Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc., 57376-57377 [E7-19754]

Download as PDF 57376 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Notices at the Holiday Inn Capitol, 550 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024. The RSAC was established to provide advice and recommendations to FRA on railroad safety matters. The RSAC is comprised of 54 voting representatives from 31 member organizations, representing various rail industry perspectives. In addition, there are nonvoting advisory representatives from the agencies with railroad safety regulatory responsibility in Canada and Mexico, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Federal Transit Administration. The diversity of the committee ensures the requisite range of views and expertise necessary to discharge its responsibilities. See the RSAC Web site for details on pending tasks at: http://rsac.fra.dot. gov/. Please refer to the notice published in the Federal Register on March 11, 1996 (61 FR 9740), for more information about the RSAC. Issued in Washington, DC on October 2, 2007. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E7–19741 Filed 10–5–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–06–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. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Department of Transportation (DOT). AGENCY: mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES 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 Forester 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). FUSA requested confidential treatment for the information and attachments it submitted in support of its petition. In a letter dated July 10, 2007, the agency granted the petitioner’s request for confidential treatment of the indicated areas of its petition. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:25 Oct 05, 2007 Jkt 214001 The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with model year (MY) 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 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 June 15, 2007, FUSA requested exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Subaru Forester vehicle line, beginning with the 2009 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. Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines 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 Forester vehicle line. FUSA stated that all Subaru Forester vehicles will be equipped with a passive, transponderbased electronic immobilizer device as standard. Major components of the antitheft device will include an electronic key, a passive immobilizer system, a key ring antenna and an engine control unit (ECU). 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. FUSA also provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device, conducting tests based on its own specified standards. In a letter dated July 10, 2007, NHTSA granted FUSA confidential treatment for its test information. FUSA provided a list of the tests it conducted. FUSA believes that its device is reliable and durable because the device complied with its own specific requirements for DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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. 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 presented several HLDI Theft Loss Bulletins (February and April 1996, September 1997 and May 2000), as supporting evidence that theft rates have dropped dramatically on vehicles when immobilization devices are introduced. FUSA stated that it presently has immobilizer systems on all of its product lines (i.e., two of six Forester models, all B9 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 2 of the 48 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 2004 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 E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM 09OCN1 mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 194 / Tuesday, October 9, 2007 / Notices the agency has already granted exemptions. 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 § 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. Section 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:07 Oct 05, 2007 Jkt 214001 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 § 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 2, 2007. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E7–19754 Filed 10–5–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Ex Parte No. 670 (Sub-No. 1)] Notice of Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY: 57377 the Board, in Establishment of a Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee, STB Ex Parte No. 670. RETAC was formed to provide advice and guidance to the Board, and to serve as a forum for discussion of emerging issues regarding the transportation by rail of energy resources, particularly, but not necessarily limited to, coal, ethanol, and other biofuels. The purpose of this meeting is to begin discussions regarding issues such as rail performance, capacity constraints, infrastructure planning and development, and effective coordination among suppliers, carriers, and users of energy resources. The meeting, which is open to the public, will be conducted pursuant to RETAC’s charter and Board procedures. Further communications about this meeting may be announced through the Board’s Web site at http:// www.stb.dot.gov. This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 721, 49 U.S.C. 11101; 49 U.S.C. 11121. Decided: October 3, 2007. By the Board, Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. E7–19806 Filed 10–5–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915–01–P Surface Transportation Board, DOT. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Notice of Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee meeting. Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION: Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Rail Energy Transportation Advisory Committee (RETAC), pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92–463, as amended (5 U.S.C., App. 2). DATES: The meeting will be held on October 24, 2007, beginning at 10 a.m., E.D.T. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the 1st floor hearing room at the Surface Transportation Board’s headquarters at Patriot’s Plaza, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423–0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott M. Zimmerman (202) 245–0202. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at: (800) 877–8339]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RETAC arose from a proceeding instituted by SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 September 26, 2007. The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before November 8, 2007 to be assured of consideration. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) OMB Number: 1545–1352. Type of Review: Extension. E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM 09OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57376-57377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19754]


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

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 Forester 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). FUSA 
requested confidential treatment for the information and attachments it 
submitted in support of its petition. In a letter dated July 10, 2007, 
the agency granted the petitioner's request for confidential treatment 
of the indicated areas of its petition.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, International 
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 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 June 15, 2007, FUSA 
requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft 
prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Subaru Forester vehicle 
line, beginning with the 2009 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.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant 
exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines 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 Forester vehicle line. FUSA stated that all Subaru 
Forester vehicles will be equipped with a passive, transponder-based 
electronic immobilizer device as standard. Major components of the 
antitheft device will include an electronic key, a passive immobilizer 
system, a key ring antenna and an engine control unit (ECU). 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.
    FUSA also provided information on the reliability and durability of 
its proposed device, conducting tests based on its own specified 
standards. In a letter dated July 10, 2007, NHTSA granted FUSA 
confidential treatment for its test information. FUSA provided a list 
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.
    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 presented several HLDI Theft Loss 
Bulletins (February and April 1996, September 1997 and May 2000), as 
supporting evidence that theft rates have dropped dramatically on 
vehicles when immobilization devices are introduced. FUSA stated that 
it presently has immobilizer systems on all of its product lines (i.e., 
two of six Forester models, all B9 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 2 of the 48 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 2004 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

[[Page 57377]]

the agency has already granted exemptions.
    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. Section 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 Sec.  
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 2, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E7-19754 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P