Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mitsubishi Motors, 5891-5892 [E9-2108]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 20 / Monday, February 2, 2009 / Notices
relating to certification, identification
and proper loading, and to provide more
detailed loading information in the
owner’s manual of the truck.
Part 575 Section 105, ‘‘Utility
vehicles.’’ This regulation requires
manufacturers of utility vehicles to alert
drivers that the particular handling and
maneuvering characteristics of utility
vehicles require special driving
practices when these vehicles are
operated on paved roads. For example,
the vehicle owner’s manual is required
to contain a discussion of vehicle design
features that cause this type of vehicle
to be more likely to roll over, and to
include a discussion of driving practices
that can reduce the risk of roll over. A
statement is provided in the regulation
that manufacturers shall include, in its
entirety or equivalent form, in the
vehicle owner’s manual.
Affected Public: Individuals,
households, business, other for-profit,
not-for-profit, farms, Federal
Government and State, Local or Tribal
Government.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
3,051 hours.
Send comments, within 30 days, to
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503, Attention
NHTSA Desk Officer.
Comments are invited on: Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the Department,
including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of
the Department’s estimate of the burden
of the proposed information collection;
ways to enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
A comment to OMB is most effective if
OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3506(c); delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: January 26, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9–2110 Filed 1–30–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:03 Jan 30, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America
(Mitsubishi) petition for exemption of
the Mitsubishi Outlander vehicle line in
accordance with 49 CFR part 543,
Exemption from the 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). Mitsubishi requested confidential
treatment for some of the information
and attachments it submitted in support
of its petition. The agency will address
Mitsubishi’s request for confidential
treatment by separate letter.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2011 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Carlita Ballard, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Ballard’s phone number is (202)
366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–
2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated September 26, 2008,
Mitsubishi requested exemption from
the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part
541) for the Mitsubishi Outlander
vehicle line beginning with MY 2011.
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 § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may
petition NHTSA to grant an exemption
for one vehicle line per model 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 Outlander vehicle line. Mitsubishi
will install a passive, transponderbased, electronic engine immobilizer
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5891
device as standard equipment on its
Outlander vehicle line beginning with
MY 2011. Features of the antitheft
device will include an electronic key,
electronic control unit (ECU), and a
passive immobilizer. Mitsubishi will
also incorporate an alarm system as
standard equipment on all trimline
vehicles. 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.
Mitsubishi further explained that
entry models for the Outlander vehicle
line will be equipped with an
immobilizer that functions via a
Wireless Control Module (WCM).
Mitsubishi stated that this is a keyless
entry system in which the transponder
is located in a traditional key that must
be inserted into the key cylinder in
order to activate the ignition. All other
models of the Outlander vehicle line are
equipped with an immobilizer that
functions via a Keyless Operation
System (KOS), which utilizes a keyless
system that allows the driver to push a
knob in the steering lock unit to activate
the ignition (instead of using a
traditional key in the key cylinder) as
long as the transponder is located in
close proximity to the driver inside the
vehicle. Mitsubishi stated that the
construction and performance of the
immobilizer will be the same in all
models whether the vehicle has a WCM
or KOS entry system. Mitsubishi further
stated that the only difference between
the two keyless entry systems is the
‘‘key’’ and the method used to transmit
the information from the key to the
immobilizer.
Specifically, once the ignition switch
is turned to the ‘‘on’’ position, the
transceiver module reads the specific
ignition key code for the vehicle and
transmits an encrypted message
containing the key code to the electronic
control unit (ECU). The immobilizer
receives the key code signal transmitted
from either type of key (WCM or KOS)
and verifies that the key code signal is
correct. The immobilizer then sends a
separate encrypted start-code signal to
the engine ECU to allow the driver to
start the vehicle. The power train only
will function if the key code matches
the unique identification key code
previously programmed into the ECU. If
the codes do not match, the power train
engine and fuel system will be disabled.
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
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
5892
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 20 / Monday, February 2, 2009 / Notices
based on its own specified standards.
Mitsubishi provided a detailed list of
the tests conducted and believes that the
device is reliable and durable since the
device complied with its specific
requirements for each test. Mitsubishi
additionally stated that its immobilizer
system is further enhanced by several
factors making it very difficult to defeat.
Specifically, Mitsubishi stated that
communication between the
transponder and the ECU are encrypted
and have trillions of different possible
key codes that make successful key code
duplication virtually impossible.
Mitsubishi also stated that its
immobilizer system and the ECU share
security data during vehicle assembly
that make them a matched set. These
matched modules will not function if
taken out and reinstalled separately on
other vehicles. Mitsubishi also stated
that it is impossible to mechanically
override the system and start the vehicle
because the vehicle will not be able to
start without the transmission of the
specific code to the electronic control
module. Lastly, Mitsubishi stated that
the antitheft device is extremely reliable
and durable because there are no
moving parts, nor does the key require
a separate battery.
Mitsubishi informed the agency that
the Outlander vehicle line was first
equipped with the proposed device
beginning with it’s MY 2007 vehicles.
Additionally, Mitsubishi informed the
agency that its Eclipse vehicle line has
been equipped with the device
beginning with it’s MY 2000 vehicles.
Mitsubishi stated that the theft rate for
the MY 2000 Eclipse decreased by
almost 42% when compared with that
of it’s MY 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse
(unequipped with an immobilizer
device). Mitsubishi also revealed that
the Galant and Endeavor vehicle lines
have been equipped with a similar type
of immobilizer device since January and
April 2004 respectively. The Mitsubishi
Galant and Endeavor vehicle lines were
both granted parts-marking exemptions
by the agency and the average theft rates
using 3 MY’s data is 4.4173 and 2.9564
respectively. Therefore, 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 Outlander
vehicle line is likely to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:03 Jan 30, 2009
Jkt 217001
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49
CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a
petition for an 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 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.
