Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Nissan North America, Inc. Publication: Federal Register Agency: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Byline: Milton E. Cooper Date: 13 September 2023 Subjects: American Government , Crime Topic: Nissan Z

[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