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 

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 

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. 

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 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices 48745 

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 

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 

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. 


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 

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 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments; extension of comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: 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 

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– 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with NOTICES