The agency concludes that the device
will provide the five types of
Performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3):
promoting activation; attract attention to
the efforts of an unauthorized person to
enter or move 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full Mitsubishi’s
petition for exemption for the Outlander
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, 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 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.
Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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: January 27, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9–2108 Filed 1–30–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition To Modify an Exemption of a
Previously Approved Antitheft Device;
General Motors Corporation
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice; Grant of Petition.
SUMMARY: On May 15, 1995, the
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) granted in full
General Motors Corporation’s (GM)
petition for an exemption in accordance
with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR part 543,
Exemption from the Theft Prevention
Standard for the Buick Regal vehicle
line (subsequently renamed LaCrosse).
On July 27, 2004, the agency granted
GM’s first petition to modify its
exemption. On September 25, 2008, GM
submitted a second petition to modify
its previously approved exemption for
the Buick Regal/LaCrosse vehicle line
beginning with model year (MY) 2010.
NHTSA is granting GM’s second
petition to modify the exemption in full
because it has determined that the
modified device is also likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with
the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard.
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 20 (Monday, February 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5891-5892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2108]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Mitsubishi Motors R&D of
America (Mitsubishi) petition for exemption of the Mitsubishi Outlander
vehicle line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the
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).
Mitsubishi requested confidential treatment for some of the information
and attachments it submitted in support of its petition. The agency
will address Mitsubishi's request for confidential treatment by
separate letter.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2011 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone
number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated September 26, 2008,
Mitsubishi requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of
the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Mitsubishi
Outlander vehicle line beginning with MY 2011. 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 an
exemption for one vehicle line per model 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
Outlander vehicle line. Mitsubishi will install a passive, transponder-
based, electronic engine immobilizer device as standard equipment on
its Outlander vehicle line beginning with MY 2011. Features of the
antitheft device will include an electronic key, electronic control
unit (ECU), and a passive immobilizer. Mitsubishi will also incorporate
an alarm system as standard equipment on all trimline vehicles.
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.
Mitsubishi further explained that entry models for the Outlander
vehicle line will be equipped with an immobilizer that functions via a
Wireless Control Module (WCM). Mitsubishi stated that this is a keyless
entry system in which the transponder is located in a traditional key
that must be inserted into the key cylinder in order to activate the
ignition. All other models of the Outlander vehicle line are equipped
with an immobilizer that functions via a Keyless Operation System
(KOS), which utilizes a keyless system that allows the driver to push a
knob in the steering lock unit to activate the ignition (instead of
using a traditional key in the key cylinder) as long as the transponder
is located in close proximity to the driver inside the vehicle.
Mitsubishi stated that the construction and performance of the
immobilizer will be the same in all models whether the vehicle has a
WCM or KOS entry system. Mitsubishi further stated that the only
difference between the two keyless entry systems is the ``key'' and the
method used to transmit the information from the key to the
immobilizer.
Specifically, once the ignition switch is turned to the ``on''
position, the transceiver module reads the specific ignition key code
for the vehicle and transmits an encrypted message containing the key
code to the electronic control unit (ECU). The immobilizer receives the
key code signal transmitted from either type of key (WCM or KOS) and
verifies that the key code signal is correct. The immobilizer then
sends a separate encrypted start-code signal to the engine ECU to allow
the driver to start the vehicle. The power train only will function if
the key code matches the unique identification key code previously
programmed into the ECU. If the codes do not match, the power train
engine and fuel system will be disabled.
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
[[Page 5892]]
based on its own specified standards. Mitsubishi provided a detailed
list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is reliable
and durable since the device complied with its specific requirements
for each test. Mitsubishi additionally stated that its immobilizer
system is further enhanced by several factors making it very difficult
to defeat. Specifically, Mitsubishi stated that communication between
the transponder and the ECU are encrypted and have trillions of
different possible key codes that make successful key code duplication
virtually impossible. Mitsubishi also stated that its immobilizer
system and the ECU share security data during vehicle assembly that
make them a matched set. These matched modules will not function if
taken out and reinstalled separately on other vehicles. Mitsubishi also
stated that it is impossible to mechanically override the system and
start the vehicle because the vehicle will not be able to start without
the transmission of the specific code to the electronic control module.
Lastly, Mitsubishi stated that the antitheft device is extremely
reliable and durable because there are no moving parts, nor does the
key require a separate battery.
Mitsubishi informed the agency that the Outlander vehicle line was
first equipped with the proposed device beginning with it's MY 2007
vehicles. Additionally, Mitsubishi informed the agency that its Eclipse
vehicle line has been equipped with the device beginning with it's MY
2000 vehicles. Mitsubishi stated that the theft rate for the MY 2000
Eclipse decreased by almost 42% when compared with that of it's MY 1999
Mitsubishi Eclipse (unequipped with an immobilizer device). Mitsubishi
also revealed that the Galant and Endeavor vehicle lines have been
equipped with a similar type of immobilizer device since January and
April 2004 respectively. The Mitsubishi Galant and Endeavor vehicle
lines were both granted parts-marking exemptions by the agency and the
average theft rates using 3 MY's data is 4.4173 and 2.9564
respectively. Therefore, 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 Outlander 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.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for an 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 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.
The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of
Performance listed in Sec. 543.6(a)(3): promoting activation; attract
attention to the efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or move 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Mitsubishi's petition for exemption for the Outlander 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, 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 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. 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: January 27, 2009.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E9-2108 Filed 1-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P