[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39480-39481]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19023]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard; Nissan
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 Nissan North 
America, Inc., (Nissan) for an exemption of a high-theft line (whose 
nameplate is confidential) from the parts-marking requirements of the 
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.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms Barbara Gray, Office of Market 
Incentives, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Ms 
Gray's telephone number is (202) 366-1740. Her fax number is (202) 493-
2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a letter dated April 28, 1995, Nissan 
North America, Inc., an American subsidiary of Nissan Motor Company, 
Ltd., a Japanese corporation, requested exemption from the parts-
marking requirements of the theft prevention standard for a motor 
vehicle line. The nameplate of the line and the model year of 
introduction are confidential. The letter 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 line. In a May 8, 1995, telephone 
conversation with NHTSA officials, Nissan clarified the scope of its 
petition.
    Nissan's April 28 letter and information provided in the May 8 
telephone conversation, 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 a letter dated May 24, 1995, to Nissan, the agency 
granted the petitioner's request for confidential treatment of most 
aspects of its petition, including the nameplate of the line and the 
model year of its introduction.
    In its petition, Nissan provided a detailed description and 
diagrams of the identity, design, and location of the components of the 
antitheft device for the new line. This antitheft device includes an 
engine starter interrupt function and an alarm function. The antitheft 
device is activated by removing the ignition key and locking the doors 
with it. The alarm monitors the doors, hood, battery terminals and 
circuitry, and engine starter circuit.
    In order to ensure the reliability and durability of the device, 
Nissan stated that it conducted tests, based on its own specified 
standards. Nissan provided a detailed list of the tests conducted. 
Nissan stated its belief that the device is reliable and durable since 
the device complied with Nissan's specified requirements for each test.
    Nissan compared the device proposed for its new line with devices 
which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring 
motor vehicle theft as would 

[[Page 39481]]
compliance with the parts-marking requirements.
    Nissan has concluded that the antitheft device proposed for its new 
line is no less effective than those devices in the lines for which 
NHTSA has already granted exemptions from the parts-marking 
requirements. Nissan bases its belief on reduced theft rates of the 
300ZX, Maxima, and Infiniti Q45 car lines. Nissan stated that the 300ZX 
has been equipped with an antitheft device since the model designation 
was changed from 280ZX in July 1983. The company asserts that the 
thefts of the 300ZX has dropped significantly for that line, resulting 
in a 51 percent decrease for the MY 1984 theft rates and a 42 percent 
drop for the MY 1985 rates as compared to the MY 1983 rates (thefts per 
1,000 produced). Nissan believes that the reduction of theft rates for 
the 300ZX are primarily attributable to the antitheft systems 
installed. Since the vehicle line that is the subject of this petition 
will be equipped with a similar system as the 300ZX, Nissan expects 
that the antitheft system of the vehicle line for which it now seeks an 
exemption will also be as effective in reducing and deterring theft.
    Additionally, Nissan provided theft experience for the Maxima and 
Q45 vehicle lines. The 1985 through 1994 MY Nissan Maxima has been 
equipped with a device similar to that which is planned for the line 
that is the subject of this petition. The antitheft device has been 
installed on the Maxima since it was revised from the Model 810 Sedan 
in October 1984. Nissan's petition indicated that a 47% decrease in 
theft occurred for the 1985 Maxima as compared to the MY 1984 Model 810 
Sedan. Nissan also stated that the Infiniti Model Q45 theft rates 
indicates that the system's design is effective. Based on the 1990-91 
MY theft data, the Infiniti Model Q45 theft rate is 2.1522 per 1,000 
vehicles, which Nissan asserts is significantly below the median rate 
for those calendar years.
    Based on the evidence submitted by Nissan, the agency believes that 
the antitheft device for the new Nissan 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 standards 
(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 unauthorized entries; 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 Nissan has provided adequate reasons for its 
belief that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This 
conclusion is based on the information Nissan provided about its 
device, much of which is confidential. This confidential information 
included a description of reliability and functional tests conducted by 
Nissan for the antitheft device and its components.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full 
Nissan's petition for exemption for the line from the parts-marking 
requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.
    If Nissan decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should 
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must 
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5 
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Nissan 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 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 agency wishes to minimize the administrative 
burden which 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: July 22, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-19023 Filed 8-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P