Document ID: NHTSA-2009-0107-0001
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Exemption Petitions; Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard: Nissan
Posted Date: 2009-06-17T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28768-28770]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14253]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard; Nissan

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 an exemption of the Murano vehicle line in 
accordance with 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention 
Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has determined 
that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard 
equipment is likely to be as effective in

[[Page 28769]]

reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the 
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 
Part 541). Nissan requested confidential treatment for the information 
and attachments it submitted in support of its petition. The agency 
will address Nissan's request for confidential treatment by separate 
letter.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2010 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West 
Building, W43-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
Ms. Proctor's phone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 
493-0073.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 19, 2008, Nissan 
requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft 
prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2010 Nissan Murano 
vehicle line. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking 
pursuant to 49 CFR 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard 
equipment for the entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  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 new 
Murano vehicle line. Although specific details of the system's 
operation, design, effectiveness and durability have been accorded 
confidential treatment, NHTSA is, for the purposes of this petition, 
disclosing the following general information. Nissan will install a 
passive, transponder-based, electronic engine immobilizer device as 
standard equipment on its Murano line beginning with MY 2010. Nissan 
stated that the immobilizer system prevents normal operation of the 
vehicle without the use of a special key. Turning off the ignition key 
automatically activates the immobilizer device. Features of the 
antitheft device will include an engine electronic control module 
(ECM), immobilizer control (BCM), antenna and transponder key. Nissan 
also stated that its device will not incorporate an audible and visual 
alarm feature as standard equipment, but the alarms will be 
incorporated on some of its models. 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. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Nissan 
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Nissan provided 
its own test information on the reliability and durability of its 
proposed device and believes that the device is reliable and durable 
since the device complied with its specific requirements for each test. 
Additionally, Nissan has incorporated a ``Security'' indicator light in 
the vehicle which will provide a signal to inform the vehicle owner as 
to the status of the immobilizer device. When the ignition key is 
turned to the ``OFF'' position, the indicator light begins flashing to 
reliably notify the operator that the immobilizer device is activated.
    Nissan compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with other 
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 antitheft device is 
technologically superior and at least as effective as those devices in 
the lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption from the 
parts-marking requirements.
    Nissan stated that NHTSA's theft data have shown a significant 
reduction in theft rates for vehicle lines that have been equipped with 
antitheft devices similar to that which Nissan proposes to install on 
the new line. Specifically, Nissan stated that it believes that its 
proposed device is technologically superior to devices installed on the 
Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora vehicle lines, which have already 
been granted a parts-marking exemption by the agency. Nissan concludes 
that the data indicates that the immobilizer was effective in 
contributing to the theft rate reduction for these lines. Nissan stated 
that it believes the device it proposes to install on the MY 2010 
Murano will be at least effective as those systems. By supplemental 
letter dated May 22, 2009, Nissan provided further support of its 
belief that its proposed device is at least as effective as other 
similar devices installed in vehicle lines for which the agency has 
granted exemptions. Specifically, Nissan referenced information 
provided by the National Insurance Crime Bureau, which showed a 70% 
reduction in theft when comparing the MY 1987 Ford Mustang with a 
standard immobilizer to the MY 1995 Ford Mustang without an 
immobilizer. Additionally, Nissan referenced data from the Highway Loss 
Data Institute which showed 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. Nissan also stated that its Nissan Pathfinder vehicles 
experienced a significant theft rate reduction from MY 2000 to 2001 
with the implementation of an engine immobilizer system as standard 
equipment. Specifically, the theft rate dropped from 3.0363 in MY 2000 
to 1.9146 in MY 2001. The MY 2006 theft rate for the Nissan Pathfinder 
is 1.3474, still significantly below the median theft rate of 3.5826.
    The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to 
devices in other vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted 
exemptions. Based on the evidence submitted by Nissan, the agency 
believes that the antitheft device for the Murano 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).
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants 
a petition for an 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 will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based 
on the information Nissan provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide the four 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.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full 
Nissan's petition for exemption for the Murano vehicle line from the 
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, beginning with the 2010 
model year vehicles. 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

[[Page 28770]]

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 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 Part 
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. 
The agency did not intend Part 543 to require the submission of a 
modification petition for every change to the components or design of 
an antitheft device. The significance of many such changes could be de 
minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer 
contemplates making any changes the effects of which might be 
characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency before 
preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

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

    Issued on: June 12, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-14253 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P