Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Nissan North America, Inc., 48744-48746 [2017-22658]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
48744
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices
‘‘ON’’ ignition status to any other status.
The certification ECU then performs the
calculation for the immobilizer and the
immobilizer signals the ECM to activate
the device. Toyota also stated that key
verification is also performed after the
driver pushes the engine switch.
Specifically, after the driver pushes the
engine switch, the certification ECU and
steering lock ECU receive confirmation
of a valid key, and the certification ECU
allows the ECM to start the engine.
Toyota also stated that in the ‘‘smart
entry and start system’’ installed
vehicle, a security indicator notifies the
users and others inside and outside the
vehicle with the status of the
immobilizer. Toyota further explained
that the security indicator flashes
continuously when the immobilizer is
activated, and turns off when it is
deactivated.
Toyota stated that the proposed
antitheft device has also been installed
as standard equipment on its Avalon
vehicle line beginning with its MY 2015
vehicles. The theft rate for the MY 2015
Avalon vehicle line is not available.
However, Toyota compared its proposed
device to other devices NHTSA has
determined to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as would compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. Toyota
compared its proposed device to that
which has been installed on the Nissan
Altima and granted a parts-marking
exemption from 49 CFR part 541 by the
agency beginning with its MY 2000
vehicles. Toyota also referenced the
NHTSA theft rate data published for
several years before and after the Nissan
Altima was equipped with a standard
immobilizer device. Specifically, Toyota
stated that the publication showed that
the average theft rate for the Nissan
Altima dropped to 3.0 per 1,000 cars
produced between MY’s 2000–2006
compared to 5.3 per 1,000 cars
produced between MY’s 1996–1999.
This represents approximately a 43%
decrease in the theft rate for the Nissan
Altima vehicle line installed with an
immobilizer between MY’s 2000–2006
as compared to the Nissan Altima
vehicle line without an immobilizer
between MY’s 1996–1999. The theft
rates for the Nissan Altima vehicle line
using an average of three model years’
data (2012–2014) are 2.4207, 1.7598 and
2.1212 respectively, all well below the
median theft rate of 3.5826. Therefore,
Toyota has concluded that the antitheft
device proposed for its Avalon vehicle
line is no less effective than those
devices on the lines for which NHTSA
has already granted full exemption from
the parts-marking requirements. Toyota
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Oct 18, 2017
Jkt 244001
stated that it believes that installing the
immobilizer device as standard
equipment reduces the theft rate for the
Avalon vehicle line and expects it to
experience comparable effectiveness
and ultimately be more effective than
parts-marking labels.
Based on the supporting evidence
submitted by Toyota on its device, the
agency believes that the antitheft device
for the Avalon 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 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 Toyota has provided adequate
reasons for its belief that the antitheft
device for the Avalon 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
Toyota provided about its device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full Toyota’s petition
for exemption for the Avalon 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.
If Toyota decides not to use the
exemption for this line, it should
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 Toyota 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 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017–22657 Filed 10–18–17; 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; Nissan North America, Inc.
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
This document grants in full
the Nissan North America, Inc.’s,
(Nissan) petition for exemption of the
Infiniti QX50 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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices
equipment is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Federal
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (Theft Prevention Standard).
Nissan also requested confidential
treatment for specific information in its
petition. Therefore, no confidential
information provided for purposes of
this notice has been disclosed.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is applicable beginning with the
2019 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 July 8, 2017, Nissan
requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Infiniti
QX50 vehicle line beginning with MY
2019. 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 Infiniti QX50
vehicle line. Nissan stated that the MY
2019 Infiniti QX50 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), body control module
(BCM), security indicator light,
immobilizer antenna, Key FOB, and a
specially-designed key with a
microchip. Nissan stated that its
vehicle’s security indicator light will be
a warning to a potential thief, and an
added deterrence to a thief’s decision to
enter the vehicle. However, Nissan
stated that its antitheft device will not
provide any visible or audible
indication if unauthorized vehicle entry
(i.e., flashing lights and horn alarm) on
its Infiniti QX50 vehicle line.
