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: https://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 https://
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