[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59300-59301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22281]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Exemption from the 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 notice grants in full the petition of Nissan North 
America, Inc., (Nissan) for an exemption of a high-theft vehicle line, 
[whose nameplate is confidential], from the parts-marking requirements 
of the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard. This petition 
is granted because the agency has determined that the antitheft device 
to be placed on the line as standard equipment is likely to be as 
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance 
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. 
Nissan requested confidential treatment for the information and 
attachments it submitted in support of its petition. In a letter dated 
July 23, 2004, the agency granted the petitioner's request for 
confidential treatment of most aspects of its petition.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the [confidential] model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone 
number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated June 23, 2004, Nissan 
North America, Inc. (Nissan), requested exemption from the parts-
marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) 
for a vehicle line. The nameplate of the line and the model year of 
introduction are confidential. The petition has been filed pursuant to 
49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 
based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment 
for an entire vehicle line. Based on the evidence submitted by Nissan, 
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the 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).

[[Page 59301]]

    Section 33106(b)(2)(D) of Title 49, United States Code, gave the 
Secretary of Transportation the authority to grant a manufacturer one 
parts-marking exemption per model year for vehicle lines produced MYs' 
1997-2000. However, it does not address the contingency of what to do 
after model year 2000 in the absence of a decision under Section 
33103(d). 49 U.S.C. 33103(d)(3), states that the number of lines for 
which the agency can grant an exemption is to be decided after the 
Attorney General completes a review of the effectiveness of antitheft 
devices and finds that antitheft devices are an effective substitute 
for parts-marking. The Attorney General has not yet made a finding 
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33103(d)(3), Long Range Review of Effectiveness, 
and has not decided the number of lines, if any, for which the agency 
will be authorized to grant an exemption. Upon consultation with the 
Department of Justice, both agencies determined that the appropriate 
reading of Section 33103(d) is that the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) may continue to grant parts-marking exemptions 
for no more than one additional model line each year, as specified for 
model years 1997-2000 by 49 U.S.C. 33106(b)(2)(C). This is the level 
contemplated by the Act for the period before the Attorney General's 
decision. The final decision on whether to continue granting exemptions 
will be made by the Attorney General at the conclusion of the review 
pursuant to Section 33103(d)(3).
    Nissan's submittal is considered a complete petition, as required 
by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in 
``543.5 and the specific content requirements of ``543.6. 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 new line. Nissan requested confidential treatment for 
the information it submitted in support of its petition. In a letter 
dated July 23, 2004, the agency granted the petitioner's request for 
confidential treatment of most aspects of its petition.
    In order to ensure reliability and durability of the device, Nissan 
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. 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 compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with 
devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and 
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-
marking requirements. Nissan stated that its proposed device, as well 
as other comparable devices that have received full exemptions from the 
parts-marking requirements, lack an audible and visible alarm. 
Therefore, these devices cannot perform one of the functions listed in 
49 CFR 542.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to unauthorized attempts 
to enter or move the vehicle. However, theft data have indicated a 
decline in theft rates for vehicle lines that have been equipped with 
antitheft devices similar to that which Nissan purposes. In these 
instances, the agency has concluded that the lack of a visual or 
audible alarm has not prevented these antitheft devices from being 
effective protection against theft.
    On the basis of this comparison, Nissan has concluded that the 
antitheft device proposed for its vehicle line is no less effective 
than those devices in the lines for which NHTSA has already granted 
full exemption from the parts-marking requirements.
    Based on the evidence submitted by Nissan, the agency believes that 
the antitheft device for the Nissan 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 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.
    As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.6 (a)(4) and (5), the 
agency finds that Nissan has provided adequate reasons for its belief 
that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion 
is based on the information Nissan provided about its device, much of 
which is confidential. This confidential information included a 
description of reliability and functional tests conducted by Nissan for 
the antitheft device and its components.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full 
Nissan's petition for exemption for the 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. Advanced listing, 
including the release of future product nameplates, is necessary in 
order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted 
from the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. 
Since Nissan has been granted confidential treatment for its vehicle 
line, the confidential status of its nameplate will be protected until 
the introduction of its vehicle line into the market place. At that 
time, Appendix A-1 will be revised to reflect the nameplate of Nissan's 
exempted vehicle line.
    If Nissan decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must 
formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, 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 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 anti-theft device on which the 
line's exemption is based. Further, Sec.  543.9(c)(2) provides for the 
submission of petitions to modify an exemption to permit the use of an 
antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in 
that exemption.
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Sec.  
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. 
The agency did not intend Part 543 to require the submission of a 
modification petition for every change to the components or design of 
an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de 
minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer 
contemplates making any changes the effects of which might be 
characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before 
preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.

    Issued on: September 27, 2004.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 04-22281 Filed 10-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P