Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Nissan North America, Inc., 62886-62889 [2023-19761]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
62886
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Notices
seizure medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since
2021. Their physician states that they
are supportive of Adam Brunson
receiving an exemption.
take anti-seizure medication with the
dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 2013. Their physician states
that they are supportive of Jerrid Pace
receiving an exemption.
Alan Glinsmann
Elsa Santo
Alan Glinsmann is a 65-year-old class
AM CDL holder in Kansas. They have a
history of post traumatic seizures and
have been seizure free since January
1981. They take anti-seizure medication
with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 1983. Their
physician states that they are supportive
of Alan Glinsmann receiving an
exemption.
Elsa Santo is a 62-year-old class B
license holder in New Jersey. They have
a history of epilepsy and have been
seizure free since May 2015. They take
anti-seizure medication with the dosage
and frequency remaining the same since
November 2015. Their physician states
that they are supportive of Elsa Santo
receiving an exemption.
Alex Hunter
Brandon Schindele
Alex Hunter is a 61-year-old class 1
license holder in South Dakota. They
have a history of generalized idiopathic
epilepsy and have been seizure free
since January 2015. They take antiseizure medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since
2018. Their physician states that they
are supportive of Alex Hunter receiving
an exemption.
Brandon Schindele is a 39-year-old
class D license holder in Minnesota.
They have a history of seizure disorder
and have been seizure free since 1995.
They take anti-seizure medication with
the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 1993. Their physician states
that they are supportive of Brandon
Schindele receiving an exemption.
Kyle Jones
Travis Stevens
Kyle Jones is a 54-year-old class A
CDL holder in Indiana. They have a
history of seizure disorder and have
been seizure free since 2012. They have
not taken anti-seizure medication since
2014. Their physician states that they
are supportive of Kyle Jones receiving
an exemption.
Travis Stevens is a 33-year-old class 0
license holder in Michigan. They have
a history of grand mal epilepsy and have
been seizure free since August 2008.
They take anti-seizure medication with
the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since August 2013. Their
physician states that they are supportive
of Travis Stevens receiving an
exemption.
Ryan McKnelly
Ryan McKnelly is a 45-year-old class
A CDL holder in South Dakota. They
have a history of generalized idiopathic
epilepsy and have been seizure free
since 2001. They take anti-seizure
medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since
2003. Their physician states that they
are supportive of Ryan McKnelly
receiving an exemption.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Alfonso V. Mendoza
Alfonso V. Mendoza is a 33-year-old
class C license holder in California.
They have a history of seizure disorder
and have been seizure free since
December 2008. They take anti-seizure
medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since
2008. Their physician states that they
are supportive of Alfonso V. Mendoza
receiving an exemption.
Jerrid Pace
Jerrid Pace is a 33-year-old class A
CDL holder in Tennessee. They have a
history of complex partial seizure and
have been seizure free since 2015. They
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Sep 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
Brad Wetli
Brad Wetli is a 44-year-old class A
CDL holder in Indiana. They have a
history of seizure disorder and have
been seizure free since 1997. They take
anti-seizure medication with the dosage
and frequency remaining the same since
1997. Their physician states that they
are supportive of Brad Wetli receiving
an exemption.
IV. Request for Comments
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public
comment from all interested persons on
the exemption petitions described in
this notice. We will consider all
comments received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated
under the DATES section of the notice.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023–19754 Filed 9–12–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 from the
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (theft prevention standard) for
its Z vehicle line beginning in model
year (MY) 2024. The 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. 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 effective beginning with the
2024 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carlita Ballard, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer
Programs, NHTSA, West Building,
W43–439, NRM–310, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Ms.
