362 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Notices 

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 Eclipse 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. In a letter dated June 26, 

2006, the agency granted the petitioner’s 

request for confidential treatment of 

most aspects of its petition. 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2007 model year. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carlita Ballard, Office of International 

Vehicle Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Ballard’s phone number is (202) 366–

0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–2290. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated June 14, 2006, Mitsubishi 

requested exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the theft 

prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) 

for the Mitsubishi Eclipse vehicle line 

beginning with MY 2007. The petition 

requested an exemption from partsmarking 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. 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. 

Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may 

petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for 

one line of its vehicle lines per 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 new vehicle line. Mitsubishi will 

install a passive, transponder-based 

electronic immobilizer device as 

standard equipment on its Eclipse 

vehicle line beginning with MY 2007. 

Mitsubishi’s device incorporates an 

immobilizer feature and a visual and 

audible alarm system. Key components 

of the antitheft device are an engine 

electronic control unit (ECU), an 

immobilizer ECU, a key antenna and a 

transponder key. 

Mitsubishi explained that 

immobilization of its device occurs 

when 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), which then determines if the key 

is valid and authorizes the engine to 

start by sending another encrypted 

message to the ECU. The powertrain 

will function only 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 response to NHTSA’s inquiry, 

Mitsubishi stated in an e-mail dated 

August 17, 2006 that an audible and 

visual alarm system will be installed as 

standard equipment on the Eclipse 

vehicle line. Mitsubishi further stated 

that the audible and visual device will 

monitor all the doors, rear hatch or 

trunk lid of the vehicle and is designed 

to provide protection from unauthorized 

entry into the vehicle. Once the alarm 

system has been armed, opening the 

hood from the outside, or opening the 

doors, rear hatch or trunk lid without 

using the remote control transmitter or 

key will activate the alarm unless the 

system is disarmed by the driver/ 

operator. 

Mitsubishi also provided information 

on the reliability and durability of its 

proposed device, conducting tests based 

on its own specified standards. In a 

letter dated June 26, 2006, NHTSA 

granted Mitsubishi confidential 

treatment for the test information. 

Mitsubishi provided a list of the tests it 

conducted. Mitsubishi based its belief 

that the device is reliable and durable 

on the fact that the device complied 

with the specific requirements for each 

test. 

Mitsubishi further stated that it is not 

possible to mechanically override the 

antitheft system and start the vehicle, 

and that any attempt to slam or pull the 

ignition lock cylinder, would have no 

effect on an intruder’s ability to start the 

vehicle as the correct code would need 

to be transmitted to do so. 

On the basis of this comparison, 

Mitsubishi informed the agency that the 

Eclipse vehicle line was first equipped 

with the proposed device beginning 

with its MY 2000 vehicles and, citing 

theft rates published by NHTSA in the 

Federal Register, that the theft rate for 

the MY 2000 Eclipse decreased by 

almost 42% compared with that of its 

MY 1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse 

(unequipped with an immobilizer 

device). NHTSA also checked the 

published theft rates through the 2004 

MY, and while there is some variation, 

the rate continued to stay below the 

1999 rate. 

For clarification purposes, the agency 

notes that it does not collect theft data. 

NHTSA publishes theft rates based on 

data provided by the National Crime 

Information Center (NCIC) of the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. NHTSA 

uses NCIC data to calculate theft rates 

and publishes these rates annually in 

the Federal Register. 

Mitsubishi also stated 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 partsmaking exemptions 

by the agency. Therefore, Mitsubishi has 

concluded that the antitheft device 

proposed for its vehicle line is not less 

effective than those devices in the lines 

for which NHTSA has already granted 

full exemption from the parts-making 

requirements. 

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. As explained below, the agency 

finds that Mitsubishi has provided 

adequate reasons for its belief that the 

antitheft device will be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. This conclusion is 

based on the information Mitsubishi 

provided and additional investigation 

by NHTSA about the device for the 

Mitsubishi Eclipse vehicle line. 

