Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc., 53498-53499 [2013-21125]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
53498
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices
Program Grants under 23 U.S.C. 402 and
the National Priority Safety Program
Grants under 23 U.S.C. 405.
Under MAP–21, the statute directs
States to submit a Highway Safety Plan
(HSP) that serves as a single,
consolidated application for the grants.
The information collected as part of the
required HSP includes information on
the highway safety planning process,
performance plan, highway safety
strategies and projects, performance
report, program cost summary,
certifications and assurances, and an
application for Section 405 grants. In
general, a State is required to submit
information to the agency that supports
its qualifications for receiving grant
funds.
Consistent with the statute, the
agency published an interim final rule
creating an application process for
States to apply for these grant funds. An
additional section of the interim final
rule explained the agency’s information
collection request identifying the
affected public and estimating the
burden hours.
The estimated burden hours for the
collection of information were based on
all eligible respondents (i.e., applicants)
for each of the grants:
• Section 402 grants: 57 (fifty States,
the District of Columba, Puerto Rico,
U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the
Secretary of the Interior);
• Section 405(f) grants: 52 (fifty
States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico);
• Section 405(a)–(e), (g) grants: 56
(fifty States, the District of Columba,
Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands).
The agency estimated that it would
take each respondent approximately 240
hours to collect, review and submit the
reporting information to NHTSA for the
Section 402 program and further
estimated that it would take each
respondent approximately 180 hours to
collect, review and submit the reporting
information to NHTSA for the Section
405 program. Based on the above
information, the estimated annual
burden hours for all respondents is
23,940 hours.
Assuming the average salary of these
individuals is $50.00 per hour, the
estimated cost for each respondent is
$21,000; the estimated total cost for all
respondents is $1,197,000. (This
represents a reduced burden estimate
from the interim final rule to reflect that
this notice does not include burden
estimates for the program cost summary
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
information included with the HSP (i.e.,
HS–217 form). This information is
collected under a previously approved
information collection request (OMB
Control Number 2127–0003.))
These estimates present the highest
possible burden hours and amounts
possible. All States do not apply for and
receive a grant each year under each of
these programs.
In response to the information
collection request published in the
interim final rule, the agency received
one comment from the Montana
Department of Transportation
referencing paperwork reduction act
criteria. The commenter concludes that
the agency violated the paperwork
reduction act by requiring that States
submit certain information with their
grant applications. However, in our
view, this comment concerns
substantive grant application
requirements, rather than identifying
specific issues with paperwork
reduction act compliance. As a result,
we will respond to this comment along
with other similar comments on grant
application requirements in the final
rule.
Comments are invited on:
• Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the
information will have practical utility.
• Whether the Department’s estimate
for the burden of the information
collection is accurate.
• Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Please submit any comments, identified
by the docket number in the heading of
this document, by any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section of
this document. Comments are due by
September 30, 2013.
Mary D. Gunnels,
Associate Administrator, Regional Operations
and Program Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2013–21037 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 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:
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full
Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc.’s
(FUSA) petition for exemption of the
Subaru [confidential] 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, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard. FUSA requested
confidential treatment for specific
information in its petition. The agency
has addressed FUSA’s request for
confidential treatment by letter dated
June 28, 2013. However, FUSA has
stated that it will provide the agency
with the nameplate of the vehicle prior
to its introduction for sale into
commerce in order to allow the agency
to notify law enforcement agencies and
the public of a new vehicle line
exempted from the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2015 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Rosalind Proctor, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Standards, NHTSA, W43–302, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Ms. Proctor’s phone number
is (202) 366–4807. Her fax number is
(202) 493–0073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated June 6, 2013, 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 2015 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 an exemption
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 it will install a passive, electronicimmobilizer antitheft device as standard
equipment on its Subaru [confidential]
vehicle line. The device will control
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
29AUN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 168 / Thursday, August 29, 2013 / Notices
engine ignition, fuel delivery and starter
motor operation.
FUSA stated that its device
immobilization will facilitate and
encourage activation by motorists
because it requires nothing more than
normal removal of the key from the
ignition switch when the vehicle is not
in use. The device will also include a
visible and audible alarm with a panic
mode feature. The alarm system will
monitor the vehicle’s door status and
key identification. Any unauthorized
effort to open a door or enter or move
the vehicle will activate the alarm
system causing the horn to sound and
the hazard lamps to flash. 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 because
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 of this
network. Furthermore, availability of a
correct key will not defeat the electronic
immobilization features of the key/
vehicle antitheft device interface.
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, XV
Crosstrek, 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 6 of
the 50 states listed in its results, and the
District of Columbia, not any Subaru
vehicle appeared in its top 10 list of
stolen vehicles. Review of the theft rates
published by the agency for Subaru
vehicles through the years (2007–2010)
revealed that, while there is some
variation, the theft rates for Subaru
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:34 Aug 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 manufacturers’ devices that
have already been granted an exemption
by NHTSA. In its comparison, FUSA
makes note of Federal Register 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 through 1998). FUSA stated
that it believes its device is likely to be
no less effective than those installed on
lines for which the agency has already
granted full exemption from the partsmarking 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 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 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
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
53499
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 Subaru 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 Part 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 partsmarking 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 Parts 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: August 16, 2013.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013–21125 Filed 8–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
E:\FR\FM\29AUN1.SGM
29AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 168 (Thursday, August 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53498-53499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21125]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A.,
Inc.'s (FUSA) petition for exemption of the Subaru [confidential]
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, Federal
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. FUSA requested confidential
treatment for specific information in its petition. The agency has
addressed FUSA's request for confidential treatment by letter dated
June 28, 2013. However, FUSA has stated that it will provide the agency
with the nameplate of the vehicle prior to its introduction for sale
into commerce in order to allow the agency to notify law enforcement
agencies and the public of a new vehicle line exempted from the parts-
marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2015 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, W43-
302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's
phone number is (202) 366-4807. Her fax number is (202) 493-0073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated June 6, 2013, 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 2015 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 an
exemption 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 it will install a
passive, electronic-immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment
on its Subaru [confidential] vehicle line. The device will control
[[Page 53499]]
engine ignition, fuel delivery and starter motor operation.
FUSA stated that its device immobilization will facilitate and
encourage activation by motorists because it requires nothing more than
normal removal of the key from the ignition switch when the vehicle is
not in use. The device will also include a visible and audible alarm
with a panic mode feature. The alarm system will monitor the vehicle's
door status and key identification. Any unauthorized effort to open a
door or enter or move the vehicle will activate the alarm system
causing the horn to sound and the hazard lamps to flash. 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
because 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
of this network. Furthermore, availability of a correct key will not
defeat the electronic immobilization features of the key/vehicle
antitheft device interface.
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, XV
Crosstrek, 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 6 of the 50
states listed in its results, and the District of Columbia, not any
Subaru vehicle appeared in its top 10 list of stolen vehicles. Review
of the theft rates published by the agency for Subaru vehicles through
the years (2007-2010) 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 manufacturers' devices that have already been granted
an exemption by NHTSA. In its comparison, FUSA makes note of Federal
Register 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 through
1998). FUSA stated that it believes its device is likely to be 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 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 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 Subaru 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 Part
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 Parts 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: August 16, 2013.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-21125 Filed 8-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
