Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Nissan, 28768-28770 [E9-14253]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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:
https://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: https://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 https://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