Ballard’s phone number is (202) 366–
5222. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49
U.S.C. chapter 331, the Secretary of
Transportation (and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) by delegation) is required to
promulgate a theft prevention standard
to provide for the identification of
certain motor vehicles and their major
replacement parts to impede motor
vehicle theft. NHTSA promulgated
regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft
prevention standard) to require partsmarking for specified passenger motor
vehicles and light trucks. Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 33106, manufacturers that are
subject to the parts-marking
requirements may petition the Secretary
of Transportation for an exemption for
a line of passenger motor vehicles
equipped with an antitheft device as
standard equipment that the Secretary
decides is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements. In accordance
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
with this statute, NHTSA promulgated
49 CFR part 543, which establishes the
process through which manufacturers
may seek an exemption from the theft
prevention standard.
49 CFR 543.5 provides general
submission requirements for petitions
and states that each manufacturer may
petition NHTSA for an exemption of
one vehicle line per model year. Among
other requirements, manufacturers must
identify whether the exemption is
sought under section 543.6 or section
543.7. Under section 543.6, a
manufacturer may request an exemption
by providing specific information about
the antitheft device, its capabilities, and
the reasons the petitioner believes the
device to be as effective at reducing and
deterring theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. Section
543.7 permits a manufacturer to request
an exemption under a more streamlined
process if the vehicle line is equipped
with an antitheft device (an
‘‘immobilizer’’) as standard equipment
that complies with one of the standards
specified in that section.1
Section 543.8 establishes
requirements for processing petitions for
exemption from the theft prevention
standard. As stated in section 543.8(a),
NHTSA processes any complete
exemption petition. If NHTSA receives
an incomplete petition, NHTSA will
notify the petitioner of the deficiencies.
Once NHTSA receives a complete
petition the agency will process it and,
in accordance with section 543.8(b),
will grant the petition 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.
Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to
issue its decision either to grant or to
deny an exemption petition not later
than 120 days after the date on which
1 49 CFR 543.7 specifies that the manufacturer
must include a statement that their entire vehicle
line is equipped with an immobilizer that meets
one of the following standards:
(1) The performance criteria (subsections 8
through 21) of C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection
and Rollaway Prevention (in effect March 30, 2011),
as excerpted in appendix A of [part 543];
(2) National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC–
S338–98, Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment
and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May 1998);
(3) United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97),
Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval of
Vehicle Alarm System (VAS) and Motor Vehicles
with Regard to Their Alarm System (AS) in effect
August 8, 2007; or
(4) UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116),
Uniform Technical Prescriptions Concerning the
Protection of Motor Vehicles Against Unauthorized
Use in effect on February 10, 2009.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Sep 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA
does not make a decision within the
120-day period, the petition shall be
deemed to be approved and the
manufacturer shall be exempt from the
standard for the line covered by the
petition for the subsequent model year.2
Exemptions granted under part 543
apply only to the vehicle line or lines
that are subject to the grant and that are
equipped with the antitheft device on
which the line’s exemption was based,
and are effective for the model year
beginning after the model year in which
NHTSA issues the notice of exemption,
unless the notice of exemption specifies
a later year.
Sections 543.8(f) and (g) apply to the
manner in which NHTSA’s decisions on
petitions are to be made known. Under
section 543.8(f), if the petition is sought
under section 543.6, NHTSA publishes
a notice of its decision to grant or deny
the exemption petition in the Federal
Register and notifies the petitioner in
writing. Under section 543.8(g), if the
petition is sought under section 543.7,
NHTSA notifies the petitioner in writing
of the agency’s decision to grant or deny
the exemption petition.
This grant of petition for exemption
considers Nissan Motor North America,
Inc.’s (Nissan) petition for its Z vehicle
line beginning in MY 2024. Based on
the information provided in Nissan’s
petition, NHTSA has determined that
the antitheft device to be placed on its
vehicle 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.
I. Specific Petition Content
Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6
Pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,
Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention, Nissan petitioned for an
exemption for its specified vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of
the theft prevention standard, beginning
in MY 2024. Nissan petitioned under 49
CFR 543.6, Petition: Specific content
requirements, which, as described
above, requires manufacturers to
provide specific information about the
antitheft device installed as standard
equipment on all vehicles in the line for
which an exemption is sought, the
antitheft device’s capabilities, and the
reasons the petitioner believes the
device to be as effective at reducing and
deterring theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements.
