Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Nissan, 15843-15845 [2012-6411]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15843
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Notices
total annual enplanements at Aspen/
Pitkin County Airport.
Brief Description of Projects Approved
for Collection and Use
Acquire snow removal equipment
(plow).
Extend runway 15/33.
Construct connector taxiway.
Construct south deice pad apron.
Improve runway safety area.
PFC application and administration
fees.
Decision Date: February 17, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jesse Lyman, Denver Airports District
Office, (303) 342–1262.
Public Agency: City of Klamath Falls,
Oregon.
Application Number: 12–03–C–00–
LMT.
Application Type: Impose and use a
PFC.
PFC Level: $4.50.
Total PFC Revenue Approved in This
Decision: $987,785.
Earliest Charge Effective Date: April 1,
2012.
Estimated Charge Expiration Date:
October 1, 2023.
Class of Air Carriers Not Required To
Collect PFCs: None.
Brief Description of Projects Approved
for Collection and Use
Terminal enhancements.
Security enhancements.
Construct north end perimeter road.
Conduct miscellaneous studies.
Rehabilitate runway 14/32.
Rehabilitate runway 7/25.
Environmental mitigation.
Acquire snow removal equipment.
PFC administration costs.
Decision Date: February 27, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Trang Tran, Seattle Airports District
Office, (425) 227–1662.
AMENDMENTS TO PFC APPROVALS
Amendment
approved date
Amendment No., City, State
03–06–C–01–ACV; Arcata, CA. ..........................................
05–07–C–01–ACV; Arcata, CA. ..........................................
09–03–C–02–PGV; Greenville, NC. ....................................
03–02–C–01–MCW; Mason City, IA. ...................................
08–07–C–01–MOD; Modesto, CA. ......................................
99–02–C–07–MCI; Kansas City, MO. .................................
09–09–C–02–BUR; Burbank, CA. .......................................
09–06–C–01–PUW; Pullman, WA. ......................................
10–11–C–02–ATL; Atlanta, GA. ..........................................
94–01–C–04–RIC; Richmond, VA. ......................................
01–04–C–04–RIC; Richmond, VA. ......................................
Issued in Washington, DC on March 8,
2012.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger
Faculty Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 2012–6315 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
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 Juke
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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:10 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
$578,450
392,265
596,985
379,500
395,134
7,375,439
21,965,000
255,998
422,480,178
11,847,867
3,401,433
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 November 29, 2011. The
agency addressed Nissan’s request for
confidential treatment by letter dated
December 29, 2011.
The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2013 model year (MY).
DATES:
Ms.
Carlita Ballard, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Programs, NHTSA, West Building,
W43–439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard’s
telephone number is (202) 366–5222.
Her fax number is (202) 493–2990.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Petition for Exemption From the
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard;
Nissan
SUMMARY:
2/01/12
2/02/12
2/03/12
2/08/12
2/10/12
2/14/12
2/16/12
2/17/12
2/21/12
2/23/12
2/23/12
Original
approved net
PFC revenue
In a
petition dated November 29, 2011,
Nissan requested an exemption from the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541)
for the MY 2013 Nissan Juke 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
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Amended
approved net
PFC revenue
$523,597
336,981
396,985
303,061
337,634
6,741,254
24,965,000
271,077
347,373,302
11,846,842
2,647,868
Original
estimated
charge exp.
date
03/01/05
10/01/05
10/01/11
02/01/12
12/01/15
05/01/11
05/01/15
05/01/11
01/01/23
05/01/98
11/01/16
Amended
estimated
charge exp.
date
03/01/05
10/01/05
10/01/11
02/01/12
04/01/12
04/01/11
09/01/15
12/01/10
07/01/22
05/01/98
114/01/16
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 Juke
vehicle line. Nissan will install a
passive transponder-based, electronic
immobilizer, antitheft device as
standard equipment on its Juke vehicle
line beginning with MY 2013. Major
components of the antitheft device will
include an engine control module,
immobilizer/body control module
(BCM), immobilizer antenna and a
security indicator light. Nissan will also
install an audible and visible alarm
system on the Juke as standard
equipment. Nissan stated that activation
of the immobilization device occurs
automatically when the ignition key 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 control mechanism. Nissan’s
submission is considered a complete
petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in
that it meets the general requirements
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
15844
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Notices
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 installation of
the theft 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. The alarm system is activated
when any attempt is made to open any
of the vehicle doors without the use of
the key or remote control mechanism.
