Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft Prevention Standard; American Suzuki Motor Corporation, 12772-12773 [E6-3533]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12772-12773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3533]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft 
Prevention Standard; American Suzuki Motor Corporation

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 American Suzuki 
Motor Corporation, (Suzuki) in accordance with Sec.  543.9(c)(2) of 49 
CFR part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard, for the 
Suzuki XL-7 vehicle line. 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 
the 2007 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's phone number is 
(202) 366-4139. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 19, 2005, 
Suzuki requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the 
theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Suzuki XL-7 vehicle 
line beginning with MY 2007. The Suzuki XL-7 which had previously been 
a model of the Suzuki Grand Vitara line will no longer be produced as a 
model of that vehicle line beginning with MY 2007. However, Suzuki 
plans to use the XL-7 nameplate for its new vehicle line beginning with 
the 2007 model year. According to Suzuki, the new XL-7 will have a 
distinct visual difference from that of the XL-7 model. The petition 
requested 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. According to Suzuki, this vehicle line will be 
certified by CAMI Automotive, Inc.
    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, 
Suzuki provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, 
design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the 
new vehicle line. Suzuki will install its antitheft device as standard 
equipment on its Suzuki XL-7 vehicle line beginning with MY 2007. 
Features of the antitheft device will include an electronically coded 
ignition key, passive immobilizer, engine control module and PASS-Key 
III+ controller module. Suzuki'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.
    The antitheft device to be installed on the MY 2007 Suzuki XL-7 is 
the PASS-Key III+. Suzuki stated that the PASS-Key III+ device is 
designed to be active at all times without direct intervention by the 
vehicle operator. The system is fully armed immediately after the 
ignition has been turned off and the key removed. The system will 
provide protection against unauthorized starting and fueling of the 
vehicle engine. Components of the antitheft device include a special 
ignition key and decoder module. Before the vehicle can be operated, 
the key's electrical code must be sensed and properly decoded by the 
PASS-Key III+ control module. The electronics molded into the ignition 
key head receive energy and data from the control module. Upon receipt 
of the data, the key will calculate a response to the data and transmit 
the response back to the vehicle. The controller module translates the 
radio frequency signal received from the key into a digital signal and 
compares the received response to an internally calculated value. If 
the values match, the key is recognized as valid and the vehicle can be 
operated.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Suzuki 
provided information on the reliability and durability of the proposed 
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Suzuki 
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Suzuki provided a 
detailed list of the tests conducted on the components of its 
immobilizer device and believes that the device is reliable and durable 
since it complied with the specified requirements for each test. 
Specifically, Suzuki stated that the components of the device were 
tested and met compliance in climatic, mechanical and chemical 
environments, and immunity to various electromagnetic radiations.
    Suzuki indicated that the theft rates, as reported by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center, are lower 
for Suzuki models equipped with the ``PASS-Key''-like systems which 
have exemptions from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, 
than the theft rates for earlier, similarly-constructed models which 
were parts-marked. Based on the performance of the PASS-Key, PASS-Key 
II, and PASS-Key III systems on other Suzuki models, and the advanced 
technology utilized in PASS-Key III+, Suzuki believes that the PASS-Key 
III+ will be more effective in deterring theft than the parts-marking 
requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
    Suzuki stated that although its antitheft device provides 
protection against unauthorized starting and fueling of the vehicle, it 
does not provide any visible or audible indication of unauthorized 
entry by means of flashing vehicle lights or sounding of the horn. 
Since the system is fully operational once the vehicle has been turned 
off, specific visible or audible reminders beyond key removal reminders 
have not been provided. Suzuki also stated that the PASS-Key III+ 
device to be used on the XL-7 vehicle line is the same theft deterrent 
system used on motor vehicles produced by General Motors Corporation. 
Based on a comparison of the reduction in the theft rates of Chevrolet 
Corvettes using a passive theft deterrent device along with an audible 
and visual alarm system to the reduction in theft rates for the 
Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird vehicles equipped with a passive 
theft deterrent device without an alarm, GM found that the lack of an 
alarm or attention attracting device does not compromise the theft 
deterrent performance of a system such as PASS-Key III+.
    On the basis of this comparison, Suzuki has concluded that the 
antitheft device proposed for its XL-7 vehicle line is no less 
effective than those devices installed in the lines for which NHTSA has 
already granted full exemption from the parts-marking requirements.
    Based on the evidence submitted by Suzuki, the agency believes that 
the antitheft device for the XL-7 vehicle

[[Page 12773]]

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). The agency concludes that 
the device will provide four of the five types of performance listed in 
Sec.  543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; 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.
    As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the 
agency finds that Suzuki has provided adequate reasons for its belief 
that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion 
is based on the information Suzuki provided about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full 
Suzuki's petition for exemption for the XL-7 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 Suzuki decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should 
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 Suzuki 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 antitheft 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 in drafting 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: March 7, 2006.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E6-3533 Filed 3-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P