Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Nissan

Topics:  Nissan

Ricardo Martinez
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register
November 29, 1994

[Federal Register: November 29, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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), DOT.

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This notice grants the petition by Nissan for an exemption of 
a high theft car line (whose nameplate is confidential) from the parts 
marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard. This 
petition is granted because the agency has determined that the 
antitheft device to be placed on the car line as standard equipment is 
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft 
as compliance with parts marking requirements.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara A. Gray, Office of Market 
Incentives, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. 
Ms. Gray's telephone number is (202) 366-1740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a letter dated July 14, 1994, Nissan 
requested an exemption from the theft prevention standard for a car 
line beginning from the (confidential) model year. The nameplate of the 
car line is also confidential. The letter was submitted pursuant to 49 
CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, and 
requested an exemption from parts marking based on the installation of 
an antitheft device as standard equipment for the car line. In a July 
27, 1994 telephone conversation with NHTSA officials, Nissan clarified 
the scope of its petition.
    Together, Nissan's July 14 letter and information provided in the 
July 27 telephone conversation constitute a complete petition, as 
required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that they met the general requirements 
contained in Sec. 543.5 and the specific content requirements of 
Sec. 543.6. In a letter dated August 5, 1994 to Nissan, the agency 
granted the petitioner's request for confidential treatment of most 
aspects of its petition, including the nameplate of the car line and 
the model year of its introduction.
    In its petition, Nissan provided a detailed description and 
diagrams of the identity, design, and location of the components of the 
antitheft device for the new car line. The antitheft device includes an 
engine starter interrupt function and an alarm function. The antitheft 
device is activated by removing the key from the ignition and locking 
the driver or passenger door with the key. The alarm monitors the 
doors, hood, trunk lid, battery terminals, engine starter circuit, and 
battery circuit.
    In order to ensure the reliability and durability of the device, 
Nissan stated that it conducted tests, based on its own specified 
standards. Nissan provided a detailed list of the tests conducted. 
Nissan stated its belief that the device is reliable and durable since 
the device complied with Nissan's specified requirements for each test.
    Nissan compared the device proposed for its new car 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 concludes that the antitheft device proposed for its new car 
line is not less effective than those devices in the above car lines 
for which NHTSA has granted exemptions from the parts-marking 
requirements.
    Based on the substantial evidence submitted by Nissan, the agency 
believes that the antitheft device for the new Nissan car 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 believes that the device will provide the types of 
performance listed in 49 CFR part 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; 
attracting attention to unauthorized entries; 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), the agency 
also 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 on its device. This 
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 exempts the Nissan car 
line that is the subject of this notice, in whole, from the 
requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
    If Nissan decides not to use the exemption for the car line that is 
the subject of this notice, it should formally notify the agency. If 
such a decision is made, the car 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 has attempted to compare the effectiveness of compliance with 
the theft prevention standard (parts marking) with the effectiveness of 
antitheft devices. NHTSA has compared the theft rates of 17 parts-
marked MY 1986 vehicle lines, with the theft rates of the same 17 lines 
in MY 1991, when each line had an exemption from parts marking because 
it had an antitheft device as standard equipment. Of the 17 lines 
reviewed, 10 experienced theft rates for MY 1991 that were below their 
respective rates in MY 1986. Although the results of the data are 
inconclusive, they indicate a likelihood of lower theft rates for 
vehicle lines that have been exempted from parts marking because they 
are equipped with an antitheft device. With implementation of the 
requirements of the ``Anti Car Theft Act of 1992,'' NHTSA anticipates 
more probative data upon which comparisons may be made.
    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, Sec. 543.9(c)(2) provides for the 
submission of petitions ``(t)o 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 which 
Sec. 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.

    Dated: November 22, 1994.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-29327 Filed 11-28-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P