Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc., 57650-57652 [2017-26230]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57650-57652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26230]


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

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard; Fuji Heavy Industries U.S.A., Inc.

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. 
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 Ascent vehicle line 
in accordance with Exemption from Vehicle 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 Federal Motor 
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. (Theft Prevention Standard). FUSA 
also requested confidential treatment for specific information in its 
petition. Therefore, no confidential information provided for purposes 
of this notice has been disclosed.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2019 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West 
Building, W43-439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
Ms. Ballard's phone number is 202-366-5222. Her fax number is 202-493-
2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated July 10, 2017, FUSA 
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard for its Subaru Ascent vehicle line beginning with 
MY 2019. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking 
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard 
equipment for the entire vehicle line.
    Under 49 CFR part 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 its Subaru Ascent vehicle line. FUSA stated that its MY 2019 
Subaru Ascent vehicle line will be installed with an immobilizer device 
as standard equipment on the entire vehicle line. FUSA stated that it 
will also offer an audible and visual alarm with a panic mode feature 
as standard equipment on its Ascent vehicle line. FUSA stated that its 
alarm system will monitor the vehicle's door status, key identification 
and any unauthorized effort to open a door, enter, or move the vehicle. 
FUSA further stated that any of the unauthorized efforts will activate 
the alarm system causing the vehicle's horn to sound and the hazard 
lamps to flash.
    FUSA's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 
49 CFR

[[Page 57651]]

543.7 in that it meets the general requirements contained in 49 CFR 
543.5 and the specific content requirements of 49 CFR 543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 49 CFR 543.6, 
FUSA provided information on the reliability and durability of the 
proposed device. FUSA conducted tests based on its own specified 
standards and 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 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. FUSA further stated that its 
immobilizer device prevents the engine from unauthorized operation such 
as ``hot-wiring''. FUSA further stated that the engine will not start 
or run unless the registered ID code in the transponder key or ignition 
key coincides with the code registered in the immobilizer module or the 
immobilizer ECU installed on the vehicle.
    System operation occurs when the ignition key is put into the key 
cylinder and battery power is supplied to the immobilizer module. When 
the battery power is supplied to the immobilizer module, the 
immobilizer module sends and electromagnetic signal to the transponder 
through the key ring antenna to supply power and send data to the 
transponder by electromagnetic coupling. The transponder then sends the 
ID code to the immobilizer module. The ID code sent from the 
transponder and the meter ECU compares codes with the code registered 
in the immobilizer ECU. If the codes do not match or are not received, 
the engine ECU prohibits engine starting. If the codes do match, the 
engine ECU will allow engine fuel delivery, ignition and starting/
operation of the vehicle. FUSA stated that integration of the antitheft 
device immobilization with the overall vehicle CAN BUS electrical 
architecture and control modules makes it nearly impossible for the 
immobilization features to be disabled or bypassed without disabling 
all other body and engine controls. Therefore, FUSA stated that the 
availability of a correct key will not defeat the electronic 
immobilization features of the vehicle's antitheft device interface.
    In support of its petition, FUSA 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 note 
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 mentioned its reliance on theft rates 
published by the agency showing 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. FUSA also referenced information on the recent 
state-by-state theft results from the National Insurance Crime Bureau 
reporting 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. FUSA also stated that it believes that 
historically, NHTSA has seen a decreasing trend in theft rates for 
vehicles when electronic immobilization has been added to its alarm 
systems.
    FUSA stated that it presently has immobilizer devices on all of its 
product lines (Forester, Impreza, XV Crosstrek, Legacy, Outback and WRX 
models) and it believes the data shows immobilization has had a 
demonstrable effect in lowering its theft rates. The theft rate data 
reported in Federal Register notices published by the agency show theft 
rates for the Forester, 0.4252, Impreza, 0.5282, Crosstrek, 0.4395, 
Legacy, 0.6155 and Outback, 0.3825 vehicle lines, using an average of 3 
MYs data (2012-2014) is significantly lower than the median theft of 
3.5826 established by the agency.
    Based on the evidence submitted by FUSA, the agency believes that 
the antitheft device for the Subaru Ascent 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). 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.
    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 49 
CFR part 541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based 
upon supporting 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 49 CFR part 541. 
The agency finds that FUSA has provided adequate reasons for its belief 
that the antitheft device for the Subaru Ascent 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). This conclusion is based on the information 
FUSA provided about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full FUSA's 
petition for exemption for its Subaru Ascent vehicle line from the 
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with its MY 
2019 Subaru Ascent vehicles. 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 49 
CFR 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. 49 CFR 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

[[Page 57652]]

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.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
part 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-26230 Filed 12-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P