Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Nissan, 28768-28770 [E9-14253]

Download as PDF dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES 28768 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Notices car owners relative to identification marks on railroad equipment. FRA, railroads, and the public refer to the stenciling to identify freight cars. Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 18,750 hours. Title: Rear-End Marking Devices. OMB Control Number: 2130–0523. Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection. Affected Public: Railroads. Abstract: The collection of information is set forth under 49 CFR Part 221 which requires railroads to furnish a detailed description of the type of marking device to be used for the trailing end of rear cars in order to ensure rear cars meet minimum standards for visibility and display. Railroads are required to furnish a certification that the device has been tested in accordance with current ‘‘Guidelines For Testing of Rear End Marking Devices.’’ Additionally, railroads are required to furnish detailed test records which include the testing organizations, description of tests, number of samples tested, and the test results in order to demonstrate compliance with the performance standard. Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 89 hours. Title: Locomotive Certification (Noise Compliance Regulations). OMB Control Number: 2130–0527. Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection. Affected Public: Railroads. Abstract: Part 210 of title 49 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) pertains to FRA’s noise enforcement procedures which encompass rail yard noise source standards published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA has the authority to set these standards under the Noise Control Act of 1972. The information collected by FRA under Part 210 is necessary to ensure compliance with EPA noise standards for new locomotives. Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 2,767 hours. ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding these information collections to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer. Alternatively, comments may be sent via e-mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget, at the following address: oira_submissions@omb.eop.gov. Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:33 Jun 16, 2009 Jkt 217001 collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department’s estimates of the burden of the proposed information collections; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520. Issued in Washington, DC, on June 11, 2009. Donna M. Alwine, Acting Director, Office of Financial Management, Federal Railroad Administration. [FR Doc. E9–14254 Filed 6–16–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–06–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration FAA Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment; Ann Arbor Municipal Airport, Ann Arbor, MI AGENCY: The Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) and conduct Citizen Advisory Meetings. SUMMARY: The FAA has delegated selected responsibilities for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act to the MDOT as part of the State Block Grant Program authorized under Title 49 U.S.C., Section 47128. This notice is to advise the public pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) that MDOT intends to prepare an EA for the proposed extension of runway 6/24 at the Ann Arbor Municipal Airport. While not required for an EA, the FAA and MDOT are issuing this Notice of Intent to facilitate public involvement. This EA will assess the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed extension of runway 6/24 from 3,500 feet to 4,300 feet. All reasonable alternatives will be considered including a no action alternative. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Molly Lamrouex, Environmental Specialist, Bureau of Aeronautics and PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Freight Services, MDOT, 2700 Port Lansing Road, Lansing, Michigan (517) 335–9866. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EA will include analysis which will be used to evaluate the potential environmental impacts in the study area. During scoping, and upon publication of a draft EA and a final EA, MDOT will be coordinating with federal, state and local agencies, as well as the public, to obtain comments and suggestions regarding the EA for the proposed project. The EA will assess potential impacts and reasonable alternatives including a no action alternative pursuant to NEPA; FAA Order 1050.1E, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts; FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions; and the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations implementing the provisions of NEPA, and other appropriate Agency guidance. Public Input Process: During development of the draft EA, a series of meetings to provide for public input will be held to identify potentially significant issues or impacts related to the proposed action that should be analyzed in the EA. For more information regarding the meetings for public input contact Molly Lamrouex, MDOT Bureau of Aeronautics and Freight Services, (517) 335–9866. Issued in Romulus, Michigan, June 4, 2009. Matthew J. Thys, Manager, Detroit Airports District Office, Great Lakes Region. [FR Doc. E9–14167 Filed 6–16–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 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 an exemption of the Murano 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 E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM 17JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Notices reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the partsmarking 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. The agency will address Nissan’s request for confidential treatment by separate letter. DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2010 model year. dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES 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 phone number is (202) 366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–0073. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 19, 2008, Nissan requested exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2010 Nissan Murano 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 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 new Murano 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 a passive, transponder-based, electronic engine immobilizer device as standard equipment on its Murano line beginning with MY 2010. Nissan stated that the immobilizer system prevents normal operation of the vehicle without the use of a special key. Turning off the ignition key automatically activates the immobilizer device. Features of the antitheft device will include an engine electronic control module (ECM), immobilizer control (BCM), antenna and transponder key. Nissan also stated that its device will not incorporate an audible and visual alarm feature as standard equipment, but the alarms will be incorporated on some of its models. Nissan’s submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:33 Jun 16, 2009 Jkt 217001 requirements contained in 543.5 and the specific content requirements of 543.6. In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Nissan provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Nissan conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Nissan provided its own test information on the reliability and durability of its proposed device and believes that the device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its specific requirements for each test. Additionally, Nissan has incorporated a ‘‘Security’’ indicator light in the vehicle which will provide a signal to inform the vehicle owner as to the status of the immobilizer device. When the ignition key is turned to the ‘‘OFF’’ position, the indicator light begins flashing to reliably notify the operator that the immobilizer device is activated. 