[Federal Register: March 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 16743-16744]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28mr08-154]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Rogue 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 6, 2007, the agency granted
the petitioner's request for confidential treatment.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2009 model year.
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 phone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202)
493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated October 26, 2007, Nissan
requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2009 Nissan Rogue
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 of its vehicle lines per model year. 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's petition provided a detailed description and diagram of
the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device for the new vehicle line. Although specific details of the
system's operation, design, effectiveness and durability have been
accorded confidential treatment, NHTSA is, for the purposes of this
petition, disclosing the following general information. Nissan will
install its passive, transponder-based immobilizer device as standard
equipment on its Rogue vehicle line beginning with MY 2009. Key
components of the antitheft device are an 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's antitheft device will also have an alarm
feature. Nissan stated that its alarm system is activated by opening
any door without the use of a key. Upon activation of the alarm, the
head lamps will flash and the horn will sound. Nissan also provided its
own test
[[Page 16744]]
information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device.
Nissan based its belief that the device is reliable and durable since
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
Rivera and the Oldsmobile 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
Riviera and the Oldsmobile Aurora vehicles without the immobilizer was
4.8970 and 5.0760, respectively and 1.4288 and 2.0955 after
installation of the immobilizer device. Further review of the agency's
theft data published through the 2005 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 lines for which the
agency has already granted exemptions.
The agency also notes 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 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 Rogue vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, beginning with the 2009
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. 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, 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 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: March 24, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-6493 Filed 3-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P