Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mitsubishi Motors, 60880-60881 [05-20890]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60880-60881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20890]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard; Mitsubishi Motors

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of Mitsubishi Motors 
R&D of America (Mitsubishi), for an exemption in accordance with Sec.  
543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention 
Standard, for the Mitsubishi Endeavor vehicle line beginning with model 
year (MY) 2006. This petition is granted because the agency has 
determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the Endeavor 
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. Mitsubishi 
requested confidential treatment for the information and attachments it 
submitted in support of its petition. The agency will consider the 
petitioner's request for confidential treatment and will respond by 
separate letter.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning 
September 1, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone 
number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated February 25, 2005, 
Mitsubishi requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of 
the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Mitsubishi 
Endeavor vehicle line beginning with MY 2006. 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. 
Subsequently, the agency notified Mitsubishi of the areas of deficiency 
in its petition for exemption. Mitsubishi was also informed that its 
submission would be considered incomplete until such time the 
supplementary information addressing the areas of deficiency had been 
received. The agency received Mitsubishi's supplementary information on 
July 11, 2005.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant 
exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines per year. In its petition, 
Mitsubishi provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, 
design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the 
new vehicle line. Mitsubishi will install its passive, electronic 
immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment beginning with MY 
2006. Mitsubishi'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, 
Mitsubishi provided information on the reliability and durability of 
its proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the 
device, Mitsubishi conducted tests based on its own specified 
standards. Mitsubishi also 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.
    Mitsubishi compared the device proposed for its vehicle 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. Mitsubishi's proposed device, as well as other 
comparable devices that have received full exemptions from the parts-
marking requirements, lack an audible and visible alarm. Therefore, 
these devices cannot perform one of the functions listed in 49 CFR 
542.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to unauthorized attempts to 
enter or move the vehicle. However, theft data have indicated a decline 
in theft rates for vehicle lines that have been equipped with antitheft 
devices similar to that which Mitsubishi purposes. In these instances, 
the agency has concluded that the lack of a visual or audible alarm has 
not prevented these antitheft devices from being effective protection 
against theft.
    On the basis of this comparison, Mitsubishi has concluded that the 
antitheft device proposed for its vehicle line is no less effective 
than those devices in the lines for which NHTSA has already granted 
full exemption from the parts-marking requirements.
    Based on the evidence submitted by Mitsubishi, the agency believes 
that the antitheft device for the Mitsubishi 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 the device will provide four of the five 
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.
    As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the 
agency finds that Mitsubishi has provided adequate reasons for its 
belief that the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This 
conclusion is based on the information Mitsubishi provided about its 
device, much of which is confidential. This confidential information 
included a description of reliability and functional tests conducted by 
Mitsubishi for the antitheft device and its components.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full 
Mitsubishi's petition for exemption of its Endeavor vehicle line from 
the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. 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 incident to the 
disposition of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the 
release of future product nameplates, 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 Mitsubishi decides not to use the exemption for this line, it 
must formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, the line must be 
fully marked as required by 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of 
major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Mitsubishi 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.

[[Page 60881]]

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: October 13, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-20890 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P