The agency concludes that the device 

will provide the five types of 

performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): 

promoting activation; attracting 

attention to the efforts of unauthorized 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 2 / Thursday, January 4, 2007 / Notices 363 

persons to enter or operate a vehicle by 

means other than a key; preventing 

defeat or circumvention of the device by 

unauthorized persons; prevention 

operation of the vehicle by 

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 

reliability and durability of the device. 

The agency agrees that the device is 

substantially similar to devices in other 

vehicles lines for which the agency has 

already granted exemptions. In addition, 

the theft rate for the vehicle line has 

been reduced since the introduction of 

the device. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full Mitsubishi’s 

petition for exemption for the Eclipse 

vehicle line from the parts-making 

requirements of 49 CFR part 541, 

beginning with the 2007 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 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 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. 

Section 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: December 15, 2006. 

Stephen R. Kratzke, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 06–9960 Filed 1–3–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2006–26735] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Child Restraint Systems; 

Child Restraint Anchorage Systems; 

Child Restraint Use Survey—LATCH 

Use and Misuse 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Request for comments on report. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces 

NHTSA’s publication of a report 

reviewing and evaluating its existing 

Safety Standard 213, Child Restraint 

Systems, and Safety Standard 225, Child 

Restraint Anchorage Systems. The 

reports’ title is: Child Restraint Use 

Survey—LATCH Use and Misuse. 

DATES: Comments must be received no 

later than May 4, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: 

Report: The report is available for 

viewing on line in PDF format at the 

Docket Management System (DMS) Web 

page of the Department of 

Transportation, http://dms.dot.gov. 

Click on ‘‘Simple Search’’; type in the 

five-digit Docket number shown at the 

beginning of this Notice (26735) and 

click on ‘‘Search’’; that brings up a list 

of every item in the docket, starting with 

a copy of this Federal Register notice 

(item NHTSA–2006–26735–1) and a 

copy of the report in PDF format (item 

NHTSA–2006–26735–2). 

Comments: You may submit 

comments [identified by DOT DMS 

Docket Number NHTSA–2006–26735] 

by any of the following methods: 

• Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

001. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

You may call Docket Management at 

202–366–9324 and visit the Docket from 

10 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charlene Doyle, Evaluation Division, 

NPO–131, National Center for Statistics 

and Analysis, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Room 5208, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone: 202–366–1276. FAX: 

202–366–2559. E-mail: 

Charlene.Doyle@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA 

conducted a survey from April to 

October 2005 to collect information 

about the types of restraint systems that 

were being used to keep children safe 

while riding in passenger vehicles. In 

particular, NHTSA was interested in 

whether drivers with Lower Anchors 

and Tethers for CHildren (LATCH)- 

equipped vehicles were using LATCH to 

secure their child safety seats to the 

vehicle, and if so, were these seats 

properly installed. Safety Standard 213, 

Child Restraint Systems, (49 CFR 

571.213) was amended and Safety 

Standard 225, Child Restraint 

Anchorage Systems (49 CFR 571.225) 

was established effective September 1, 

1999 (64 FR 10786). Safety Standard 213 

required upper tether anchorages and 

lower attachment anchors to be phased 

into the back seats of nearly all new 

passenger vehicles effective September 

1, 2002, and Safety Standard 225 

required upper tethers and lower 

attachments on all child safety seats by 

the same date. 

In the survey, the make/model and 

the type of restraint installed in each 

seating position were recorded for each 

of the vehicles; demographic 

characteristics and the type of restraint 

system were collected for each 

occupant. In addition, information was 

gathered about the drivers’ knowledge 

of booster seats and LATCH, along with 

their opinions on how easy it was to use 

LATCH. 

A key finding of the survey was that 

55 percent of child safety seats, located 

in a seating position equipped with an 

upper anchor, were attached to the 

vehicle using an upper tether. Other 

findings include: (1) In 13 percent of the 

observations, the child safety seat was 

mstockstill on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES