[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19458-19459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8451]


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

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 Cube vehicle line in accordance 
with 49 CFR Part 543, 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 Theft 
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2011 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West 
Building, W43-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is 
(202) 493-0073.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated March 2, 2010, Nissan 
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2011 Nissan Cube 
vehicle line. 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 Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant 
exemptions for one vehicle line 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 for the Cube 
vehicle line. Nissan will install its passive transponder-based, 
electronic immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment on its 
Cube vehicle line beginning with MY 2011. Major components of the 
antitheft device will include a body control module (BCM), an 
immobilizer antenna, security indicator light, electronic immobilizer 
and an engine control module. Nissan will also install an audible and 
visible alarm system on the Cube as standard equipment. Nissan stated 
that activation of the immobilization device occurs when the ignition 
is turned to the ``OFF'' position and all the doors are closed and 
locked through the use of the key or the remote control mechanism. 
Deactivation occurs when all the doors are unlocked with the key or 
remote control mechanism. Nissan's submission is considered a complete 
petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general 
requirements contained in Sec.  543.5 and the specific content 
requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    Nissan stated that the immobilizer device prevents normal operation 
of the vehicle without use of a special key. Nissan further stated that 
incorporation of the theft warning alarm system in the device has been 
designed to protect the belongings within the vehicle and the vehicle 
itself from being stolen when the back door and all of the side doors 
are closed and locked. If any of the doors are unlocked through an 
inside door lock knob or any attempts are made to reconnect the device 
after it has been disconnected, the device will also activate the 
alarm. Nissan stated that upon alarm activation, the head lamps will 
flash and the horn will sound, and the alarm can only be deactivated by 
unlocking the driver's side door with the key or the remote control 
device.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Nissan 
provided information on the reliability and durability of the device. 
Nissan stated that its antitheft device is tested for specific 
parameters to ensure its reliability and durability. Nissan provided a 
detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is 
reliable and durable since the device complied with its specified 
requirements for each test.
    Nissan provided data on the effectiveness of the antitheft device 
installed on its Cube vehicle line in support of the belief that its 
antitheft device will be highly effective in reducing and deterring 
theft. Nissan referenced the National Insurance Crime Bureau's data 
which it stated showed a 70% reduction in theft when comparing the MY 
1997 Ford Mustang (with a standard immobilizer) to the MY 1995 Ford 
Mustang (without an immobilizer). Nissan also referenced the Highway 
Loss Data Institute's data which reported that BMW vehicles experienced 
theft loss reductions resulting in a 73% decrease in relative claim 
frequency and a 78% lower average loss payment per claim for vehicles 
equipped with an immobilizer. Additionally, Nissan stated that theft 
rates for its Pathfinder vehicle experienced reductions from model year 
(MY) 2000 to 2001 with implementation of the engine immobilizer device 
as standard equipment and further significant reductions subsequent to 
MY 2001. Specifically, Nissan noted that the agency's theft rate data 
for MY's 2001 through 2006 reported a theft rate experience for the 
Nissan Pathfinder of 1.9146, 1.8011, 1.1482, 0.8102, 1.7298 and 1.3474, 
respectively.
    In support of its belief that its antitheft device will be as 
effective as compliance with the parts-marking requirements in reducing 
and deterring vehicle theft, Nissan compared its device to other 
similar devices previously granted exemptions by the agency. 
Specifically, it referenced the agency's grant of a full exemption to 
General Motors Corporation for the Buick Riviera, Oldsmobile Aurora (58 
FR 44872, August 25, 1993) and Cadillac Seville vehicle lines (62 FR 
20058, April 24, 1997) from the parts-marking requirements of the theft 
prevention standard. Nissan stated that it believes that since its 
device is functionally equivalent to other comparable manaufacturer's 
devices that have already been granted parts-marking exemptions by the 
agency such as the ``PASS-Key III'' device used on the 1997 Buick Park 
Avenue, the 1998 Cadillac Seville and, the 2000 Cadillac DeVille, 
Pontiac Bonneville, Buick LeSabre and Oldsmobile Aurora lines, the 
reduced theft rates of the ``PASS-Key'' and `PASS-Key II'' equipped 
vehicle lines and the advanced technology of transponder electronic 
security, the Nissan immobilizer device has the potential to achieve 
the level of

[[Page 19459]]

effectiveness equivalent to the ``PASS-Key III device.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Nissan on the device, 
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Cube 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 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 for the Nissan 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 Nissan 
provided about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full 
Nissan's petition for exemption for the Nissan Cube vehicle line from 
the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, beginning with the 
2011 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. 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 anti-theft device on which the 
line's exemption is based. Further, Part 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 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: April 8, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-8451 Filed 4-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P