[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 188-189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9958]


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

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 document grants in full the Nissan North America, Inc.'s 
(Nissan) petition for exemption of the Versa 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). Nissan requested confidential 
treatment for the information and attachments it submitted in support 
of its petition. In a letter dated November 2, 2006, the agency granted 
the petitioner's request for confidential treatment of most aspects of 
its petition.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2008 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of 
International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's phone number is 
(202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated September 29, 2006, 
Nissan requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the 
theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2008 Nissan 
Versa vehicle line. The petition requested an exemption from parts-
marking pursuant to 49 CFR 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard 
equipment for the entire vehicle line.
    Under 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant 
exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines per model year. In its 
petition, Nissan provided a detailed description and diagram of the 
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft 
device fro the new vehicle line. Nissan will install its passive, 
transponder-based immobilizer device as standard equipment on its Versa 
vehicle line beginning with MY 2008. Key components of the antitheft 
device are in engine electronic control module (ECM), a passive 
immobilizer and a transponder key. The immobilizer system prevents 
normal operation of the vehicle without the use of the key. Nissan also 
stated that the system will not incorporated an audible or visible 
alarm. Nissan'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.
    Nissan also provided information on the reliability and durability 
of its proposed device, conducting tests based on its own specified 
standards. In a letter dated November 2, 2006, NHTSA granted Nissan 
confidential treatment for the test information. Nissan provided a list 
of the tests it conducted. Nissan based its belief that the device is 
reliable and durable on the fact that the device complied with the 
specific requirements for each test.
    Nissan compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with other 
devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and 
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-
marking requirements. Nissan stated that its antitheft device will be 
no less effective than those devices in the lines for which NHTSA has 
already granted full exemption from the parts-marking requirements.
    Nissan stated that NHTSA's theft data have shown a decline in theft 
rates for vehicle lines that have been equipped with antitheft devices 
similar to that which Nissan proposes to install on the new line. 
Nissan stated that based on the agency's theft rate data, the Buick 
Riviera and the Oldsmobile Toronado/Aurora vehicles equipped with the 
PASS-Key and PASS-Key II systems experienced a significant reduction in 
theft rates from 1987 to 1996. Nissan concluded that the data indicates 
that the immobilizer was effective in contributing to the theft rate 
reduction for these lines. Nissan stated that based on NHTSA's theft 
data for 1987 through 1996, the average theft rate for the Buick 
Rivieraand the Oldsmobile Toronado/Aurora vehicles without the 
immobilizer was 4.8970 and 5.0760,

[[Page 189]]

respectively and 1.4288 and 2.0955 after installation of the 
immobilizer device. Further review of the agency's theft data published 
through the 2004 MY revealed that, while there is some variation, the 
theft rates for both lines continued to stay below the median theft 
rate of 3.5826. The agency agrees that the device is substantially 
similar to devices in other vehicles for which the agency has already 
granted exemptions.
    For clarification purposes, the agency notes that it does not 
collect theft data. NHTSA publishes theft rates based on data provided 
by the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) of the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation. NHTSA uses NCIC data to calculate theft rates and 
publishes these rates annually in theFederal Register.
    The agency also notes that the device will provide four of the five 
types of performances listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): Promoting 
activation; 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 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 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.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full 
Nissan's petition for exemption for the Versa vehicle line from the 
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, beginning with the 2008 
model year 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 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 Nissan 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 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. Parts 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: December 27, 2006.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 06-9958 Filed 12-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M