National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 8400-8401 [2011-3195]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8400-8401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3195]


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

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's (Mitsubishi) petition for exemption of the Outlander Sport 
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 
addressed Mitsubishi's request for confidential treatment by letter 
dated January 11, 2011.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2012 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West 
Building, W43-443, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 
Ms. Mazyck's phone number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 
493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated November 30, 2010, 
Mitsubishi requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of 
the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Mitsubishi 
Outlander Sport vehicle line, beginning with MY 2012. 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 Sport vehicle line. Mitsubishi will install a passive, 
transponder-based, electronic engine immobilizer device as standard 
equipment on its Outlander Sport vehicle line beginning with MY 2012. 
Features of the antitheft device will include a transponder key, 
electronic control unit (ECU), and a passive immobilizer. Mitsubishi 
will also incorporate an audible and visual 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 stated that its entry models for the Outlander Sport 
vehicle line will be equipped with 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 Sport vehicle line are equipped with a One-touch Starting 
System (OSS), which utilizes a keyless system that allows the driver to 
press a button located on the instrument panel to activate and 
deactivate 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. Mitsubishi stated that the performance of the immobilizer 
will be the same in all models whether the vehicle has a WCM or OSS 
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.
    Once the ignition switch is pushed 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 OSS) 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 engine only will function

[[Page 8401]]

if the key code matches the unique identification key code previously 
programmed into the ECU. If the codes do not match, the 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 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. The WCM has over 4.2 billion and the OSS has over 
2.4 million 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 Sport vehicle 
line was first equipped with the proposed device beginning with its MY 
2011 vehicles. Additionally, Mitsubishi informed the agency that its 
Eclipse vehicle line has been equipped with the device beginning with 
its MY 2000 vehicles. Mitsubishi stated that the theft rate for the MY 
2000 Eclipse decreased by almost 42% when compared with that of its MY 
1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse (unequipped with an immobilizer device). 
Mitsubishi also revealed that the Galant, Endeavor, Outlander and 
Lancer vehicle lines have been equipped with a similar type of 
immobilizer device since January 2004, April 2004, September 2006 and 
March 2007 respectively. The Mitsubishi Galant, Endeavor, Outlander and 
Lancer vehicle lines have all been granted parts-marking exemptions by 
the agency and the average theft rates using 3 MY's data are 4.8061, 
2.5410, 0.9507 and 3.1547 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 supporting evidence submitted by Mitsubishi on the 
device, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Outlander 
Sport 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 (49 CFR Part 541). 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.
    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 for the Mitsubishi Outlander Sport 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 (49 CFR Part 541). This conclusion is based on the 
information Mitsubishi provided about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full 
Mitsubishi's petition for exemption for the Outlander Sport vehicle 
line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, beginning 
with the 2012 model year vehicles. 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. 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 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 Sec.  
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: February 8, 2011.
Joseph S. Carra,
Acting Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-3195 Filed 2-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P