Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc., 59028-59030 [E9-27360]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
59028
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 219 / Monday, November 16, 2009 / Notices
durability of its proposed device. To
ensure reliability and durability of the
device, Jaguar conducted tests based on
its own specified standards. Jaguar
provided a detailed list of the tests
conducted (i.e., temperature and
humidity cycling, high and low
temperature cycling, mechanical shock,
random vibration, thermal stress/shock
tests, material resistance tests, dry heat,
dust and fluid ingress tests). Jaguar
stated that it believes that its device is
reliable and durable because it complied
with specified requirements for each
test. Additionally, Jaguar stated that the
key recognition sequence includes in
excess of a billion code combinations.
The code combinations include
encrypted data that are secure against
copying, also the coded data transfer
between modules use a unique secure
identifier, random number and secure
public algorithm which includes an
excess of a billion code combinations.
Jaguar stated that the current
generation Jaguar XJ line produced since
2004 MY has an engine immobilizer
system as standard equipment, but since
the current generation of Jaguar XJ has
only been available with an engine
immobilizer, there is no comparative
Jaguar data available for the XJ without
an immobilizer. Also, Jaguar stated that
based on MY 2006 theft information
published by NHTSA, the Jaguar XJ line
has had theft rates well below the
median of 2.08 thefts per thousands,
specifically, for the XJ8/XJ8L vehicle
line,0.8711, the Vanden Plas/Super V8,
0.000, and the XJR, 0.0000. Jaguar
believes this low theft rate demonstrates
the effectiveness of the immobilizer
system.
Based on the evidence submitted by
Jaguar, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the XJ 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 exemption from the partsmarking requirements of Part 541, either
in whole or in part, if it determines that,
based upon substantial evidence, the
standard equipment anti-theft 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 Jaguar has provided adequate
reasons for its belief that the anti-theft
device for the Jaguar XJ 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:41 Nov 13, 2009
Jkt 220001
Standard (49 CFR part 541). This
conclusion is based on the information
Jaguar 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; attract attention to
the efforts of an unauthorized person to
enter or move 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 Jaguar’s petition for
exemption for the Jaguar XJ 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 anti-theft
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 Jaguar decides not to use the
exemption for this line, it should
formally notify the agency. If such a
decision is made, the line must be fully
marked according to the requirements
under 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6 (marking
of major component parts and
replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Jaguar 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, part
543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission
of petitions ‘‘to modify an exemption to
permit the use of an anti-theft 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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: November 6, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9–27361 Filed 11–13–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–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.
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.
E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM
16NON1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 219 / Monday, November 16, 2009 / Notices
Under § 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, transponderbased 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:41 Nov 13, 2009
Jkt 220001
demonstrable effect in lowering its theft
rates. FUSA also noted that recent stateby-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 partsmarking 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
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59029
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. 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,
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM
16NON1
59030
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 219 / Monday, November 16, 2009 / Notices
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
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
November 10, 2009.
The Department of Treasury will
submit the following public information
collection requirement(s) to OMB for
review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 on or after the date
of publication of this notice. 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, and 1750
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
Dates: Written comments should be
received on or before December 16, 2009
to be assured of consideration.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
OMB Number: 1545–1593.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: U.S. Income Tax Return for
Qualified Funeral Trusts.
Form: 1041–QFT.
Description: IRC section 685 allows
the trustee of a qualified funeral trust to
elect to report and pay the tax for the
trust. Data is used to determine that the
trustee filed the proper return and paid
the correct tax.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
270,150 hours.
OMB Number: 1545–0130.
Type of Review: Revision.
Title: U.S. Income Tax Return for an
S Corporation.
Form: 1120S, Schedule D (Form
1120S), Schedule K–1 (Form 1120S),
and Schedule M–3 (Form 1120S).
Description: Form 1120S, Schedule D
(Form 1120S), Schedule K–1 (Form
1120S), and Schedule M–3 (Form
1120S) are used by an S corporation to
figure its tax liability, and income and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:41 Nov 13, 2009
Jkt 220001
other tax-related information to pass
through to its shareholders. Schedule
K–1 is used to report to shareholders
their share of the corporation’s income,
deductions, credits, etc. IRS uses the
information to determine the correct tax
for the S corporation and its
shareholders.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
420,945,980 hours.
OMB Number: 1545–0192.
Type of Review: Revision.
Title: Tax on Accumulation
Distribution of Trusts.
Form: 4970.
Description: Form 4970 is used by a
beneficiary of a domestic or foreign trust
to compute the tax adjustment
attributable to an accumulation
distribution. The form is used to verify
whether the correct tax has been paid on
the accumulation distribution.
Respondents: Individuals or
households.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 42,900
hours.
OMB Number: 1545–0935.
Type of Review: Revision.
Title: U.S. Income Tax Return of a
Foreign Sales Corporations; Schedule P,
Transfer Price or Commission.
Form: 1120–FSC, Schedule P (Form
1120–FSC).
Description: Form 1120–FSC is filed
by foreign corporations that have
elected to be FSCs or small FSCs. The
FSC uses Form 1120–FSC to report
income and expenses and to figure its
tax liability. IRS uses Form 1120–FSC
and Schedule P (Form 1120–FSC) to
determine whether the FSC has
correctly reported its income and
expenses and figured its tax liability
correctly.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
1,088,250 hours.
OMB Number: 1545–0956.
Type of Review: Revision.
Title: Annual Return of OneParticipant (Owners and Their Spouses)
Retirement Plan.
Form: 5500–EZ.
Description: Form 5500–EZ is an
annual return filed by a one-participant
or one-participant and spouse pension
plan. The IRS uses this data to
determine if the plan appears to be
operating properly as required under the
law or whether the plan should be
audited.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
7,005,000 hours.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
OMB Number: 1545–1359.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: Information Reporting by
Passport and Permanent Residence
Applicants INTL–978–86 (NPRM).
Description: The regulation requires
applicants for passports and permanent
residence status to report certain tax
information on the applications. The
regulations are intended to give the
Service notice of non-filers and of
persons with foreign source income not
subject to normal withholding, and to
notify such persons of their duty to file
U.S. tax returns.
Respondents: Individuals or
households.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
750,000 hours.
OMB Number: 1545–1432.
Type of Review: Extension.
Title: Voluntary Customer Surveys to
Implement E.O. 12862 Coordinated by
the Corporate Planning and Performance
Division on Behalf of All IRS Operations
Functions.
Description: This is a generic
clearance for an undefined number of
customer satisfaction and opinion
surveys and focus group interviews to
be conducted over the next three years.
Surveys and focus groups conducted
under the generic clearance are used by
the Internal Revenue Service to
determine levels of customer
satisfaction as well as determining
issues that contribute to customer
burden. This information will be used to
make quality improvements to products
and services.
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofits.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
150,000 hours.
OMB Number: 1545–1964.
Type of Review: Revision.
Title: Intake/Interview & Quality
Review Sheet.
Form: 13614–C, 13614–C (SP).
Description: The SPEC function
developed the Form 13614–C, Intake/
Interview & Quality Review Sheet that
contains a standardized list of required
intake and quality review questions to
guide volunteers in asking taxpayers
basic questions about themselves and
conducting a quality review of the
completed return. The intake/interview
and quality review sheet is an effective
tool for ensuring critical taxpayer
information is obtained and applied
during the interview and completion of
the tax return process.
Respondents: Individuals or
Households.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
562,583 hours.
Clearance Officer: R. Joseph Durbala,
(202) 622–3634, Internal Revenue
E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM
16NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 219 (Monday, November 16, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59028-59030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27360]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
