
[Federal Register: February 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 20)]
[Notices]               
[Page 5891-5892]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02fe09-105]                         

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

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