More specifically, section 543.6(a)(1)
requires petitions to include a statement
2 49
PO 00000
U.S.C. 33106(d).
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62887
that an antitheft device will be installed
as standard equipment on all vehicles in
the line for which the exemption is
sought. Under section 543.6(a)(2), each
petition must list each component in the
antitheft system, and include a diagram
showing the location of each of those
components within the vehicle. As
required by section 543.6(a)(3), each
petition must include an explanation of
the means and process by which the
device is activated and functions,
including any aspect of the device
designed to: (1) facilitate or encourage
its activation by motorists; (2) attract
attention to the efforts of an
unauthorized person to enter or move a
vehicle by means other than a key; (3)
prevent defeating or circumventing the
device by an unauthorized person
attempting to enter a vehicle by means
other than a key; (4) prevent the
operation of a vehicle which an
unauthorized person has entered using
means other than a key; and (5) ensure
the reliability and durability of the
device.3
In addition to providing information
about the antitheft device and its
functionality, petitioners must also
submit the reasons for their belief that
the antitheft device will be effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft, including any theft data and other
data that are available to the petitioner
and form a basis for that belief,4 and the
reasons for their belief that the agency
should determine that the antitheft
device is likely to be as effective as
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of part 541 in reducing
and deterring motor vehicle theft. In
support of this belief, the petitioners
should include any statistical data that
are available to the petitioner and form
the basis for the petitioner’s belief that
a line of passenger motor vehicles
equipped with the antitheft device is
likely to have a theft rate equal to or less
than that of passenger motor vehicles of
the same, or a similar, line which have
parts marked in compliance with part
541.5
The following sections describe
Nissan’s petition information provided
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption
from Vehicle Theft Prevention. To the
extent that specific information in
Nissan’s petition is subject to a properly
filed confidentiality request, that
information was not disclosed as part of
this notice.6
3 49
CFR 543.6(a)(3).
CFR 543.6(a)(4).
5 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5).
6 49 CFR 512.20(a).
4 49
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
62888
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Notices
II. Nissan’s Petition for Exemption
In a petition dated November 17,
2022, Nissan requested an exemption
from the parts-marking requirements of
the theft prevention standard for the Z
vehicle line beginning with MY 2024.
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 Z vehicle line. Nissan stated that its
MY 2024 Z vehicle line will be installed
with a passive, electronic engine
immobilizer device as standard
equipment, as required by 543.6(a)(1).
Key components of the antitheft device
include an engine immobilizer,
immobilizer control (CONT ASSY–
SMART KEYLESS), engine control
module (ECM), body control module,
immobilizer antenna and a key FOB
with a pre-registered key-ID microchip.
Pursuant to Section 543.6(a)(3),
Nissan explained that activation of its
immobilizer device occurs
automatically when the ignition switch
is turned to the ‘‘OFF’’ position. Nissan
also stated that the immobilizer device
prevents normal operation of the vehicle
without using a special key. Nissan
explained that when the brake SW or
clutch is on and the key FOB is near the
engine start switch, the BMC scans the
Key-ID via the immobilizer ANT. The
microchip then transmits the key-ID via
radio wave. Next, the key-ID is received
by the antenna and is amplified and
transmitted to the BMC. Nissan further
stated that the ECM will ‘‘request’’ the
BCM to start the encrypted
communication, and once the code is
accepted, the BCM will send an OKcode and an encrypted code to the ECM.
If the code is not accepted, the
immobilizer control unit will send a
NG-code. Nissan stated that the ECM
will only stop the motor if it receives a
NG-code from the BCM, the encrypted
code is not correct, or no signal is
received from the BCM.
