Petition for Exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc., 58788-58789 [05-20186]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 194 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58788-58789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20186]


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

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 
Sec.  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 parts-marking 
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 Sec.  543.5 and the 
specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6. 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, 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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, 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: 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