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. 

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 

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. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 20 / Monday, February 2, 2009 / Notices 5893 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with model 

year (MY) 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Mazyck, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Ms. Mazyck’s telephone number is (202) 

366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493– 

2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

15, 1995, NHTSA published in the 

Federal Register a notice granting in full 

a petition from GM for an exemption 

from the parts-marking requirements of 

the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 

541) for the Buick Regal vehicle line 

beginning with its MY 1996 vehicles. 

The Buick Regal was equipped with the 

PASS-Key II antitheft device (See 69 FR 

44724). 

On July 27, 2004 (see 69 FR 44724), 

the agency granted a petition for 

modification of the previously granted 

exemption for the Buick Regal/LaCrosse 

vehicle line beginning with its MY 2005 

vehicles. The notice also acknowledged 

that the nameplate for the Buick Regal 

would be changed to Buick LaCrosse. 

On September 25, 2008, GM submitted 

a second petition to modify the 

previously approved exemption for the 

Buick LaCrosse vehicle line. This notice 

grants in full GM’s second petition to 

modify the exemption for the Buick 

LaCrosse vehicle line. GM’s submission 

is a complete petition, as required by 49 

CFR part 543.9(d), in that it meets the 

general requirements contained in 49 

CFR part 543.5 and the specific content 

requirements of 49 CFR part 543.6. GM’s 

petition provides a detailed description 

and diagram of the identity, design, and 

location of the components of the 

antitheft device proposed for 

installation beginning with the 2010 

model year. 

The MY 1996 antitheft device (PASSKey II) installed on the Buick Regal/ 

LaCrosse was a passively activated, 

transponder-based, electronic 

immobilizer system. GM stated that, in 

the PASS-Key II device, the key 

resistance was determined by a 

microprocessor, and the key information 

was monitored for the duration of a 

valid ignition cycle. Additionally, a 

security indicator would illuminate 

continuously directing the operator to 

have the vehicle serviced if ‘‘fail 

enabled’’ conditions (i.e., vehicle does 

not start with the proper key because of 

a dirty or contaminated resistor pellet) 

arose. If a fault was detected, future 

ignition cycles would not be allowed 

regardless of key authorization. 

GM stated that the current PASS-Key 

III antitheft device (MY 2004 

modification) installed on the Buick 

Regal vehicle line provides protection 

against unauthorized starting and 

fueling of the vehicle engine. The 

antitheft device is designed to be active 

at all times without direct intervention 

by the vehicle operator, and so that no 

specific or discrete security system 

action is necessary to achieve protection 

of the device. The device is fully armed 

immediately after the vehicle has been 

turned off and the key has been 

removed. GM also stated that the PASSKey III device utilizes a special ignition 

key and decoder module. The 

mechanical code of the key unlocks and 

releases the transmission lever. The 

vehicle can only be operated when the 

key’s electrical code is sensed by the 

key cylinder and properly decoded by 

the controller module. 

The ignition key contains electronics 

in the key head that receive energy from 

the controller module. Upon receipt of 

the data from the controller module, the 

key transmits a unique code through 

low frequency transmission. The 

controller module translates the 

received signal from the key into a 

digital signal which is transmitted to the 

body control module (BCM). The 

received signal is compared to an 

internally stored value by the BCM. If 

the values match, the key is recognized 

as valid and a vehicle security password 

is transmitted through data link to the 

engine control module to enable fuel 

and starting of the vehicle. 

In its second modification, GM stated 

that it proposes to install its Buick 

LaCrosse vehicle line with its PASS-Key 

III+ antitheft device beginning with its 

MY 2010 vehicles. The PASS-Key III+ is 

also a transponder based electronic 

immobilizer system. It is designed to be 

active at all times without direct 

intervention by the vehicle operator. 

The antitheft device is fully armed 

immediately after the ignition has been 

turned off and the key removed. The 

device will continue to provide 

protection against unauthorized use 

(i.e., starting and engine fueling), but 

will not provide any visible or audible 

indication of unauthorized vehicle entry 

(i.e., flashing lights or horn alarm). 

Components of the modified antitheft 

device include an electronically-coded 

ignition key, a PASS-Key III+ controller 

module and a powertrain control 

module. Unlike the ignition key used 

with the PASS-Key and PASS-Key II 

devices, the PASS-Key III and PASSKey III+ ignition key contains 

electronics embedded within the head 

of the key. 

GM states that the PASS-Key III+ 

utilizes an encryption process. The 

electronics embedded within the head 

of the key receive energy and data from 

the control module. Upon receipt of the 

data, the key will calculate a response 

to the data using secret information and 

an internal encryption algorithm, and 

transmit the response back to the 

vehicle. The controller module 

translates the radio frequency signal 

received from the key into a digital 

signal and compares the received 

response to an internally calculated 

value. If the values match, the key is 

recognized as valid, and one of 65,534 

‘‘Vehicle Security Passwords’’ is 

transmitted to enable fuel and starting. 

The PASS-Key III and PASS-Key III+ 

device use billions of electrical key 

codes which varies with every ignition 

cycle, while the PASS-Key II has code 

combinations that never varies at each 

ignition cycle. In the PASS-Key III+, 

each key is uniquely coded and the 

vehicle can be programmed to operate 

with up to ten different codes, 

compared to the PASS-Key and PASSKey II devices that only allow a vehicle 

to recognize a single unique code. The 

PASS-Key III+ device uses an encrypted 

code while the codes for the PASS-Key, 

PASS-Key II and PASS-Key III devices 

use a fixed code. 

GM indicated that the theft rates, as 

reported by the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation’s National Crime 

Information Center (NCIC), are lower for 

GM models equipped with the ‘‘PASSKey’’-like systems which have 

exemptions from the parts-marking 

requirements of 49 CFR part 541, than 

the theft rates for earlier, similarlyconstructed models which were partsmarked. Based on the performance of 

the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASSKey III systems on other GM models, 

and the advanced technology utilized by 

the modification, GM believes that the 

MY 2010 antitheft device will be more 

effective in deterring theft than the 

parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR 

part 541. 

GM stated that the theft rates for the 

2003 and 2004 Cadillac CTS and the MY 

2004 Cadillac SRX currently installed 

with the PASS-Key III+ antitheft device 

exhibit theft rates that are lower than 

the median theft rate (3.5826) 

established by the agency. The Cadillac 

CTS introduced as a MY 2003 vehicle 

line has been equipped with the PASSKey III+ device since the start of 

production. The theft rates for the MY 

2003 and 2004 Cadillac CTS are 1.0108 

and 0.7681 respectively. Similarly, the 

Cadillac SRX introduced as a MY 2004 

vehicle has been equipped with the 

PASS-Key III+ device since production. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
5894 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 20 / Monday, February 2, 2009 / Notices 

The theft rate for MY 2004 Cadillac SRX 

is 0.7789. GM stated that the theft rates 

experienced by these lines with 

installation of the PASS-Key III+ device 

demonstrate the effectiveness of the 

device. The agency agrees that the 

device is substantially similar to devices 

for which the agency has previously 

approved exemptions. 

GM’s proposed device, as well as 

other comparable devices that have 

received full exemptions from the partsmarking requirements, lack an audible 

or visible alarm. Therefore, these 

devices cannot perform one of the 

functions listed in 49 CFR part 

543.6(a)(3), that is, to call attention to 

unauthorized attempts to enter or move 

the vehicle. Based on comparison of the 

reduction in the theft rates of GM 

vehicles using a passive theft deterrent 

device with an audible/visible alarm 

system to the reduction in theft rates for 

GM vehicle models equipped with a 

passive antitheft device without an 

alarm, GM finds that the lack of an 

alarm or attention attracting device does 

not compromise the theft deterrent 

performance of a system such as PASSKey III+. In past petitions, the agency 

has concluded that the lack of a visual 

or audio alarm has not prevented these 

antitheft devices from being effective 

protection against theft. 

On the basis of this comparison, GM 

believes that the antitheft device (PASSKey III+) for model years 2010 and later 

will provide essentially the same 

functions and features as found on its 

MY 2005–2009 PASS-Key III device and 

therefore, its modified device will 

provide at least the same level of theft 

prevention as parts-marking. GM 

believes that the antitheft device 

proposed for installation on its MY 2010 

Buick LaCrosse is likely to be as 

effective in reducing thefts as 

compliance with the parts marking 

requirements of part 541. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of part 543.6, GM 

provided information on the reliability 

and durability of the proposed device. 

To ensure reliability and durability of 

the device, GM conducted tests based 

on its own specified standards. GM 

provided a detailed list of the tests 

conducted and believes that the device 

is reliable and durable since it complied 

with the specified requirements for each 

test. GM also stated that since the 

authorization code is not handled or 

contacted by the vehicle operator, the 

reliability of the PASS-Key III+ is 

significantly improved over the PASSKey and PASS-Key II devices. This 

reliability allows the system to return to 

the ‘‘Go/No Go’’ based system, 

eliminating the ‘‘fail enabled’’ mode of 

operation. 

The agency has evaluated GM’s MY 

2010 petition to modify the exemption 

for the Buick LaCrosse vehicle line from 

the parts-marking requirements of 49 

CFR part 541, and has decided to grant 

it. It has determined that the PASS-Key 

III+ system is likely to be as effective as 

parts-marking in preventing and 

deterring theft of these vehicles, and 

therefore qualifies for an exemption 

under 49 CFR part 543. The agency 

believes that the proposed device will 

continue to provide four of the five 

types of performance listed in 

§ 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. 

If GM decides not to use the 

exemption for this line, it should 

formally notify the agency. If such a 

decision is made, the line must be fully 

marked according to the requirements 

under 49 CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 

(marking of major component parts and 

replacement parts). 

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. E9–2106 Filed 1–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

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 Lancer 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 

2010 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 Lancer vehicle 

line beginning with MY 2010. 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. 

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 Lancer vehicle line. Mitsubishi will 

install a passive, transponder-based, 

electronic engine immobilizer device as 

standard equipment on its Lancer 

vehicle line beginning with MY 2010. 

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 Lancer models, except 

for the DE models, which will offer an 

optional alarm system. However, based 

on the declining theft rate experience of 

other vehicles equipped with devices 

that do not have an audio or visual 

alarm for which NHTSA has already 

exempted from the parts-marking 

requirements, the agency has concluded 

that the absence of a visual or audio 

alarm has not prevented these antitheft 

devices from being effective protection 

against theft. Mitsubishi’s submission is 

considered a complete petition as 

required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it 

meets the general requirements 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES