Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Nissan North America, Inc., 28375-28376 [2017-12881]

Download as PDF asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 21, 2017 / Notices 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. Mitsubishi stated that an official nameplate for the vehicle has not yet been determined. However, as a condition to the formal granting of Mitsubishi’s petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541 for the MY 2018 [Confidential] vehicle line, the agency fully expects Mitsubishi to notify the agency of the nameplate for the vehicle line prior to its introduction into the United States commerce for sale. If Mitsubishi 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 as required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts). NHTSA notes that if Mitsubishi 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 antitheft device on which the line’s exemption is based. Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions ‘‘to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.’’ The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that part 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. The agency did not intend part 543 to require the submission of a modification petition for every change to the components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before preparing and submitting a petition to modify. Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95. Raymond R. Posten, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 2017–12880 Filed 6–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:12 Jun 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 28375 location of the components of the antitheft device for the (confidential) National Highway Traffic Safety vehicle line. Nissan stated that the MY Administration 2018 (confidential) vehicle line will be installed with a passive, electronic Petition for Exemption From the engine immobilizer antitheft device as Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention standard equipment. Key components of Standard; Nissan North America, Inc. the antitheft device will include an engine immobilizer, engine control AGENCY: National Highway Traffic module (ECM), security indicator light, Safety Administration (NHTSA), immobilizer antenna, Key FOB, and a Department of Transportation (DOT). specially-designed key with a ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. microchip. Nissan will not provide any visible or audible indication of SUMMARY: This document grants in full unauthorized vehicle entry on the the Nissan North America, Inc.’s, (confidential) vehicle line. (Nissan) petition for exemption of the Nissan’s submission is considered a (confidential) vehicle line in accordance complete petition as required by 49 CFR with the Exemption from the Theft 543.7, in that it meets the general Prevention Standard. This petition is requirements contained in § 543.5 and granted because the agency has the specific content requirements of determined that the antitheft device to § 543.6. be placed on the line as standard In addressing the specific content equipment is likely to be as effective in requirements of 543.6, Nissan provided reducing and deterring motor vehicle information on the reliability and theft as compliance with the partsdurability of its proposed device. Nissan marking requirements of the Federal stated that its antitheft device is tested Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention for specific parameters to ensure its Standard (Theft Prevention Standard). reliability and durability. Nissan Nissan also requested confidential provided a detailed list of the tests treatment for specific information in its conducted and believes that the device petition. While official notification is reliable and durable since the device granting or denying its request for confidential treatment will be addressed complied with its specified requirements for each test. Nissan by separate letter, no confidential further stated that its immobilizer information provided for purposes of device satisfies the European Directive this document has been disclosed. ECE R116, including tamper resistance. DATES: The exemption granted by this Nissan also stated that all control units notice is effective beginning with the for the device are located inside the 2018 model year (MY). vehicle, providing further protection FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. from unauthorized accessibility of the Carlita Ballard, Office of International device from outside the vehicle. Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Nissan stated that activation of its Programs, National Highway Traffic immobilizer device occurs Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey automatically when the ignition switch Avenue SE., West Building, Room W43– is turned to the ‘‘OFF’’ position which 439, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. then causes the security indicator light Ballard’s telephone phone number is to flash notifying the operator that the (202) 366–5222. Her fax number is (202) immobilizer device is activated. Nissan 493–2990. stated that the immobilizer device SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a prevents normal operation of the vehicle without using a specially-designed petition dated March 31, 2017, Nissan microchip key with a pre-registered requested an exemption from the parts‘‘Key-ID’’. Nissan also stated that, when marking requirements of the Theft the brake and clutch is on and the key Prevention Standard for the FOB is near the engine start switch, the (confidential) vehicle line beginning Key-ID is scanned via the immobilizer with MY 2018. The petition requested antenna. The microchip in the key an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption transmits the Key-ID to the BCM, from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, beginning an encrypted communication process. If the Key-ID and encrypted based on the installation of an antitheft code are correct, the ECM will allow the device as standard equipment for the engine to keep running and the driver entire vehicle line. Under 49 CFR part 543.5(a), a to operate the vehicle. If the Key-ID and manufacturer may petition NHTSA to encrypted code are not correct, the ECM grant an exemption for one vehicle line will cause the engine to shut down. Nissan stated that the proposed per model year. In its petition, Nissan device is functionally equivalent to the provided a detailed description and antitheft device installed on the MY diagram of the identity, design, and DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1 asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES 28376 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 21, 2017 / Notices 2011 Nissan Cube vehicle line which was granted a parts-marking exemption by the agency on April 14, 2010 (75 FR 19458). The agency notes that the theft rates for the Nissan Cube using an average of 3 MYs data (2012–2014), are 0.3322, 0.6471 and 2.0373 respectively. Nissan provided data on the effectiveness of the antitheft device installed on its (confidential) 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. Nissan compared its device to other similar devices previously granted exemptions by the agency. Specifically, it referenced the agency’s grant of full exemptions to General Motors Corporation for its Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora vehicle lines (58 FR 44872, August 25, 1993) and its Cadillac Seville vehicle line (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 manufacturer’s devices that have already been granted parts-marking exemptions by the agency, along with the evidence of reduced theft rates for vehicle lines equipped with similar devices and advanced technology of transponder electronic security, the Nissan immobilizer device will have the potential to achieve the level of effectiveness equivalent to those vehicles already exempted by the agency. The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices installed on other vehicle lines for VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:12 Jun 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 which the agency has already granted exemptions Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Nissan, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the (confidential) 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 four of the five types of performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device. 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 (confidential) 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 Nissan (confidential) vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. 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. As a condition to the formal granting of Nissan’s petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541 for the MY 2018 (confidential) vehicle line, the agency fully expects Nissan to notify the agency of the nameplate for the vehicle PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 line prior to its introduction into the United States commerce for sale. 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 antitheft 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 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. Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95. Raymond R. Posten, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. 2017–12881 Filed 6–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; BMW of North America, LLC National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. AGENCY: This document grants in full the BMW of North America, LLC’s (BMW) petition for exemption of the X2 vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR 543, Exemption from the Theft SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28375-28376]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12881]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard; Nissan North America, Inc.

