Document ID: NHTSA-2013-0009-0007
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Petition for Exemption from the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard: Nissan
Posted Date: 2013-05-13T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28018-28020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11191]

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

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 Nissan North America, Inc.'s 
(Nissan) petition for exemption of the Infiniti QX60 (formerly known as 
the Infiniti JX) vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543, 
Exemption from 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 
(49 CFR part 541).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2014 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 telephone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is 
(202) 493-0073.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated November 29, 2012, 
Nissan requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of 
the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the MY 2014 QX60 
vehicle line. 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 Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant 
exemptions 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 
QX60 vehicle line. Nissan will install its passive transponder-based, 
electronic immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment on its 
Infiniti QX60 vehicle line beginning with MY 2014. Major components of 
the antitheft device will include a body control module/immobilizer 
control (BCM), an immobilizer antenna, security indicator light, 
electronic immobilizer and an engine control module (ECM). Nissan will 
also install an audible and visible alarm system on the Infiniti QX60 
as standard equipment. Nissan stated that activation of the 
immobilization device occurs when the ignition is turned to the ``OFF'' 
position and all the doors are closed and locked through the use of the 
key or the remote control mechanism. Deactivation occurs when all the 
doors are unlocked with the key or remote control mechanism. Nissan's 
submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 
543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in Sec.  
543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    Nissan stated that the immobilizer device prevents normal operation 
of the vehicle without use of a special key.

[[Page 28019]]

Specifically, Nissan stated that when the brake switch or clutch switch 
is on and the vehicle's key fob is near the engine start switch, the 
body control module generates an electric field between the immobilizer 
antenna and the microchip incorporated in the ignition key. The 
microchip then transmits the ``key-ID'' by radio wave and is received 
by the antenna, amplified and transmitted to the BCM. The ECM then 
requests the BCM to start the encrypted communication. If the encrypted 
code is correct, the BCM sends an ``OK-code'' and encrypted code to the 
ECM. If the code is not correct, the immobilizer control unit sends a 
``NG-code'' to the ECM. The ECM then correlates the received encrypted 
code with the previously determined encrypted code. If the code is 
correct, the ECM allows the engine to keep running and if the code is 
incorrect, the ECM will render the engine inoperable.
    Nissan further stated that incorporation of the theft warning alarm 
system into its device is designed to protect the belongings within the 
vehicle and the vehicle itself from being stolen when the back door and 
all of the side doors are closed and locked. If any of the doors are 
unlocked through an inside door lock knob or any attempts are made to 
reconnect the device after it has been disconnected, the device will 
also activate the alarm. Nissan stated that upon alarm activation, the 
head lamps will flash and the horn will sound, and deactivation of the 
alarm can occur only by unlocking the driver's side door with the key 
or the remote control device.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Nissan 
provided information on the reliability and durability of the 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, and 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 provided data on the effectiveness of the antitheft device 
installed on its Infiniti QX60 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 the MY 1997 Ford Mustang (with a standard immobilizer) to the 
MY 1995 Ford Mustang (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 experienced reductions from 
model year (MY) 2000 to 2001 with implementation of the engine 
immobilizer device as standard equipment and further significant 
reductions subsequent to MY 2001. Specifically, Nissan noted that the 
agency's theft rate data for MY's 2001 through 2006 (with immobilizer 
device) showed a theft rate experience for the Nissan Pathfinder of 
1.9146, 1.8011, 1.1482, 0.8102, 1.7298 and 1.3474 respectively.
    In support of its belief that its antitheft device will be as 
effective as compliance with the parts marking requirements in reducing 
and deterring vehicle theft, 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 the agency.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Nissan on the device, 
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Infiniti QX60 
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 the five types of performance 
listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): promoting activation; attracting attention 
to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by 
means other than a key; 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 parts-marking requirements of part 
541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon 
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely 
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as 
compliance with the parts marking requirements of part 541. The agency 
finds that Nissan has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the 
antitheft device for the 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 
(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 QX60 vehicle 
line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning 
with the 2014 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 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 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

[[Page 28020]]

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.

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

    Issued on: May 6, 2013.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-11191 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P