Document ID: NHTSA-2009-0181-0001
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc.
Posted Date: 2009-11-16T05:00Z

[Federal Register: November 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 219)]
[Notices]               
[Page 59028-59030]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16no09-100]                         

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

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 Legacy 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).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 2011.

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 September 22, 2009, FUSA 
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft 
prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Subaru Legacy vehicle 
line, beginning with the 2011 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.

[[Page 59029]]

    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 Legacy 
vehicle line. FUSA stated that all Subaru Legacy vehicles will be 
equipped with a passive, transponder-based electronic immobilizer 
device as standard equipment. FUSA stated that the antitheft system and 
the immobilization features are designed and constructed within the 
vehicle's Controller Area Network electrical architecture. Major 
components of the antitheft device will include an electronic key, a 
passive immobilizer system, a key ring antenna and an engine control 
unit. 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 have 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 the 
immobilization features are designed and constructed within the 
vehicle's overall Controller Area Network Electrical Architecture. 
Therefore, the antitheft system cannot be separated and controlled 
independently of 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 
systems on all of its product lines (Forester, Tribeca, Impreza, 
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 5 of the 50 
states listed in its results, did any Subaru vehicle appear in the top 
10 list of stolen cars. Review of the theft rates published by the 
agency through MY/CY also 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 manufacturer's 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 1995 through 1998) compared to older parts-marked Jeep Grand 
Cherokee vehicles (model year 1990 and 1991). 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 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 Legacy 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 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

[[Page 59030]]

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: November 6, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-27360 Filed 11-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P