Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 20 / Monday, February 2, 2009 / Notices 5891 

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. 

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 

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 

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 


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. 

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