Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc., 1973-1975 [2012-454]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2012 / Notices
November 2011 session of the
UNCITRAL ODR Working Group as well
as planning for the next session of that
Working Group, scheduled for May 28
through June 1, 2012 in New York City.
The UNCITRAL ODR Working Group
is charged with the development of legal
instruments for resolving both business
to business and business to consumer
cross-border electronic commerce
disputes. The Working Group has been
considering, inter alia, ODR procedural
rules for resolution of cross-border
electronic commerce disputes.
For the report of the first three
sessions of the UNCITRAL ODR
Working Group—December 13–17, 2010
in Vienna (A/CN.9/716); May 23–27,
2011 in New York (A/CN.9/721); and
November 14–18, 2011 in Vienna (A/
CN.9/739)—please follow the following
link: https://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/
commission/working_groups/
3Online_Dispute_Resolution.html
Time and Place: The public meeting
will take place at the Office of Private
International Law, Department of State,
Washington, DC in the second floor
conference room, Room 240, State
Annex 4, South Building, Navy Hill.
Participants should appear by 9:30 a.m.
at the 23rd and D Street, NW. gate to the
Navy Hill compound, so that you can be
escorted to the office. If you are unable
to attend the public meeting and would
like to participate from a remote
location, teleconferencing will be
available.
Public Participation: This study group
meeting is open to the public, subject to
the capacity of the meeting room.
Access to the building is controlled;
persons wishing to attend should
contact Tricia Smeltzer or Niesha Toms
of the Office of Private International
Law at SmeltzerTK@state.gov or
TomsNN@state.gov and provide your
name, address, date of birth, citizenship,
driver’s license or passport number,
email address, and mailing address to
get admission into the meeting. Persons
who cannot attend but who wish to
comment are welcome to do so by email
to Michael Dennis at
DennisMJ@state.gov. A member of the
public needing reasonable
accommodation should advise those
same contacts not later than January
13th. Requests made after that date will
be considered, but might not be able to
be fulfilled. If you are unable to attend
the public meeting and you would like
to participate by teleconferencing,
please contact Tricia Smeltzer (202)
776–8423 or Niesha Toms at (202) 776–
8420 to receive the conference call-in
number and the relevant information.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jan 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
Dated: January 6, 2012.
Michael Dennis,
Attorney-Adviser, Office of Private
International Law, Office of the Legal Adviser,
Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012–490 Filed 1–11–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–28–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Environmental Impact Statement: In
the Vicinity of the City and Borough of
Juneau, AK
Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT&PF), Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
AGENCY:
The FHWA, in cooperation
with DOT&PF, will prepare a
supplemental environmental impact
statement (SEIS) for Juneau Access
Improvements, a project to improve
surface transportation to and from
Juneau within the Lynn Canal corridor.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Tim Haugh, Environmental Program
Manager, FHWA Alaska Division, P.O.
Box 21648, Juneau, Alaska 99802–1648;
office hours 6 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (AST),
phone (907) 586–7430; email
Tim.Haugh@dot.gov. You may also
contact Mr. Reuben Yost, DOT&PF
Project Manager, Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities,
6860 Glacier Highway, P.O. Box 112506,
Juneau, Alaska 99811–2506; office hours
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. (AST), phone (907)
465–1774.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final
environmental impact statement (FEIS)
for this project was released on January
18, 2006, and a Record of Decision was
approved on April 3, 2006. However, on
February 13, 2009, the United States
District Court for Alaska determined the
FEIS was invalid and vacated the ROD.
The SEIS will therefore evaluate a new
alternative of improved ferry service
using existing assets, as was determined
reasonable by the Court. The SEIS will
also address any new issues identified
and update FEIS alternatives and topics.
The purpose for the project remains
the same: to improve surface
transportation to and from Juneau
within the Lynn Canal corridor to
provide travel flexibility, capacity to
meet demand, and greater travel
opportunity while reducing travel time,
state costs, and user costs. In addition
to the court ordered alternative, the
SEIS will also update the reasonable
alternatives evaluated in the FEIS.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1973
These include the No Action Alternative
(Alternative 1), the East Lynn Highway
to Katzehin with Shuttles to Haines and
Skagway (Alternative 2B), the West
Lynn Canal Highway (Alternative 3),
and four primary marine alternatives
that would construct new ferries
(Alternatives 4A–D). Two of the marine
alternatives include a short road
extension and a new ferry terminal
(Alternatives 4B and 4D).
FHWA anticipates a focused scoping
effort prior to commencement of SEIS
studies. Letters describing the SEIS
process and requesting comments will
be sent to appropriate federal, state, and
local agencies. Meetings will be held
with all Cooperating Agencies and other
agencies, as requested. Newspaper
notices, newsletters, and Web site
postings will explain the SEIS process,
describe the new alternative, detail the
topics anticipated to be addressed, and
request public comments.
Public hearings will be held in
Juneau, Haines, Skagway, and Sitka
following publication of the draft SEIS.
Notice of the hearings and availability of
the document will be published in the
Federal Register, the Juneau Empire, the
Chilkat Valley News, the Skagway
News, the Sitka Sentinel, and the
Anchorage Daily News. Comments or
questions concerning the project and the
SEIS should be directed to the FHWA or
DOT&PF at the addresses provided.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.205, Highway Planning
and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this
program.)
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Issued on: January 3, 2012.
David C. Miller,
Division Administrator, Juneau, Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2012–408 Filed 1–11–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–RY–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).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
This document grants in full
the Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc.’s
(FUSA’s) petition for exemption of the
Subaru [confidential] vehicle line in
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1974
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2012 / Notices
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, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard. FUSA requested
confidential treatment for specific
information in its petition. The agency
will address FUSA’s request for
confidential treatment by separate letter.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2013 model year (MY).
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 October 25, 2011, FUSA
requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR part 541)
for the Subaru [confidential] vehicle
line, beginning with the 2013 MY. 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 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 Subaru
[confidential] vehicle line. FUSA stated
that all Subaru [confidential] vehicles
will be equipped with a passive,
transponder-based electronic
immobilizer device as standard
equipment. FUSA stated that the
antitheft device and the immobilization
features are constructed and designed
within the vehicle’s Controller Area
Network electrical architecture. Major
components of the antitheft device will
include a transponder, a passive
immobilizer system, a key ring antenna,
engine control unit and a meter engine
control unit. FUSA stated that 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 include
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jan 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 since the
immobilization features are designed
and constructed within the vehicle’s
overall Controller Area Network
Electrical Architecture, the antitheft
device cannot be separated and
controlled independently from 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
devices on all of its product lines
(Forester, Tribeca, Impreza, Legacy and
Outback models) and it believes the data
show immobilization has had a
demonstrable effect in lowering its theft
rates. Review of the theft rates
published by the agency for Subaru
vehicles from model years (MYs) 2007–
2009 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.
Specifically, the agency’s theft rate data
for the Subaru Tribeca, Forester,
Impreza, Legacy and Outback vehicle
lines using an average of 3 MYs’ data is
0.4396, 0.5677, 0.9135, 0.7681 and
0.4394 respectively.
FUSA also provided a comparative
table showing how its device is similar
to other manufacturers’ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 1999 through
2003) compared to older parts-marked
Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles (model
year 1995 and 1998). 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
vehicle 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 Subaru [confidential] 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
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
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
1975
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2012 / Notices
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
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: January 6, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012–454 Filed 1–11–12; 8:45 am]
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jan 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No. PHMSA–2011–0328; Notice No.
11–15]
Safety Advisory: Unauthorized Marking
of Compressed Gas Cylinders
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
ACTION: Safety Advisory Notice.
AGENCY:
This is to notify the public
that PHMSA has confirmed that Spears
Fire & Safety, 287 Jackson Plaza, Ann
Arbor, MI improperly requalified and
marked high pressure compressed gas
cylinders. During a recent investigation,
PHMSA determined that between
November 2008 and October 2011,
Spears Fire & Safety requalified and
marked with a Requalifier Identification
Number (RIN) ‘‘B037’’ approximately
7,740 DOT specification cylinders after
its authority to requalifiy high pressure
cylinders expired on October 31, 2008.
Additionally the investigation revealed
that during this period, Spears Fire &
Safety (1) failed to condemn cylinders
with a permanent expansion greater
than 10% of total expansion, (2) on
multiple occasions did not maintain the
minimum test pressure for the required
time and (3) improperly repeated
pressure tests on cylinders required to
be condemned. Cylinders that have not
been properly requalified and marked in
accordance with the HMR may not be
filled with compressed gas or other
hazardous material.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Spears Fire & Safety, Mr. Robert Pate,
Manager, 287 Jackson Plaza, Ann Arbor,
MI, Telephone (734) 633–4133.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA
has recently confirmed that Spears Fire
& Safety continued to requalify and
mark high pressure cylinders after their
authority to requalify cylinders had
expired. Spears Fire & Safety’s authority
to requalify cylinders expired on
October 31, 2008 and failed to seek
renewal of its authority from the
Associate Administrator. However,
Spears Fire & Safety continued to
requalify cylinders for a period of time
up to and including October 14, 2011.
The investigation also revealed that
Spears Fire & Safety (1) failed to
condemn cylinders with a permanent
expansion greater than 10% of total
expansion (2) on multiple occasions,
did not maintain test pressure for the
required time period, and (3) performed
multiple repeat pressure tests on a
cylinder with a permanent expansion
greater than 10% of total expansion.
Because Spears Fire & Safety improperly
pressure tested and marked high
pressure cylinders that were required to
be condemned, PHMSA questions the
condition of all of the cylinders
requalified, marked and returned to
service by Spears Fire & Safety between
November 2008 and October 2011
(approximately 7,740 cylinders). The
cylinders in question were marked with
Spears Fire & Safety’s RIN ‘‘B037’’. The
markings appear in the following
pattern:
B0
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
M
Y
73
Where B037 is Spears Fire & Safety’s
RIN, M is the month of the retest (e.g.
10) and Y is the year of the retest (e.g.
11). Anyone who identifies a cylinder
marked with the RIN ‘‘B037’’ and a test
date after October 2008, are advised to
remove these cylinders from service and
contact Spears Fire & Safety, Ann Arbor,
MI for further instructions.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December
29, 2011.
Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous
Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012–394 Filed 1–11–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–60–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. AB 33 (Sub-No. 299X)]
Union Pacific Railroad Company—
Discontinuance of Service
Exemption—in Pittsburg, Hughes, and
Seminole Counties, OK
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP)
has filed a verified notice of exemption
under 49 CFR pt. 1152 subpart F–
Exempt Abandonments and
Discontinuances of Service to
discontinue service over a portion of a
line of railroad known as the Shawnee
Branch Line, between milepost 428.00,
near Seminole, and milepost 370.5, near
McAlester, a distance of 57.69 miles,1 in
Pittsburg, Hughes, and Seminole
Counties, Okla. (the line). The line
traverses United States Postal Service
Zip Codes 74501, 74570, 74531, 74848,
74884, and 74868.
UP has certified that: (1) No local
traffic has moved over the line for at
least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead
traffic on the line; and (3) no formal
1 UP notes a milepost equation of 402.78 = 402.59
in Hughes County, which makes the line 0.19 miles
longer than the terminal mileposts would otherwise
indicate.
E:\FR\FM\12JAN1.SGM
12JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1973-1975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-454]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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's) petition for exemption of the Subaru [confidential]
vehicle line in
[[Page 1974]]
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, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard. FUSA requested confidential treatment for specific
information in its petition. The agency will address FUSA's request for
confidential treatment by separate letter.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2013 model year (MY).
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 October 25, 2011, FUSA
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Subaru [confidential]
vehicle line, beginning with the 2013 MY. 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 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 Subaru
[confidential] vehicle line. FUSA stated that all Subaru [confidential]
vehicles will be equipped with a passive, transponder-based electronic
immobilizer device as standard equipment. FUSA stated that the
antitheft device and the immobilization features are constructed and
designed within the vehicle's Controller Area Network electrical
architecture. Major components of the antitheft device will include a
transponder, a passive immobilizer system, a key ring antenna, engine
control unit and a meter engine control unit. FUSA stated that 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 include 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
since the immobilization features are designed and constructed within
the vehicle's overall Controller Area Network Electrical Architecture,
the antitheft device cannot be separated and controlled independently
from 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
devices on all of its product lines (Forester, Tribeca, Impreza, Legacy
and Outback models) and it believes the data show immobilization has
had a demonstrable effect in lowering its theft rates. Review of the
theft rates published by the agency for Subaru vehicles from model
years (MYs) 2007-2009 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. Specifically, the agency's theft rate data
for the Subaru Tribeca, Forester, Impreza, Legacy and Outback vehicle
lines using an average of 3 MYs' data is 0.4396, 0.5677, 0.9135, 0.7681
and 0.4394 respectively.
FUSA also provided a comparative table showing how its device is
similar to other manufacturers' 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 1999 through 2003) compared to older parts-marked Jeep Grand
Cherokee vehicles (model year 1995 and 1998). 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 vehicle 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 Subaru [confidential]
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
[[Page 1975]]
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 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: January 6, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-454 Filed 1-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