As required in section 543.6(a)(3)(v),
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 stated
that its immobilizer device satisfies the
European Directive ECE R116, including
tamper resistance. Nissan further stated
that all control units for the device are
located inside the vehicle, providing
further protection from unauthorized
accessibility of the device from outside
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Sep 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
the vehicle. Nissan also stated that if a
potential intruder were to damage the
immobilizer system, it is designed so
that the motor cannot be restarted and
that the motor will restart only after
transmission of the correct Key-ID and
encrypted code are accepted. Nissan
also stated that if an intruder were to
substitute another immobilizer unit, the
vehicle would still not be operable since
the immobilizer and ECM are codepaired.
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 per thousand
vehicles produced, respectively. For
reference, the theft rate for MY 2014
passenger vehicles stolen in calendar
year 2014 is 1.1512 thefts per thousand
vehicles produced (82 FR 28246).
Nissan also 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 2005 reported theft rates
of 1.9146, 1.8011, 1.1482, 0.8102, and
1.7298 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
manufacturers’ devices that have
already been granted parts-marking
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
III. Decision To Grant the Petition
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49
CFR 543.8(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, or deemed
approved under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d). As
discussed above, in this case, Nissan’s
petition is granted under 49 U.S.C.
33106(d).
This conclusion is based on the
information Nissan provided about its
antitheft device. NHTSA believes, based
on Nissan’s supporting evidence, the
antitheft device described for its vehicle
line is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the theft
prevention standard.
The agency concludes that Nissan’s
antitheft device will provide four of the
five types of performance features listed
in section 543.6(a)(3) 7: 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.
However, the agency wishes to note that
the Z line will not provide any visible
or audible indication of unauthorized
vehicle entry (i.e., flashing lights and
horn alarm).
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 543.8(f) contains
publication requirements incident to the
disposition of all part 543 petitions.
Advanced listing, including the release
of future product nameplates, the
7 See, e.g., 70 FR 74107 (Dec. 14, 2005). NHTSA
has previously concluded that the lack of a visual
or audio alarm has not prevented some antitheft
devices from being effective protection against theft,
where the theft data indicate a decline in theft rates
for vehicle lines that have been equipped with
devices similar to that what the petitioner is
proposing to use.
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 13, 2023 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
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 its requested vehicle line,
the manufacturer must formally notify
the agency. If such a decision is made,
the line must be fully marked as
required by 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 the exemption is based, the
company may have to submit a petition
to modify the exemption. Section
543.8(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, section 543.10(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 the
exemption.’’ 8
The agency wishes to minimize the
administrative burden that section
543.10(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 Nissan 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full Nissan’s petition
for exemption for the Z vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of
49 CFR part 541, beginning with its MY
2024 vehicles.
8 The agency wishes to minimize the
administrative burden that section 543.10©(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 a manufacturer with an
exemption 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:37 Sep 12, 2023
Jkt 259001
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95 and 501.8.
Milton E. Cooper,
Acting Associate Administrator for
Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2023–19761 Filed 9–12–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency
[Docket ID OCC–OCC–2023–0014]
Mutual Savings Association Advisory
Committee; Meeting
Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory
Committee meeting.
AGENCY:
The OCC announces a
meeting of the Mutual Savings
Association Advisory Committee
(MSAAC).
SUMMARY:
A public meeting of the MSAAC
will be held on Tuesday, October 3,
2023, beginning at 8:30 a.m. Eastern
Daylight Time (EDT). The meeting will
be in person and virtual.
ADDRESSES: The OCC will host the
October 3, 2023 meeting of the MSAAC
at the OCC’s offices at 400 7th Street
SW, Washington, DC 20219 and
virtually.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael R. Brickman, Deputy
Comptroller for Specialty Supervision,
(202) 649–5420, Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency,
Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf,
hard of hearing, or have a speech
disability, please dial 7–1–1 to access
telecommunications relay services. You
also may access prior MSAAC meeting
materials on the MSAAC page of the
OCC’s website.1
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the
authority of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (the Act), 5 U.S.C. 1001
et seq, and the regulations
implementing the Act at 41 CFR part
102–3, the OCC is announcing that the
MSAAC will convene a meeting on
Tuesday, October 3, 2023. The meeting
is open to the public and will begin at
8:30 a.m. EDT. The purpose of the
meeting is for the MSAAC to advise the
OCC on regulatory or other changes the
OCC may make to ensure the health and
viability of mutual savings associations.
