Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 201/Thursday, October 19, 2017

48744 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 201 / Thursday, October 19, 2017 / Notices ‘‘ON’’ ignition status to any other status. stated that it believes that installing the formally notify the agency. If such a The certification ECU then performs the immobilizer device as standard decision is made, the line must be fully calculation for the immobilizer and the equipment reduces the theft rate for the marked according to the requirements immobilizer signals the ECM to activate Avalon vehicle line and expects it to under 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 the device. Toyota also stated that key experience comparable effectiveness (marking of major component parts and verification is also performed after the and ultimately be more effective than replacement parts). driver pushes the engine switch. parts-marking labels. NHTSA notes that if Toyota wishes in Specifically, after the driver pushes the Based on the supporting evidence the future to modify the device on engine switch, the certification ECU and submitted by Toyota on its device, the which this exemption is based, the steering lock ECU receive confirmation agency believes that the antitheft device company may have to submit a petition of a valid key, and the certification ECU for the Avalon vehicle line is likely to to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) allows the ECM to start the engine. be as effective in reducing and deterring states that a Part 543 exemption applies Toyota also stated that in the ‘‘smart motor vehicle theft as compliance with only to vehicles that belong to a line entry and start system’’ installed the parts-marking requirements of the exempted under this part and equipped vehicle, a security indicator notifies the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541). with the antitheft device on which the users and others inside and outside the The agency concludes that the device line’s exemption is based. Further, Part vehicle with the status of the will provide four of the five types of 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission immobilizer. Toyota further explained performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): of petitions ‘‘to modify an exemption to that the security indicator flashes Promoting activation; preventing defeat permit the use of an antitheft device continuously when the immobilizer is or circumvention of the device by similar to but differing from the one activated, and turns off when it is unauthorized persons; preventing specified in that exemption.’’ deactivated. operation of the vehicle by The agency wishes to minimize the unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the Toyota stated that the proposed administrative burden that Part reliability and durability of the device. 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted antitheft device has also been installed Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 as standard equipment on its Avalon vehicle manufacturers and itself. The CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants a agency did not intend in drafting part vehicle line beginning with its MY 2015 petition for exemption from the parts- vehicles. The theft rate for the MY 2015 543 to require the submission of a marking requirements of Part 541, either modification petition for every change Avalon vehicle line is not available. in whole or in part, if it determines that, However, Toyota compared its proposed to the components or design of an based upon substantial evidence, the antitheft device. The significance of device to other devices NHTSA has standard equipment antitheft device is determined to be as effective in many such changes could be de likely to be as effective in reducing and minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests reducing and deterring motor vehicle deterring motor vehicle theft as theft as would compliance with the that if the manufacturer contemplates compliance with the parts-marking making any changes, the effects of parts-marking requirements. Toyota requirements of Part 541. The agency compared its proposed device to that which might be characterized as de finds that Toyota has provided adequate minimis, it should consult the agency which has been installed on the Nissan reasons for its belief that the antitheft Altima and granted a parts-marking before preparing and submitting a device for the Avalon vehicle line is petition to modify. exemption from 49 CFR part 541 by the likely to be as effective in reducing and agency beginning with its MY 2000 deterring motor vehicle theft as Issued in Washington, DC, under authority vehicles. Toyota also referenced the compliance with the parts-marking delegated in 49 CFR 1.95. NHTSA theft rate data published for requirements of the Theft Prevention Raymond R. Posten, several years before and after the Nissan Standard (49 CFR part 541). This Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. Altima was equipped with a standard conclusion is based on the information [FR Doc. 2017–22657 Filed 10–18–17; 8:45 am] immobilizer device. Specifically, Toyota Toyota provided about its device. BILLING CODE 4910–59–P stated that the publication showed that For the foregoing reasons, the agency the average theft rate for the Nissan hereby grants in full Toyota’s petition Altima dropped to 3.0 per 1,000 cars for exemption for the Avalon vehicle DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION produced between MY’s 2000–2006 line from the parts-marking compared to 5.3 per 1,000 cars requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The National Highway Traffic Safety produced between MY’s 1996–1999. agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Administration This represents approximately a 43% Appendix A–1, identifies those lines decrease in the theft rate for the Nissan that are exempted from the Theft Petition for Exemption From the Altima vehicle line installed with an Prevention Standard for a given model Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention immobilizer between MY’s 2000–2006 year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains Standard; Nissan North America, Inc. as compared to the Nissan Altima publication requirements incident to the AGENCY: National Highway Traffic vehicle line without an immobilizer disposition of all Part 543 petitions. Safety Administration (NHTSA), between MY’s 1996–1999. The theft Advanced listing, including the release Department of Transportation (DOT). rates for the Nissan Altima vehicle line of future product nameplates, the ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. using an average of three model years’ beginning model year for which the data (2012–2014) are 2.4207, 1.7598 and petition is granted and a general SUMMARY: This document grants in full 2.1212 respectively, all well below the description of the antitheft device is the Nissan North America, Inc.’s, median theft rate of 3.5826. Therefore, necessary in order to notify law (Nissan) petition for exemption of the Toyota has concluded that the antitheft enforcement agencies of new vehicle Infiniti QX50 vehicle line in accordance device proposed for its Avalon vehicle lines exempted from the parts-marking with the Exemption from the Theft line is no less effective than those requirements of the Theft Prevention Prevention Standard. This petition is devices on the lines for which NHTSA Standard. granted because the agency has has already granted full exemption from If Toyota decides not to use the determined that the antitheft device to the parts-marking requirements. Toyota exemption for this line, it should be placed on the line as standard VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:13 Oct 18, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\19OCN1.SGM 19OCN1 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 543.7, in that it meets the general Mustangs (without an immobilizer). reducing and deterring motor vehicle requirements contained in § 543.5 and Nissan also referenced the Highway theft as compliance with the parts- the specific content requirements of Loss Data Institute’s data which marking requirements of the Federal § 543.6. reported that BMW vehicles Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention In addressing the specific content experienced theft loss reductions Standard (Theft Prevention Standard). requirements of 543.6, Nissan provided resulting in a 73% decrease in relative Nissan also requested confidential information on the reliability and claim frequency and a 78% lower treatment for specific information in its durability of its proposed device. Nissan average loss payment per claim for petition. Therefore, no confidential stated that its antitheft device is tested vehicles equipped with an immobilizer. information provided for purposes of for specific parameters to ensure its Additionally, Nissan stated that theft this notice has been disclosed. reliability and durability. Nissan rates for its Pathfinder vehicle line DATES: The exemption granted by this provided a detailed list of the tests experienced reductions from model year notice is applicable beginning with the conducted and believes that the device (MY) 2000 to 2001 and subsequent years 2019 model year (MY). is reliable and durable since the device with implementation of an engine complied with its specified FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. immobilizer device as standard requirements for each test. Nissan Carlita Ballard, Office of International equipment. Specifically, Nissan stated further stated that its immobilizer Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer that the agency’s theft rate data for MY’s device satisfies the European Directive Programs, National Highway Traffic 2001 through 2006 reported theft rates ECE R116, including tamper resistance. Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey of 1.9146, 1.8011, 1.1482, 0.8102, 1.7298 Nissan also stated that all control units Avenue SE., West Building, Room W43– and 1.3474 respectively for the Nissan for the device are located inside the 439, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Pathfinder. vehicle, providing further protection Ballard’s telephone phone number is Nissan compared its device to other from unauthorized accessibility of the (202) 366–5222.

Load more