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