Nissan’s submission is considered a
complete petition as required by 49 CFR
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Oct 18, 2017
Jkt 244001
543.7, in that it meets the general
requirements contained in § 543.5 and
the specific content requirements of
§ 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
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 Infiniti QX50 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
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48745
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 line
experienced reductions from model year
(MY) 2000 to 2001 and subsequent years
with implementation of an engine
immobilizer device as standard
equipment. Specifically, Nissan stated
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
Infiniti QX50 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.
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
48746
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices
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 Infiniti QX50 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 Infiniti
QX50 vehicle line from the partsmarking 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.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
15:13 Oct 18, 2017
Jkt 244001
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. 2017–22658 Filed 10–18–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request for Form 1024–A; Extension
of Comment Period
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments; extension of comment
period.
AGENCY:
This document extends the
comment period for a notice and request
for comments that was published in the
Federal Register on Monday, August 28,
2017. The notice and request for
comments relates to the Application for
Recognition of Exemption Under
Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal
Revenue Code.
DATES: The comment period for the
notice and request for comments
published on August 28, 2017 (82 FR
40228), is extended to November 28,
2017.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
to L. Brimmer, Internal Revenue
Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the form and instructions
should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke
at (202) 317–6009, Internal Revenue
Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224, or
through the Internet at
Lanita.VanDyke@irs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice
and request for comments that appeared
in the Federal Register on Monday,
August 28, 2017 (82 FR 40228)
announced that written comments are to
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
be received by October 23, 2017. In
order to provide the public with a
sufficient opportunity to submit
comments, the due date to receive
written comments has been extended to
Tuesday, November 28, 2017.
Approved: October 12, 2017.
L. Brimmer,
Senior Tax Analyst.
[FR Doc. 2017–22596 Filed 10–16–17; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
Cooperative Studies Scientific
Evaluation Committee; Notice of
Meeting
The Department of Veterans Affairs
gives notice under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act that the Cooperative
Studies Scientific Evaluation Committee
will hold a meeting on December 13,
2017, at the American Association of
Airport Executives, 601 Madison Street,
Alexandria, VA. The meeting will begin
at 8:30 a.m. and end at 3:30 p.m.
The Committee advises the Chief
Research and Development Officer on
the relevance and feasibility of proposed
projects and the scientific validity and
propriety of technical details, including
protection of human subjects.
The session will be open to the public
for approximately 30 minutes at the
start of the meeting for the discussion of
administrative matters and the general
status of the program. The remaining
portion of the meeting will be closed to
the public for the Committee’s review,
discussion, and evaluation of research
and development applications.
During the closed portion of the
meeting, discussions and
recommendations will deal with
qualifications of personnel conducting
the studies, staff and consultant
critiques of research proposals and
similar documents, and the medical
records of patients who are study
subjects, the disclosure of which would
constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of personal privacy. As
provided by section 10(d) of Public Law
92–463, as amended, closing portions of
this meeting is in accordance with 5
U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B).
The Committee will not accept oral
comments from the public for the open
portion of the meeting. Those who plan
to attend or wish additional information
should contact Dr. Grant Huang, Acting
Director, Cooperative Studies Program
(10P9CS), Department of Veterans
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 443–
E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM
19OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 201 (Thursday, October 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48744-48746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22658]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Infiniti QX50 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
[[Page 48745]]
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. Therefore, no confidential information
provided for purposes of this notice has been disclosed.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is applicable beginning
with the 2019 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 July 8, 2017, Nissan
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Infiniti QX50 vehicle line beginning with
MY 2019. 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 Infiniti QX50 vehicle line. Nissan stated that the MY
2019 Infiniti QX50 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), body control module (BCM),
security indicator light, immobilizer antenna, Key FOB, and a
specially-designed key with a microchip. Nissan stated that its
vehicle's security indicator light will be a warning to a potential
thief, and an added deterrence to a thief's decision to enter the
vehicle. However, Nissan stated that its antitheft device will not
provide any visible or audible indication if unauthorized vehicle entry
(i.e., flashing lights and horn alarm) on its Infiniti QX50 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 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 Infiniti QX50 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 line experienced reductions
from model year (MY) 2000 to 2001 and subsequent years with
implementation of an engine immobilizer device as standard equipment.
Specifically, Nissan stated 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 Infiniti QX50 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.
[[Page 48746]]
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 Infiniti QX50 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 Infiniti QX50 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.
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. 2017-22658 Filed 10-18-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
