[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20635-20636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7814]


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

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 (NHTSA) 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of a petition to modify an exemption from the parts 
marking requirements of a previously approved antitheft device.

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

SUMMARY: On May 15, 1995, this agency granted in full General Motors 
Corporation's (GM) petition for exemption from the parts-marking 
requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard for the Chevrolet 
Lumina and Monte Carlo vehicle line (see 60 FR 25938). On March 29, 
1999, the agency granted in full GM's petition for modification of the 
previously approved antitheft device for the Chevrolet Lumina and Monte 
Carlo vehicle line. This notice (see 60 FR 25938) acknowledged GM's 
notification that the nameplate for its Chevrolet Lumina/Monte Carlo 
line would be changed to the Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo line 
beginning with model year (MY) 2000. This notice also grants in full 
GM's second petition to modify the exemption of the previously approved 
antitheft device for that line. NHTSA is granting GM's petition to 
modify the exemption because it has determined, based on substantial 
evidence, that the modified antitheft device described in GM's petition 
to be placed on the vehicle line as standard equipment, is likely to be 
as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as 
compliance with the parts-marking requirements.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone 
number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 15, 1995, NHTSA published in the 
Federal Register a notice granting a petition from GM for an exemption 
from the parts-marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention 
standard for the Chevrolet Lumina (and Monte Carlo) vehicle line 
beginning with the 1996 model year. The Chevrolet Lumina (and Monte 
Carlo) was equipped with the PASS-Key II antitheft device (see 60 FR 
25938). On March 29, 1999, NHTSA published in the Federal Register a 
notice granting in full GM's petition for modification of the 
previously approved PASS-Lock antitheft device for the Chevrolet Lumina 
and Monte Carlo vehicle line beginning with the 2000 model year. 
Additionally, GM informed the agency of its planned nameplate change 
for the Chevrolet Lumina and Monte Carlo to the Chevrolet Impala/Monte 
Carlo beginning with model year (MY) 2000 (see 64 FR 14963).
    This notice grants in full GM's February 15, 2005 second petition 
to modify the exemption of the previously approved antitheft device for 
the MY 2006 Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo. GM's February 15, 2005 
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 of the identity, design and 
location of the components of the antitheft system proposed for 
installation beginning with the 2006 model year.
    GM described the MY 1996 device (PASS-Key II) installed on the 
Impala/Monte Carlo as a passively activated device. It also stated that 
the device utilized an electrically-coded ignition key, an ignition 
lock-cylinder and a decoder module. GM stated that the MY 2000 device 
(PASS-Lock) provides the functionality of its ``PASS-Key'' devices but 
features a coded-lock cylinder instead of an electrically-coded 
ignition key. When the electronic sensor detects proper lock rotation, 
it sends a code to the body function controller. If the correct code is 
received, the controller enables fuel and starting of the vehicle. If 
an incorrect code is received, the controller disables fuel and 
starting of the vehicle.
    In GM's MY 2006 petition to modify the exemption, it stated that 
the Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo vehicle

[[Page 20636]]

line will be equipped with the PASS-Key III+ theft deterrent device. 
The PASS-Key III+ device will continue to provide protection against 
unauthorized starting and fueling of the vehicle device. Components of 
the modified antitheft device include a special ignition key and 
decoder module. The conventional mechanical code of the key will 
continue to unlock and release the transmission lever. Before the 
vehicle can be operated, the key's electrical code must be recognized 
and properly decoded by the PASS-Key III+ control module. The ignition 
key will contain electronics molded into the head of the key. The 
device's electronics receive energy from the control module, and upon 
receipt of the data, the key will calculate a response to the data 
using secret information and an internal encryption algorithm. The 
response will then be transmitted 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 a vehicle security password (one of 
65,534), is transmitted through a serial data link to the engine 
control module to enable fuel and starting of the vehicle. If an 
invalid key code is received, the PASS-Key III+ controller module will 
send a disable password to the engine control module through the serial 
data bus, and starting, ignition and fuel will be inhibited. In the 
event the engine control module does not receive a password signal from 
the PASS-Key III+ controller, engine operation will remain inhibited. 
GM also stated that the PASS-Key III+ device has the capability of 
producing billions of codes, requiring centuries for someone to scan 
through them to allow theft of a vehicle.
    GM stated that although its modified antitheft device provides 
protection against unauthorized starting and fueling of the vehicle, it 
does not provide any visible or audible indication of unauthorized 
entry by means of flashing vehicle lights or sounding of the horn. 
Since the system is fully operational once the vehicle has been turned 
off, specific visible or audible reminders beyond key removal reminders 
have not been provided.
    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 PASS-Key 
III+. The agency has previously agreed with the finding that the 
absence of a visible or audible alarm has not prevented these antitheft 
devices from being effective protection against theft.
    In order to ensure the reliability and durability of the device, GM 
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. GM provided a 
detailed list of tests conducted and believes that its device is 
reliable and durable since the device complied with its specified 
requirements for each test. The tests conducted included high and low 
temperature storage, thermal shock, humidity, frost, salt fog, 
flammability, altitude, drop, shock, random vibration, dust, potential 
contaminants, connector retention/strain relief, terminal retention, 
connector insertion, crush, ice, immersion and tumbling. Additionally, 
GM stated that the design and assembly processes of the PASS-Key III+ 
device and components are validated for a vehicle life of 10 years and 
150,000 miles of performance.
    GM compared its MY 2006 antitheft device with devices which NHTSA 
has already determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring 
motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-marking 
requirements. To substantiate its beliefs as to the effectiveness of 
the new device, GM compared the MY 2006 modified device to its ``PASS-
Key''-like systems. GM indicated that the theft rates, as reported by 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information 
Center, are lower for GM models equipped with the ``PASS-Key''-like 
systems which have exemptions from the parts-marking requirements of 49 
CFR part 541, than the theft rates for earlier models with similar 
appearance and construction which were parts-marked. Based on the 
performance of the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key III systems on 
other GM models, and the advanced technology utilized by the 
modification, GM believes that the MY 2006 modified antitheft device 
will be more effective in deterring theft than the parts-marking 
requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
    On the basis of this comparison, GM stated the antitheft device 
(PASS-Key III+) for model years 2006 and later will provide essentially 
the same functions and features as found on its MY 1996-2005 ``PASS-
Key''-like devices 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 2006 
Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo vehicle line is likely to be as effective 
in reducing thefts as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of 
part 541.
    The agency has evaluated GM's MY 2006 petition to modify the 
exemption for the Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo 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 modified device will continue to 
provide four of the five types of performance listed in Section 
543.6(b)(3): promoting activation; preventing defeat or circumventing 
of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the 
vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and 
durability of the device.
    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: April 14, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 05-7814 Filed 4-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P