
[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


