Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Nissan, 36615-36617 [2011-15562]

Download as PDF 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 http:// www.dot.il.gov/il336/default.aspx. The FEIS can also be downloaded from http://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 http:// 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