Document ID: NHTSA-2012-0009-0001
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petitions for Exemptions from the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard: Fuji Heavy Industries USA, Inc.
Posted Date: 2012-01-12T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1973-1975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-454]

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

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's) petition for exemption of the Subaru [confidential] 
vehicle line in

[[Page 1974]]

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 will address FUSA's request for 
confidential treatment by separate letter.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2013 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 (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated October 25, 2011, 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 2013 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 
exemptions 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 all Subaru [confidential] 
vehicles will be equipped with a passive, transponder-based electronic 
immobilizer device as standard equipment. FUSA stated that the 
antitheft device and the immobilization features are constructed and 
designed within the vehicle's Controller Area Network electrical 
architecture. Major components of the antitheft device will include a 
transponder, a passive immobilizer system, a key ring antenna, engine 
control unit and a meter engine control unit. FUSA stated that 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 and the key is not removed. The device 
will also include a visible and audible alarm, and panic mode feature. 
The alarm system will monitor door status and key identification. 
Unauthorized opening of a door will activate the alarm system causing 
sounding of the horn and flashing of the hazard 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.
    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 
since 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 
from this network.
    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, Legacy 
and Outback models) and it believes the data show immobilization has 
had a demonstrable effect in lowering its theft rates. Review of the 
theft rates published by the agency for Subaru vehicles from model 
years (MYs) 2007-2009 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. Specifically, the agency's theft rate data 
for the Subaru Tribeca, Forester, Impreza, Legacy and Outback vehicle 
lines using an average of 3 MYs' data is 0.4396, 0.5677, 0.9135, 0.7681 
and 0.4394 respectively.
    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 
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 and 1998). FUSA stated that it 
believes that these comparisons show that its device is 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 vehicle 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 part 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 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

[[Page 1975]]

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: January 6, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-454 Filed 1-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P