[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24852-24854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12342]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard; Isuzu

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This notice grants in full the petition of Isuzu Motors 
America, Inc., (Isuzu) for an exemption of a high-theft line, the Honda 
Acura SLX, from the parts-marking requirements of the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the 
agency has determined that the antitheft device 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.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of 
Planning and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-1740. 
Her fax number is (202) 493-2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a letter dated February 12, 1996, Isuzu 
Motors America, Inc., (Isuzu), on behalf of Isuzu Motors Limited, 
Tokyo, Japan requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of 
the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Isuzu Trooper 
and Honda Acura SLX vehicle

[[Page 24853]]

lines. The petition is 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 line.
    Review of Isuzu's petition disclosed that certain information was 
not provided in its original petition. Consequently, by letter dated 
March 7, 1996, Isuzu was informed of its areas of deficiency. 
Additionally, the March 7 letter informed Isuzu that it must decide 
which of the two lines it would request to petition for exemption from 
the parts-marking requirements for the 1997 model year. Section 
543.5(a) specifically states that ``for each of model years 1997 
through 2000, a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an exemption 
for one additional line of its passenger motor vehicles from the 
requirements of Part 541 of this chapter.'' By letter dated March 27, 
1996, Isuzu chose to request exemption from the parts-marking 
requirements of the theft prevention standard for the Honda Acura SLX 
vehicle line.
    Isuzu's February 12 letter and supplemental letter of March 27, 
together constitute a complete petition, as required by 49 CFR Part 
543.7, in that it met the general requirements contained in Sec. 543.5 
and the specific content requirements of Sec. 543.6.
    In its petition, Isuzu provided a detailed description and diagram 
of the identity, design, and location of the components of the 
antitheft device for the new line. Isuzu will install its antitheft 
device as standard equipment on the MY 1997 Honda Acura SLX vehicle 
line. This antitheft device includes an audible alarm system, a visual 
alarm, a starter-disconnecting device, and a locking device for the 
doors, tailgate and hood. Isuzu stated that the proposed antitheft 
device is automatically activated by the normal locking of the vehicle 
doors. In order to arm the device, the key must be removed from the 
ignition switch, all of the doors and engine hood must be closed and 
the driver's or front passenger's door must be locked with the ignition 
key. Locking either the driver's door or passenger door simultaneously 
locks all other doors. An indicator light within the vehicle informs 
the vehicle operator whether the device is armed, disarmed or alarmed.
    Once armed, switches in the vehicle's doors, key cylinders and hood 
monitor the vehicle for unauthorized entry. Isuzu stated that all 
system components have been placed in inaccessible locations. If the 
device is armed and unauthorized entry is attempted by opening any of 
the doors or tailgate, or any attempt is made to gain access to the 
hood compartment, the antitheft device will be triggered.
    Isuzu stated that triggering the antitheft device will cause the 
headlights to flash and the alarm to sound. Once the alarm has been 
activated, the starter circuit is interrupted and the alarm horn will 
continue to sound for approximately three minutes. The alarm horn will 
shut off automatically, while the starter circuit will remain 
interrupted until the device is properly deactivated.
    The antitheft device is deactivated by unlocking either the 
driver's or front passenger's door with the ignition key. Using the 
correct ignition key to start the vehicle will terminate the starter- 
interrupt mechanism and allow operation of the vehicle.
    In order to ensure the reliability and durability of the device, 
Isuzu stated that it conducted tests based on its own specific 
standards. Isuzu provided a detailed list of the tests it conducted. 
Isuzu stated its belief that the device is reliable and durable since 
the device complied with Isuzu's specified requirements for each test.
    Isuzu compared the antitheft device proposed for the Acura SLX with 
devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and 
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the partsmarking 
requirements. Isuzu has concluded that the antitheft device proposed 
for the Acura SLX line is no less effective than those antitheft 
devices in the lines for which NHTSA has already granted exemptions 
from the parts-marking requirements. Isuzu stated that the proposed 
device is similar to the device installed on its MYs 1987 through 1989 
Impulse car line. The agency granted Isuzu a full exemption from the 
parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard for the 
Impulse car line on July 9, 1986 (51 FR 24778). Since the Isuzu Impulse 
car line is equipped with a similar system to that proposed for 
installation on the Acura SLX line, Isuzu believes that the proposed 
device will also be as effective in reducing and deterring theft. Isuzu 
stated that the antitheft device has been used as optional equipment on 
the Isuzu Trooper since MY 1992. According to Isuzu, the Trooper 
vehicle line was fully restyled and redesigned in MY 1992. Isuzu stated 
that 1990/1991 theft rate for the Trooper was 3.9889, and dropped to 
1.4121 in MY 1992, which it believes suggests lower theft rates for 
later model years. Additionally, Isuzu stated that its antitheft device 
is similar in operation to those installed on the Mazda RX-7 and Toyota 
Supra car lines. Isuzu also contends that theft data have shown a 
decrease in theft rates for other manufacturers' car lines when 
antitheft devices have been installed as standard equipment. In support 
of its contention, Isuzu stated that the theft rate for the Mazda RX-7 
dropped from 12.11 (thefts per thousand vehicles produced) in MY 1984 
to a theft rate of 6.09 in MY 1989. Theft rates for the Toyota Supra 
dropped from 16.3 in 1983 to 5.6 in 1987. Theft rates for the Audi 5000 
fell from 2.51 in 1985 to 1.26 in 1988.
    Based on evidence submitted by Isuzu, the agency believes that the 
antitheft device for the Honda Acura SLX 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).
    The agency believes that the device will provide the types of 
performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation, 
attracting attention to the efforts of an unauthorized person to enter 
or move the 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.
    As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR Part 543.6(a) (4) and 
(5), the agency finds that Isuzu has provided adequate reasons for its 
belief that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This 
conclusion is based on the information Isuzu provided about its 
antitheft device. For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants 
in full Isuzu's petition for exemption for the Honda Acura SLX vehicle 
line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.
    If Isuzu decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must 
formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, mark the line according to 
the requirements of 49 CFR Parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major 
component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Isuzu wishes to modify the device on which the 
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 antitheft 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

[[Page 24854]]

agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden with 
Sec. 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. 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: May 13, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-12342 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P