1 https://occ.gov/topics/supervision-andexamination/bank-management/mutual-savingsassociations/mutual-savings-association-advisorycommittee.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
62889
The agenda includes a discussion of
current topics of interest to the industry.
Members of the public may submit
written statements to the MSAAC. The
OCC must receive written statements no
later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on Thursday,
September 28, 2023. Members of the
public may submit written statements to
MSAAC@occ.treas.gov.
Members of the public who plan to
attend the meeting should contact the
OCC by 5:00 p.m. EDT on Thursday,
September 28, 2023, to inform the OCC
of their desire to attend the meeting and
whether they will attend in person or
virtually, and to obtain information
about participating in the meeting.
Members of the public may contact the
OCC via email at MSAAC@
OCC.treas.gov or by telephone at (202)
649–5420. Attendees should provide
their full name, email address, and
organization, if any. For persons who
are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability, please dial 7–1–1 to
arrange telecommunications relay
services for this meeting.
Michael J. Hsu,
Acting Comptroller of the Currency.
[FR Doc. 2023–19732 Filed 9–12–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Privacy Act of 1974; System of
Records
Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of a new system of
records.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Privacy Act of 1974, as amended,
FinCEN is proposing to establish a new
system of records titled Treasury/
FinCEN .004 for information collected
by FinCEN in connection with the
implementation of the Corporate
Transparency Act (CTA). The CTA
requires certain entities to report to
FinCEN identifying information
associated with the entities themselves,
their beneficial owners, and their
company applicants (together, beneficial
ownership information or BOI). The
CTA also authorizes FinCEN to disclose
BOI to authorized recipients, subject to
strict protocols on security and
confidentiality.
SUMMARY:
This action will be effective
without further notice on October 13,
2023 unless it is modified in response
to comments. Comments must be
submitted by [the aforementioned date].
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\13SEN1.SGM
13SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 13, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62886-62889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19761]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 from the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard (theft prevention standard) for its Z vehicle line
beginning in model year (MY) 2024. The 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. 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 effective beginning with
the 2024 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, NRM-310, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is
(202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 49 U.S.C. chapter 331, the Secretary
of Transportation (and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) by delegation) is required to promulgate a theft
prevention standard to provide for the identification of certain motor
vehicles and their major replacement parts to impede motor vehicle
theft. NHTSA promulgated regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft
prevention standard) to require parts-marking for specified passenger
motor vehicles and light trucks. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106,
manufacturers that are subject to the parts-marking requirements may
petition the Secretary of Transportation for an exemption for a line of
passenger motor vehicles equipped with an antitheft device as standard
equipment that the Secretary decides is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. In accordance
[[Page 62887]]
with this statute, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR part 543, which establishes
the process through which manufacturers may seek an exemption from the
theft prevention standard.
49 CFR 543.5 provides general submission requirements for petitions
and states that each manufacturer may petition NHTSA for an exemption
of one vehicle line per model year. Among other requirements,
manufacturers must identify whether the exemption is sought under
section 543.6 or section 543.7. Under section 543.6, a manufacturer may
request an exemption by providing specific information about the
antitheft device, its capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner
believes the device to be as effective at reducing and deterring theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements. Section 543.7
permits a manufacturer to request an exemption under a more streamlined
process if the vehicle line is equipped with an antitheft device (an
``immobilizer'') as standard equipment that complies with one of the
standards specified in that section.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 CFR 543.7 specifies that the manufacturer must include a
statement that their entire vehicle line is equipped with an
immobilizer that meets one of the following standards:
(1) The performance criteria (subsections 8 through 21) of
C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention (in
effect March 30, 2011), as excerpted in appendix A of [part 543];
(2) National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, Automobile
Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization
(May 1998);
(3) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE)
Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97), Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval
of Vehicle Alarm System (VAS) and Motor Vehicles with Regard to
Their Alarm System (AS) in effect August 8, 2007; or
(4) UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116), Uniform Technical
Prescriptions Concerning the Protection of Motor Vehicles Against
Unauthorized Use in effect on February 10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 543.8 establishes requirements for processing petitions for
exemption from the theft prevention standard. As stated in section
543.8(a), NHTSA processes any complete exemption petition. If NHTSA
receives an incomplete petition, NHTSA will notify the petitioner of
the deficiencies. Once NHTSA receives a complete petition the agency
will process it and, in accordance with section 543.8(b), will grant
the petition 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.
Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to issue its decision either to
grant or to deny an exemption petition not later than 120 days after
the date on which a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA does not make
a decision within the 120-day period, the petition shall be deemed to
be approved and the manufacturer shall be exempt from the standard for
the line covered by the petition for the subsequent model year.\2\
Exemptions granted under part 543 apply only to the vehicle line or
lines that are subject to the grant and that are equipped with the
antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based, and are
effective for the model year beginning after the model year in which
NHTSA issues the notice of exemption, unless the notice of exemption
specifies a later year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 543.8(f) and (g) apply to the manner in which NHTSA's
decisions on petitions are to be made known. Under section 543.8(f), if
the petition is sought under section 543.6, NHTSA publishes a notice of
its decision to grant or deny the exemption petition in the Federal
Register and notifies the petitioner in writing. Under section
543.8(g), if the petition is sought under section 543.7, NHTSA notifies
the petitioner in writing of the agency's decision to grant or deny the
exemption petition.
This grant of petition for exemption considers Nissan Motor North
America, Inc.'s (Nissan) petition for its Z vehicle line beginning in
MY 2024. Based on the information provided in Nissan's petition, NHTSA
has determined that the antitheft device to be placed on its vehicle
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.
I. Specific Petition Content Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6
Pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention, Nissan petitioned for an exemption for its specified
vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard, beginning in MY 2024. Nissan petitioned under 49
CFR 543.6, Petition: Specific content requirements, which, as described
above, requires manufacturers to provide specific information about the
antitheft device installed as standard equipment on all vehicles in the
line for which an exemption is sought, the antitheft device's
capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner believes the device to be
as effective at reducing and deterring theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements.
More specifically, section 543.6(a)(1) requires petitions to
include a statement that an antitheft device will be installed as
standard equipment on all vehicles in the line for which the exemption
is sought. Under section 543.6(a)(2), each petition must list each
component in the antitheft system, and include a diagram showing the
location of each of those components within the vehicle. As required by
section 543.6(a)(3), each petition must include an explanation of the
means and process by which the device is activated and functions,
including any aspect of the device designed to: (1) facilitate or
encourage its activation by motorists; (2) attract attention to the
efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means
other than a key; (3) prevent defeating or circumventing the device by
an unauthorized person attempting to enter a vehicle by means other
than a key; (4) prevent the operation of a vehicle which an
unauthorized person has entered using means other than a key; and (5)
ensure the reliability and durability of the device.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to providing information about the antitheft device and
its functionality, petitioners must also submit the reasons for their
belief that the antitheft device will be effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft, including any theft data and other data
that are available to the petitioner and form a basis for that
belief,\4\ and the reasons for their belief that the agency should
determine that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541 in reducing
and deterring motor vehicle theft. In support of this belief, the
petitioners should include any statistical data that are available to
the petitioner and form the basis for the petitioner's belief that a
line of passenger motor vehicles equipped with the antitheft device is
likely to have a theft rate equal to or less than that of passenger
motor vehicles of the same, or a similar, line which have parts marked
in compliance with part 541.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4).