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 is technologically superior and at least as effective as 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 significant reduction 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. Specifically, Nissan stated that it believes that its proposed device is technologically superior to devices installed on the Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora vehicle lines, which have already been granted a parts-marking exemption by the agency. Nissan concludes that the data indicates that the immobilizer was effective in contributing to the theft rate reduction for these lines. Nissan stated that it believes the device it proposes to install on the MY 2010 Murano will be at least effective as those systems. By supplemental letter dated May 22, 2009, Nissan provided further support of its belief that its proposed device is at least as effective as other similar devices installed in vehicle lines for which the agency has granted exemptions. Specifically, Nissan referenced information provided by the National Insurance Crime Bureau, which showed a 70% reduction in theft when comparing the MY 1987 Ford Mustang with a standard immobilizer to the MY 1995 Ford Mustang without an immobilizer. Additionally, Nissan PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 28769 referenced data from the Highway Loss Data Institute which showed 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. Nissan also stated that its Nissan Pathfinder vehicles experienced a significant theft rate reduction from MY 2000 to 2001 with the implementation of an engine immobilizer system as standard equipment. Specifically, the theft rate dropped from 3.0363 in MY 2000 to 1.9146 in MY 2001. The MY 2006 theft rate for the Nissan Pathfinder is 1.3474, still significantly below the median theft rate of 3.5826. The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices in other vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted exemptions. Based on the evidence submitted by Nissan, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Murano 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). 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. The agency concludes that the device will provide the four types of performance listed in § 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. For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Nissan’s petition for exemption for the Murano vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, beginning with the 2010 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 E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM 17JNN1 28770 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Notices 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 partsmarking 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, § 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: June 12, 2009. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E9–14253 Filed 6–16–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Guidance for the High-Speed Rail/ Intercity Passenger Rail Grant Program ACTION: Announcement of availability of guidance. On June 17, 2009, FRA intends to issue guidance for the HighSpeed Rail (HSR)/Intercity Passenger Rail (IPR) Grant Program. FRA will post this guidance on its Web site at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/2243. Subsequently, FRA will publish this guidance in the Federal Register. SUMMARY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: further information regarding the guidance document and grant program, please contact the FRA HSR/IPR Program Manager via e-mail: ARRA.Rail@dot.gov, or by mail: Office of Passenger and Freight Programs, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, MS–20, SE., Washington, DC, 20590. The guidance document and additional information about the HSR/IPR Grant Program are available on FRA’s public Web site at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/ content/2243. This Program builds upon the President’s ‘‘Vision for High-Speed Rail in America,’’ which was issued on April 16, 2009, and which describes a collaborative effort among the Federal Government, States, railroads and other key stakeholders to help transform America’s transportation system by investing in an efficient, high-speed passenger rail network of 100 to 600 mile intercity corridors. The guidance document details HSR/IPR Grant Program funding opportunities as well as specific application requirements and procedures. The funds are being made available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and the Department of Transportation Appropriations Acts of fiscal years 2008 and 2009. ARRA requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue interim guidance to applicants within 120 days of enactment. In addition to being available on the FRA’s Web site, the guidance will be published in the Federal Register at a later date. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Issued in Washington, DC, on June 12, 2009. Paul Nissenbaum, Director, Office of Passenger and Freight Programs. [FR Doc. E9–14251 Filed 6–16–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–06–P AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:33 Jun 16, 2009 Jkt 217001 For PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration RTCA Program Management Committee AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of RTCA Program Management Committee meeting. SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the RTCA Program Management Committee. DATES: The meeting will be held July 1, 2009 starting at 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 850, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833–9339; fax (202) 833–9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force meeting. The agenda will include: • Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions). • Review/Approve Summary of April 14, 2009 PMC meeting, RTCA Paper No. 112–09/PMC–718. • Publication Consideration/ Approval: • Final Draft, Change 1 to DO–185B, Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System II (TCAS II), RTCA Paper No. 130–09/PMC–724, prepared by SC–147. • Final Draft, Change 1 to DO–300, Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) for Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System II (TCAS II) Hybrid Surveillance, RTCA Paper No. 131–09/PMC–725, prepared by SC–147. • Integration and Coordination Committee (ICC)—Report. • Action Item Review: • DO–222—Inmarsat AMS(R)S— Discussion—Status—Review/Approve Terms of Reference; • SC–220—Automatic Flight Guidance and Control—Discussion— Review/Approve Terms of Reference; • SC–218—Future ADS–B/TCAS Relationships—Discussion—Status; • SC–217—Terrain and Airport Databases—Discussion—Status— Review/Approve Terms of Reference; • SC–214—Standards for Air Traffic Data Communications Services— Discussion—Status—Review/Approve Terms of Reference; E:\FR\FM\17JNN1.SGM 17JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28768-28770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14253]


