 

its own specified standards. Mazda also 

provided a detailed list of the tests 

conducted and believes that the device 

is reliable and durable since the device 

complied with its specified 

requirements for each test. The 

components of the immobilizer device 

are tested in climatic, mechanical and 

chemical environments, and, immunity 

to various electromagnetic radiation. 

Mazda stated that for reliability/ 

durablility purposes, its key and key 

cylinders must also meet unique 

strength tests against attempts of 

mechanical overriding. The tests 

conducted were for thermal shock, high 

temperature exposure, low-temperature 

exposure, thermal cycle, humidity 

temperature cycling, functional, random 

vibration, dust, water, connector and 

lead/lock strength, chemical resistance, 

electromagnetic field, power line