\5\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections describe Nissan's petition information
provided pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention. To the extent that specific information in Nissan's
petition is subject to a properly filed confidentiality request, that
information was not disclosed as part of this notice.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 49 CFR 512.20(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62888]]
II. Nissan's Petition for Exemption
In a petition dated November 17, 2022, Nissan requested an
exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention
standard for the Z vehicle line beginning with MY 2024.
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 Z vehicle line. Nissan stated that its MY 2024
Z vehicle line will be installed with a passive, electronic engine
immobilizer device as standard equipment, as required by 543.6(a)(1).
Key components of the antitheft device include an engine immobilizer,
immobilizer control (CONT ASSY-SMART KEYLESS), engine control module
(ECM), body control module, immobilizer antenna and a key FOB with a
pre-registered key-ID microchip.
Pursuant to Section 543.6(a)(3), Nissan explained that activation
of its immobilizer device occurs automatically when the ignition switch
is turned to the ``OFF'' position. Nissan also stated that the
immobilizer device prevents normal operation of the vehicle without
using a special key. Nissan explained that when the brake SW or clutch
is on and the key FOB is near the engine start switch, the BMC scans
the Key-ID via the immobilizer ANT. The microchip then transmits the
key-ID via radio wave. Next, the key-ID is received by the antenna and
is amplified and transmitted to the BMC. Nissan further stated that the
ECM will ``request'' the BCM to start the encrypted communication, and
once the code is accepted, the BCM will send an OK-code and an
encrypted code to the ECM. If the code is not accepted, the immobilizer
control unit will send a NG-code. Nissan stated that the ECM will only
stop the motor if it receives a NG-code from the BCM, the encrypted
code is not correct, or no signal is received from the BCM.
As required in section 543.6(a)(3)(v), 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 stated that its immobilizer device satisfies the European
Directive ECE R116, including tamper resistance. Nissan further 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 also stated that if a potential
intruder were to damage the immobilizer system, it is designed so that
the motor cannot be restarted and that the motor will restart only
after transmission of the correct Key-ID and encrypted code are
accepted. Nissan also stated that if an intruder were to substitute
another immobilizer unit, the vehicle would still not be operable since
the immobilizer and ECM are code-paired.
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 per thousand vehicles produced, respectively. For
reference, the theft rate for MY 2014 passenger vehicles stolen in
calendar year 2014 is 1.1512 thefts per thousand vehicles produced (82
FR 28246).
Nissan also 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 2005 reported
theft rates of 1.9146, 1.8011, 1.1482, 0.8102, and 1.7298 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 manufacturers' 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.
III. Decision To Grant the Petition
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.8(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, or deemed
approved under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d). As discussed above, in this case,
Nissan's petition is granted under 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
This conclusion is based on the information Nissan provided about
its antitheft device. NHTSA believes, based on Nissan's supporting
evidence, the antitheft device described for its 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.
The agency concludes that Nissan's antitheft device will provide
four of the five types of performance features listed in section
543.6(a)(3) \7\: 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. However, the agency wishes to
note that the Z line will not provide any visible or audible indication
of unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e., flashing lights and horn alarm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., 70 FR 74107 (Dec. 14, 2005). NHTSA has previously
concluded that the lack of a visual or audio alarm has not prevented
some antitheft devices from being effective protection against
theft, where the theft data indicate a decline in theft rates for
vehicle lines that have been equipped with devices similar to that
what the petitioner is proposing to use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 543.8(f) contains publication requirements
incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions. Advanced
listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the
[[Page 62889]]
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 its requested
vehicle line, the manufacturer must formally notify the agency. If such
a decision is made, the line must be fully marked as required by 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 the exemption is based, the company may have to submit
a petition to modify the exemption. Section 543.8(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, section 543.10(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 the exemption.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that
section 543.10(copyright)(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 a manufacturer with an exemption 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that
section 543.10(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
Nissan 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Nissan's petition for exemption for the Z vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with its MY 2024
vehicles.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Milton E. Cooper,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2023-19761 Filed 9-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