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

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 an exemption of the Murano 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

[[Page 28769]]

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. The agency 
will address Nissan's request for confidential treatment by separate 
letter.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2010 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 phone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 
493-0073.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 19, 2008, Nissan 
requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft 
prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2010 Nissan Murano 
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 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 new 
Murano 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 a 
passive, transponder-based, electronic engine immobilizer device as 
standard equipment on its Murano line beginning with MY 2010. Nissan 
stated that the immobilizer system prevents normal operation of the 
vehicle without the use of a special key. Turning off the ignition key 
automatically activates the immobilizer device. Features of the 
antitheft device will include an engine electronic control module 
(ECM), immobilizer control (BCM), antenna and transponder key. Nissan 
also stated that its device will not incorporate an audible and visual 
alarm feature as standard equipment, but the alarms will be 
incorporated on some of its models. 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.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Nissan 
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed 
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Nissan 
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Nissan provided 
its own test information on the reliability and durability of its 
proposed device and believes that the device is reliable and durable 
since the device complied with its specific requirements for each test. 
Additionally, Nissan has incorporated a ``Security'' indicator light in 
the vehicle which will provide a signal to inform the vehicle owner as 
to the status of the immobilizer device. When the ignition key is 
turned to the ``OFF'' position, the indicator light begins flashing to 
reliably notify the operator that the immobilizer device is activated.
    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 is 
technologically superior and at least as effective as 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 significant 
reduction 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. Specifically, Nissan stated that it believes that its 
proposed device is technologically superior to devices installed on the 
Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora vehicle lines, which have already 
been granted a parts-marking exemption by the agency. Nissan concludes 
that the data indicates that the immobilizer was effective in 
contributing to the theft rate reduction for these lines. Nissan stated 
that it believes the device it proposes to install on the MY 2010 
Murano will be at least effective as those systems. By supplemental 
letter dated May 22, 2009, Nissan provided further support of its 
belief that its proposed device is at least as effective as other 
similar devices installed in vehicle lines for which the agency has 
granted exemptions. Specifically, Nissan referenced information 
provided by the National Insurance Crime Bureau, which showed a 70% 
reduction in theft when comparing the MY 1987 Ford Mustang with a 
standard immobilizer to the MY 1995 Ford Mustang without an 
immobilizer. Additionally, Nissan referenced data from the Highway Loss 
Data Institute which showed 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. Nissan also stated that its Nissan Pathfinder vehicles 
experienced a significant theft rate reduction from MY 2000 to 2001 
with the implementation of an engine immobilizer system as standard 
equipment. Specifically, the theft rate dropped from 3.0363 in MY 2000 
to 1.9146 in MY 2001. The MY 2006 theft rate for the Nissan Pathfinder 
is 1.3474, still significantly below the median theft rate of 3.5826.
    The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to 
devices in other vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted 
exemptions. Based on the evidence submitted by Nissan, the agency 
believes that the antitheft device for the Murano 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).
    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.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide the four types of 
performance 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.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full 
Nissan's petition for exemption for the Murano vehicle line from the 
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, beginning with the 2010 
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

[[Page 28770]]

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, 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: June 12, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-14253 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P