[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15843-15845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6411]


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

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 Nissan North America, Inc.'s 
(Nissan) petition for exemption of the Juke 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). Nissan requested confidential 
treatment of specific information in its petition by letter dated 
November 29, 2011. The agency addressed Nissan's request for 
confidential treatment by letter dated December 29, 2011.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2013 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West 
Building, W43-439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
Ms. Ballard's telephone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is 
(202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated November 29, 2011, 
Nissan requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of 
the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the MY 2013 Nissan 
Juke 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 an 
exemption 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 Juke vehicle 
line. Nissan will install a passive transponder-based, electronic 
immobilizer, antitheft device as standard equipment on its Juke vehicle 
line beginning with MY 2013. Major components of the antitheft device 
will include an engine control module, immobilizer/body control module 
(BCM), immobilizer antenna and a security indicator light. Nissan will 
also install an audible and visible alarm system on the Juke as 
standard equipment. Nissan stated that activation of the immobilization 
device occurs automatically when the ignition key 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

[[Page 15844]]

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 the use of a special key. Nissan further stated 
that installation of the theft 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. The alarm system is activated when any attempt 
is made to open any of the vehicle doors without the use of the key or 
remote control mechanism. Nissan stated that when the alarm is 
activated, the head lamps will flash and the horn will sound. Nissan 
stated that deactivation of the alarm can only occur when the driver's 
side door is unlocked 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. Additionally, 
Nissan stated that the immobilizer device satisfies the requirements of 
European Directive ECE R116, including tamper resistance. 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 Juke 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 percent reduction in theft when comparing 
MY 1997 Ford Mustangs (with a standard immobilizer) to MY 1995 Ford 
Mustangs (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 percent decrease in relative 
claim frequency and a 78 percent 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 theft 
rates of 1.9146, 1.8011, 1.1482, 0.8102, 1.7298 and 1.3474 respectively 
for the Nissan Pathfinder after installation of an immobilizer device.
    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 and 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 
manufacturers' 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 Nissan immobilizer device has the potential to 
achieve the level of 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 Juke 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 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 Juke 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 Juke vehicle line from the 
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2013 
model year vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-
1, identifies those lines that are exempt from the Theft Prevention 
Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 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 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. Sec.  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 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.


[[Page 15845]]


    Issued on: March 9, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-6411 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P