Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Nissan, 36615-36617 [2011-15562]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Notices
grant licenses, permits and approvals for
the project.
DATES: By this notice, the FHWA is
advising the public of final agency
actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1). A
claim seeking judicial review of the
Federal agency actions of the highway
project will be barred unless the claim
is filed on or before December 19, 2011.
If the Federal law that authorizes
judicial review of a claim provides a
time period of less than 180 days for
filing such claim, then that shorter time
period still applies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Norman R. Stoner, P.E., Division
Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration, 3250 Executive Park
Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62703,
Phone: (217) 492–4600, E-mail address:
Norman.Stoner@fhwa.dot.gov. The
FHWA Illinois Division Office’s normal
business hours are 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.
You may also contact Mr. Joseph E.
Crowe, P.E., Illinois Department of
Transportation, Deputy Director of
Highways, Region Three Engineer, 401
Main Street, Peoria, Illinois 61602,
Phone: (309) 671–3333. The Illinois
Department of Transportation Region
Three’s normal business hours are 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is
hereby given that the FHWA and other
Federal agencies have taken final agency
actions by issuing licenses, permits and
approvals for the following highway
project in the State of Illinois:
Construction of an approximately 60mile, access-controlled, four-lane
expressway on new right-of-way
between the proposed Macomb Bypass
in McDonough County, passing through
Fulton County to Interstate 474 (I–474)
on the west side of Peoria in Peoria
County, Illinois. The actions by the
Federal agencies, and the laws under
which such actions were taken, are
described in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project
approved on March 3, 2011, the Record
of Decision (ROD) issued on June 14,
2011, and other documents in the
FHWA administrative record. The FEIS,
ROD and other documents in the FHWA
administrative record are available by
contacting FHWA or the Illinois
Department of Transportation at the
addresses above. Project information
can be viewed and downloaded from
the project Web site https://
www.dot.il.gov/il336/default.aspx. The
FEIS can also be downloaded from
https://www.dot.il.gov/desenv/env.html,
or hard copies of the FEIS and the ROD
are available upon request.
This notice applies to all Federal
agency decisions as of the issuance date
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Jun 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
of this notice and all laws under which
such actions were taken, including, but
not limited to:
1. General: National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) [42 U.S.C. 4321–
4351] Federal-Aid Highway Act [23
U.S.C. 109].
2. Air: Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7401–
7671(q)].
3. Land: Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of
1966 [49 U.S.C. 303].
4. Wildlife: Endangered Species Act
[16 U.S.C. 1531–1544 and Section
1536]; Migratory Bird Treaty Act [16
U.S.C. 703–712].
5. Historic and Cultural Resources:
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended
[16 U.S.C. 470(f) et seq.]; Archaeological
and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA)
[16 U.S.C. 469–469(c)].
6. Social and Economic: Civil Rights
Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000(d)2000(d)(1)]; Farmland Protection Policy
Act (FPPA) [7 U.S.C. 4201–4209].
7. Wetlands and Water Resources:
Clean Water Act (Section 401 and 404)
[33 U.S.C. 1251–1377]; Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act [16 U.S.C. 1271–1287].
8. Executive Orders: E.O. 11990
Protection of Wetlands; E.O. 11988
Floodplain Management; E.O. 12898
Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income
Populations.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.205, Highway Research,
Planning and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this
program.)
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Issued on: June 14, 2011.
Norman R. Stoner,
Division Administrator, Springfield, Illinois.
[FR Doc. 2011–15576 Filed 6–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–RY–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard;
Nissan
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
This document grants in full
Nissan North America, Inc.’s, (Nissan)
petition for exemption of the Leaf
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36615
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 partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541).
Nissan requested confidential treatment
of specific information in its petition by
letter dated February 4, 2011. The
agency addressed Nissan’s request for
confidential treatment by letter dated
April 27, 2011.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2012 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah Mazyck, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Programs, NHTSA, West Building,
W43–443, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck’s
telephone number is (202) 366–4139.
Her fax number is (202) 493–2990
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated March 2, 2010, Nissan
requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541)
for the MY 2012 Nissan Leaf 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 § 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 Leaf
vehicle line. Nissan will install its
passive transponder-based, electronic
immobilizer antitheft device as standard
equipment on its Leaf vehicle line
beginning with MY 2012. Major
components of the antitheft device will
include an immobilizer control module
(BCM), immobilizer antenna, security
indicator light, electronic immobilizer
and vehicle control module. Nissan will
also install an audible and visible alarm
system on the Leaf 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
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
36616
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Notices
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 § 543.5 and the specific
content requirements of § 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 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.
Nissan stated that the alarm can only be
deactivated by unlocking the driver’s
side door with the key or the remote
control device. Additionally, Nissan has
incorporated a ‘‘Security’’ indicator
light in the vehicle which it states 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 notify
the operator that the immobilizer device
is activated.
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 Leaf 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
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% 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Jun 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
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 partsmarking 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 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
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 Leaf 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 § 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-
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 Leaf 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 Leaf vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of
49 CFR part 541, beginning with the
2012 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 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, 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
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 120 / Wednesday, June 22, 2011 / Notices
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 15, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011–15562 Filed 6–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[Docket No. AB 33 (Sub-No. 298X)]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Union Pacific Railroad Company—
Abandonment Exemption—in Freeborn
County, MN
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP)
filed a verified notice of exemption
under 49 CFR part 1152 subpart F—
Exempt Abandonments to abandon a
line of railroad, known as the Hartland
Subdivision, between milepost 119.65 at
Curtis, the point of connection with the
Albert Lea Subdivision, and the end of
UP ownership at milepost 107.0 near
Hartland, a distance of 12.65 miles, in
Freeborn County, MN. The line
traverses United States Postal Service
Zip Codes 56007 and 56042.
UP has certified that: (1) No local
traffic has moved over the line for at
least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead
traffic on the line; (3) no formal
complaint filed by a user of rail service
on the line (or by a state or local
government entity acting on behalf of
such user) regarding cessation of service
over the line either is pending with the
Surface Transportation Board (Board) or
with any U.S. District Court or has been
decided in favor of complainant within
the 2-year period; and (4) the
requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7(c)
(environmental report), 49 CFR 1105.11
(transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12
(newspaper publication), and 49 CFR
1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental
agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any
employee adversely affected by the
abandonment shall be protected under
Oregon Short Line Railroad—
Abandonment Portion Goshen Branch
Between Firth & Ammon, in Bingham &
Bonneville Counties, Idaho, 360 I.C.C.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:40 Jun 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
91 (1979). To address whether this
condition adequately protects affected
employees, a petition for partial
revocation under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d)
must be filed.
All interested persons should be
aware that, following abandonment of
rail service and salvage of the line, the
line may be suitable for other public
use, including interim trail use.
Provided no formal expression of intent
to file an offer of financial assistance
(OFA) has been received, this
exemption will be effective on July 22,
2011, unless stayed pending
reconsideration. Petitions to stay that do
not involve environmental issues,1
formal expressions of intent to file an
OFA under 49 CFR 1152.27(c)(2),2 and
trail use/rail banking requests under 49
CFR 1152.29 must be filed by July 5,
2011. Petitions to reopen or requests for
public use conditions under 49 CFR
1152.28 must be filed by July 12, 2011,
with the Surface Transportation Board,
395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC
20423–0001.
A copy of any petition filed with the
Board should be sent to UP’s
representative: Mack H. Shumate, Jr.,
Senior General Attorney, 101 North
Wacker Drive, Room 1920, Chicago, IL
60606.
If the verified notice contains false or
misleading information, the exemption
is void ab initio.
UP has filed a combined
environmental and historic report that
addresses the effects, if any, of the
abandonment on the environment and
historic resources. OEA will issue an
environmental assessment (EA) by June
27, 2011. Interested persons may obtain
a copy of the EA by writing to OEA
(Room 1100, Surface Transportation
Board, Washington, DC 20423–0001) or
by calling OEA at (202) 245–0305.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1–800–877–8339. Comments on
environmental and historic preservation
matters must be filed within 15 days
after the EA becomes available to the
public.
Environmental, historic preservation,
public use, or trail use/rail banking
1 The Board will grant a stay if an informed
decision on environmental issues (whether raised
by a party or by the Board’s Office of Environmental
Analysis (OEA) in its independent investigation)
cannot be made before the exemption’s effective
date. See Exemption of Out-of-Serv. Rail Lines, 5
I.C.C.2d 377 (1989). Any request for a stay should
be filed as soon as possible so that the Board may
take appropriate action before the exemption’s
effective date.
2 Each OFA must be accompanied by the filing
fee, which is currently set at $1,500. See 49 CFR
1002.2(f)(25).
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36617
conditions will be imposed, where
appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR
1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of
consummation with the Board to signify
that it has exercised the authority
granted and fully abandoned the line. If
consummation has not been effected by
UP’s filing of a notice of consummation
by June 22, 2012, and there are no legal
or regulatory barriers to consummation,
the authority to abandon will
automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are
available on our Web site at https://
www.stb.dot.gov.
Decided: June 17, 2011.
By the Board.
Rachel D. Campbell,
Director, Office of Proceedings.
Andrea Pope-Matheson,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2011–15594 Filed 6–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture;
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Notice and request for
comments.
ACTION:
The Department of the
Treasury, as part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on proposed
and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the Executive
Office for Asset Forfeiture within the
Department of the Treasury is soliciting
comments concerning the Request for
Transfer of Property Seized/Forfeited by
a Treasury Agency, TD F 92–22.46.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before August 19, 2011
to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to the Department of the Treasury,
Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture,
Attn: Jackie A. Jackson, 1341 G Street,
9th Floor, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Telephone: (202) 622–2755. E-Mail
Address:
Jackie.Jackson_@_Treasury.gov.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the form(s) and instructions
should be directed to the Department of
the Treasury, Executive Office for Asset
E:\FR\FM\22JNN1.SGM
22JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36615-36617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15562]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Leaf 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
February 4, 2011. The agency addressed Nissan's request for
confidential treatment by letter dated April 27, 2011.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2012 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-443, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Mazyck's telephone number is (202) 366-4139. Her fax number is
(202) 493-2990
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 2012 Nissan Leaf
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 Leaf
vehicle line. Nissan will install its passive transponder-based,
electronic immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment on its
Leaf vehicle line beginning with MY 2012. Major components of the
antitheft device will include an immobilizer control module (BCM),
immobilizer antenna, security indicator light, electronic immobilizer
and vehicle control module. Nissan will also install an audible and
visible alarm system on the Leaf 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
[[Page 36616]]
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 the 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. Nissan stated that the alarm can
only be deactivated by unlocking the driver's side door with the key or
the remote control device. Additionally, Nissan has incorporated a
``Security'' indicator light in the vehicle which it states 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 notify the operator
that the immobilizer device is activated.
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 Leaf 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 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% 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 theft rates of 1.9146, 1.8011, 1.1482,
0.8102, 1.7298 and 1.3474 respectively for the Nissan Pathfinder.
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 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 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 Leaf 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 Leaf 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 Leaf vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2012
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
[[Page 36617]]
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 15, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-15562 Filed 6-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