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Nissan North America, Inc.'s, 
(Nissan) petition for exemption of the (confidential) vehicle line in 
accordance with the Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard. This 
petition is granted because the agency has determined that the 
antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard equipment is 
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft 
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (Theft Prevention Standard). Nissan 
also requested confidential treatment for specific information in its 
petition. While official notification granting or denying its request 
for confidential treatment will be addressed by separate letter, no 
confidential information provided for purposes of this document has 
been disclosed.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2018 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West 
Building, Room W43-439, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone 
phone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated March 31, 2017, Nissan 
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard for the (confidential) vehicle line beginning with 
MY 2018. 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 49 CFR part 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 (confidential) vehicle line. Nissan stated that the MY 
2018 (confidential) vehicle line will be installed with a passive, 
electronic engine immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment. 
Key components of the antitheft device will include an engine 
immobilizer, engine control module (ECM), security indicator light, 
immobilizer antenna, Key FOB, and a specially-designed key with a 
microchip. Nissan will not provide any visible or audible indication of 
unauthorized vehicle entry on the (confidential) vehicle line.
    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.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Nissan 
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed 
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 further stated that its immobilizer 
device satisfies the European Directive ECE R116, including tamper 
resistance. Nissan also stated that all control units for the device 
are located inside the vehicle, providing further protection from 
unauthorized accessibility of the device from outside the vehicle.
    Nissan stated that activation of its immobilizer device occurs 
automatically when the ignition switch is turned to the ``OFF'' 
position which then causes the security indicator light to flash 
notifying the operator that the immobilizer device is activated. Nissan 
stated that the immobilizer device prevents normal operation of the 
vehicle without using a specially-designed microchip key with a pre-
registered ``Key-ID''. Nissan also stated that, when the brake and 
clutch is on and the key FOB is near the engine start switch, the Key-
ID is scanned via the immobilizer antenna. The microchip in the key 
transmits the Key-ID to the BCM, beginning an encrypted communication 
process. If the Key-ID and encrypted code are correct, the ECM will 
allow the engine to keep running and the driver to operate the vehicle. 
If the Key-ID and encrypted code are not correct, the ECM will cause 
the engine to shut down.
    Nissan stated that the proposed device is functionally equivalent 
to the antitheft device installed on the MY

[[Page 28376]]

2011 Nissan Cube vehicle line which was granted a parts-marking 
exemption by the agency on April 14, 2010 (75 FR 19458). The agency 
notes that the theft rates for the Nissan Cube using an average of 3 
MYs data (2012-2014), are 0.3322, 0.6471 and 2.0373 respectively.
    Nissan provided data on the effectiveness of the antitheft device 
installed on its (confidential) 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.
    Nissan compared its device to other similar devices previously 
granted exemptions by the agency. Specifically, it referenced the 
agency's grant of full exemptions to General Motors Corporation for its 
Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora vehicle lines (58 FR 44872, August 
25, 1993) and its Cadillac Seville vehicle line (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 manufacturer's devices that 
have already been granted parts-marking exemptions by the agency, along 
with the evidence of reduced theft rates for vehicle lines equipped 
with similar devices and advanced technology of transponder electronic 
security, the Nissan immobilizer device will have the potential to 
achieve the level of effectiveness equivalent to those vehicles already 
exempted by the agency. The agency agrees that the device is 
substantially similar to devices installed on other vehicle lines for 
which the agency has already granted exemptions
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Nissan, the agency 
believes that the antitheft device for the (confidential) 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 four of the five types of performance listed in 
Sec.  543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; preventing defeat or 
circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing 
operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 
reliability and durability of the device.
    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 (confidential) 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 Nissan (confidential) vehicle 
line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. 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. As a condition to the 
formal granting of Nissan's petition for exemption from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541 for the MY 2018 (confidential) 
vehicle line, the agency fully expects Nissan to notify the agency of 
the nameplate for the vehicle line prior to its introduction into the 
United States commerce for sale.
    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 antitheft 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 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.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
part 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-12881 Filed 6-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P