82 FR 28373 - Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Mitsubishi Motors

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 118 (June 21, 2017)

This document grants in full the Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America, Inc.'s (Mitsubishi) petition for exemption of the Mitsubishi [Confidential] vehicle line in accordance with 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 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Mitsubishi also requested confidential treatment for specific information in its petition. While official notification on granting or denying Mitsubishi's request for confidential treatment will be addressed by separate letter, no confidential information provided for purposes of this document has been disclosed.

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28373-28375]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12880]


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

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, Inc.'s (Mitsubishi) petition for exemption of the Mitsubishi 
[Confidential] vehicle line in accordance with 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 Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. 
Mitsubishi also requested confidential treatment for specific 
information in its petition. While official notification on granting or 
denying Mitsubishi's request for confidential treatment will be 
addressed by separate letter, no confidential information provided for 
purposes of this document has been disclosed.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2018 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hisham Mohamed, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West 
Building, W43-437, 1200 New Jersey

[[Page 28374]]

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Mohamed's phone number is (202) 
366-0307. His fax number is (202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated March 30, 2017, 
Mitsubishi requested exemption from the parts-marking requirements of 
the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Mitsubishi 
[Confidential] vehicle line, beginning with MY 2018. 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 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 
[Confidential] vehicle line. Mitsubishi will install a passive, 
transponder-based, electronic engine immobilizer device as standard 
equipment on its [Confidential] vehicle line beginning with MY 2018. 
Key components of the antitheft device will include a transponder key, 
electronic control unit (ECU), and a passive immobilizer. Mitsubishi 
also stated that it will be incorporating an audible and visual alarm 
system as standard equipment on these trim-line 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 [Confidential] 
vehicle line will be equipped with a Wireless Control Module (WCM) 
immobilizer. Mitsubishi explained that this is a key 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 [Confidential] 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.
    Once the ignition switch is turned (pushed) to the ignition-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 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 and its WCM and OSS have over 4.3 billion 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 also informed the agency that its Eclipse vehicle line 
has been equipped with the antitheft 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, Lancer, Outlander 
Sport, i-MiEV and Mirage vehicle lines have been equipped with a 
similar type of immobilizer device since January 2004, April 2004, 
September 2006, March 2007, September 2010, October 2011 and July 2013, 
respectively. All eight vehicle lines have been granted parts-marking 
exemptions by the agency. The average theft rates for the Mitsubishi 
Galant, Endeavor, Outlander and Lancer vehicle lines using an average 
of 3 MY's data are 3.6664, 1.7721, 0.7253 and 0.9747 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 
[Confidential] 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 [Confidential] 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 [Confidential] vehicle line 
from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with 
its MY 2018 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

[[Page 28375]]

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. 
Mitsubishi stated that an official nameplate for the vehicle has not 
yet been determined. However, as a condition to the formal granting of 
Mitsubishi's petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements 
of 49 CFR part 541 for the MY 2018 [Confidential] vehicle line, the 
agency fully expects Mitsubishi to notify the agency of the nameplate 
for the vehicle line prior to its introduction into the United States 
commerce for sale.
    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 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.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
part 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-12880 Filed 6-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P