Nissan stated that when the alarm is
activated, the head lamps will flash and
the horn will sound. Nissan stated that
deactivation of the alarm can only occur
when the driver’s side door is unlocked
with the key or the remote control
device.
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. Additionally,
Nissan stated that the immobilizer
device satisfies the requirements of
European Directive ECE R116, including
tamper resistance. 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 Juke 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 percent 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 percent decrease in
relative claim frequency and a 78
percent 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:10 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
and 1.3474 respectively for the Nissan
Pathfinder after installation of an
immobilizer device.
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 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 Juke 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). 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 partsmarking 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 Juke vehicle line is likely
to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 Juke vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of
49 CFR part 541, beginning with the
2013 model year vehicles. The agency
notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix
A–1, identifies those lines that are
exempt from the Theft Prevention
Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR
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 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. § 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 § 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 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.
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 52 / Friday, March 16, 2012 / Notices
Issued on: March 9, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012–6411 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
March 13, 2012.
The Department of the Treasury will
submit the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and clearance in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104–13, on or after the
date of publication of this notice.
DATES: Comments should be received on
or before April 16, 2012 to be assured
of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding
the burden estimate, or any other aspect
of the information collection, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to
the (1) Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Attention:
Desk Officer for Treasury, New
Executive Office Building, Room 10235,
Washington, DC 20503, or email at
OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV and
to the (2) Treasury PRA Clearance
Officer, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Suite 11020, Washington, DC 20220, or
on-line at www.PRAComment.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Copies of the submission(s) may be
obtained by calling (202) 927–5331,
email at PRA@treasury.gov, or the entire
information collection request may be
found at www.reginfo.gov.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Alcohol and Tabacco Tax and Trade
Bureau (TTB)
OMB Number: 1513–0002.
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Title: Personnel Questionnaire—
Alcohol and Tobacco Products.
Form: TTB F 5000.9.
Abstract: The information listed on
TTB F 5000.9, Personnel
Questionnaire—Alcohol and Tobacco
Products, enables TTB to determine
whether or not an applicant for an
alcohol or tobacco permit meets the
minimum qualifications. The form
identifies the individual, residence,
business background, financial sources
for the business and criminal record.
Affected Public: Private Sector:
Businesses or other for-profits.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 9,950.
OMB Number: 1513–0026.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:10 Mar 15, 2012
Jkt 226001
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a currently approved
collection.
Title: Claim for Drawback of Tax on
Tobacco Products, Cigarette Papers, and
Cigarette Tubes.
Form: TTB F 5620.7.
Abstract: TTB F 5620.7 documents
taxpaid tobacco products, cigarette
papers, and cigarette tubes that were
exported to a foreign country, Puerto
Rico, or Virgin Islands. This form is
used by taxpayers to claim drawback for
tax paid on exported products.
Affected Public: Private Sector:
Businesses or other for-profits.
Estimated Total Burden Hours: 144.
OMB Number: 1513–0042.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a currently approved
collection.
Title: Drawback on Distilled Spirits
Exported.
Form: TTB F 5110.30.
Abstract: TTB F 5110.30 is used by
persons who export distilled spirits and
wish to claim a drawback of taxes
already paid in the United States (U.S.).
The form describes the claimant, spirits
for tax purposes, amount of tax to be
refunded, and a certification by the U.S.
Government agent attesting to
exportation.
Affected Public: Private Sector:
Businesses or other for-profits.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
10,000.
OMB Number: 1513–0112.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of a currently approved
collection.
Title: Special (occupational) Tax
Registration and Return.
Form: TTB F 5630.5a, 5630.5d,
5630.5t.
Abstract: On August 10, 2005,
President Bush signed into law the
‘‘Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users,’’ Public Law 109–59. Section
11125 of that Act permanently repealed,
effective July 1, 2008, the special
(occupational) taxes on all taxpayers
except for Tobacco Products
Manufacturers (TPM), Cigarette Papers
and Tubes Manufacturers (CPTM), and
TP Export Warehouse Proprietors
(TPEWP). TTB F 5630.5t is used for
registration and tax payment for the
TPM, CPTM, and TPEWP; TTB F
5630.5a is a tax return/registration for
persons already in business who failed
to register or pay on or before 6/30/
2008; and TTB F 5630.5d is used to
register Alcohol Dealers on and after
7/1/08.
Affected Public: Individuals and
households; Private Sector: Businesses
PO 00000
Frm 00129
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15845
or other for-profits and not-for-profit
institutions.
Estimated Total Burden Hours:
14,583.
Dawn D. Wolfgang,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012–6396 Filed 3–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–31–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
State Small Business Credit Initiative
(SSBCI) National Standards For
Compliance
AGENCY:
Department of the Treasury.
Notice of Document
Availability.
ACTION:
This Notice announces the
availability of ‘‘SSBCI National
Standards: Compliance and Oversight
for Participating States’’.
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Effective Date: May 15, 2012
Copies of the document are
available at the SSBCI Web site at www.
treasury.gov/ssbci.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information
should be directed to Deputy Director,
SSBCI, Department of the Treasury,
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20220.
The
‘‘SSBCI National Standards: Compliance
and Oversight for Participating States’’
are applicable to all states, territories,
the District of Columbia, and
municipalities that were approved by
Treasury to participate in the SSBCI
(‘‘Participating States’’). The list of
Participating States is available here on
the SSBCI Web site at www.treasury.
gov/ssbci. These national standards
provide Participating States with a
recommended framework for
identifying, monitoring, and managing
SSBCI compliance and oversight risks.
These national standards for compliance
also provide guidance on mitigating
specific risks that SSBCI believes are
high-potential for all approved state
programs. For each risk, SSBCI
recommends specific best practices and
mitigation techniques for Participating
States that will supplement and inform
the oversight duties imposed on
Participating States by the Small
Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–
240) (the ‘‘Act’’), the Allocation
Agreement, and the SSBCI Policy
Guidelines. This document is published
under the authority in Section
3009(a)(2) of the Act, which requires the
Secretary of the Treasury to establish
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\16MRN1.SGM
16MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 52 (Friday, March 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15843-15845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6411]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Juke 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
November 29, 2011. The agency addressed Nissan's request for
confidential treatment by letter dated December 29, 2011.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2013 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Ballard's telephone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is
(202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated November 29, 2011,
Nissan requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of
the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the MY 2013 Nissan
Juke 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 Juke vehicle
line. Nissan will install a passive transponder-based, electronic
immobilizer, antitheft device as standard equipment on its Juke vehicle
line beginning with MY 2013. Major components of the antitheft device
will include an engine control module, immobilizer/body control module
(BCM), immobilizer antenna and a security indicator light. Nissan will
also install an audible and visible alarm system on the Juke as
standard equipment. Nissan stated that activation of the immobilization
device occurs automatically when the ignition key 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 control
mechanism. Nissan's submission is considered a complete petition as
required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements
[[Page 15844]]
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 installation of the theft 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. The alarm system is activated when any attempt
is made to open any of the vehicle doors without the use of the key or
remote control mechanism. Nissan stated that when the alarm is
activated, the head lamps will flash and the horn will sound. Nissan
stated that deactivation of the alarm can only occur when the driver's
side door is unlocked with the key or the remote control device.
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. Additionally,
Nissan stated that the immobilizer device satisfies the requirements of
European Directive ECE R116, including tamper resistance. 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 Juke 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 percent 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 percent decrease in relative
claim frequency and a 78 percent 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 after installation of an immobilizer device.
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 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 Juke 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). 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 Juke 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 Juke vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2013
model year vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-
1, identifies those lines that are exempt from the Theft Prevention
Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 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 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. Sec. 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 Sec.
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 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.
[[Page 15845]]
Issued on: March 9, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-6411 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
