[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40102-40103]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13654]



[[Page 40102]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard; General Motors Corporation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of General Motors 
Corporation (GM) for an exemption of a high-theft line, the Chevrolet 
Cobalt, from the parts-marking requirements of the Federal Motor 
Vehicle 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.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 2005.

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 phone number 
is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated May 6, 2005, General 
Motors Corporation (GM), requested an exemption from the parts-marking 
requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the 
Chevrolet Cobalt vehicle line, beginning with MY 2005. The petition 
requested an exemption from parts-marking requirements 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 Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA for one 
line of vehicle lines per year.
    GM's submission is considered a complete petition as required by 49 
CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in Sec.  
543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    In its petition, GM provided a detailed description and diagram of 
the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft 
device for the new vehicle line. GM will install its antitheft device 
as standard equipment on the MY 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt vehicle line. The 
antitheft device to be installed on the MY 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt, the 
Passlock III, is the third implementation of the Passlock concept. The 
Passlock III system incorporates an ignition immobilizer and is 
designed to provide passive protection against unauthorized vehicle 
use. The system does not include an audible or visual alarm as standard 
equipment.
    GM stated that the Passlock III system uses a standard ignition key 
to rotate a specially coded ignition switch. The conventional 
mechanical code of the key is used to unlock and release the 
transmission lever and the steering wheel. However, before the vehicle 
can be operated, the electrical code in the ignition switch must be 
read and determined to match the value stored in the decoder module.
    The electrical code in the ignition switch is provided by resistive 
elements enabled by the Lock cylinder. When a key with the proper 
mechanical cut is inserted in the lock cylinder and rotated from 
``RUN'' to ``CRANK'', the resistive code will become readable by the 
decoder module. When the decoder module recognizes a valid code, it 
transmits a Vehicle Security Password via a serial data link to the 
Powertrain Control Module (PCM) to enable fuel flow. GM stated that 
there are 65,534 possible password codes. If the decoder module detects 
an invalid code, the Passlock III will send a Fuel Disable Password to 
disable fuel flow. The decoder module then enters a tamper state for 
ten minutes. During this time, the security light will flash, and any 
additional attempts to start the vehicle is ignored by the system.
    GM stated that in the event of a ``slam-pull'' theft attempt or an 
attempt to remove the ignition switch is made, a protrusion on the lock 
cylinder will destroy the ignition switch, immobilizing the vehicle. In 
the event the lock is forced to rotate, the lock cylinder head will 
break off or the tool will ``cam'' out of the key-way before resistive 
code can be read. If the PCM does not receive a password signal from 
the decoder module, engine operation will remain inhibited.
    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, immersion and tumbling. Additionally, GM stated 
that the design and assembly processes of the Passlock III subsystem 
and components are validated for a vehicle life of 10 years and 150,000 
miles of performance.
    To substantiate its beliefs as to the effectiveness of the new 
device, GM states that the Passlock III is designed to provide 
deterrence against prevalent theft methods: Hot-wiring, forced lock 
rotation, and forced lock extraction. GM states that field reports from 
law-enforcement and insurance investigators have indicated that theft 
deterrents installed in GM vehicles have been effective in deterring 
theft. Additionally, GM stated that theft data reported by the agency 
indicate a continued reduction in theft rates for General Motors 
vehicles equipped with theft deterrent systems. Therefore, GM concludes 
that the ``PASS-Key''-like devices are more effective in deterring 
motor vehicle theft than the parts-marking requirements of 49CFR part 
541.
    Based on the evidence submitted by GM, the agency believes that the 
Passlock III antitheft device for the Chevrolet Cobalt 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 541).
    The agency concludes that the device will provide four of the five 
types of performance listed in Sec.  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.
    As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4) and (5), the 
agency finds that GM has provided adequate reasons for its belief that 
the antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is 
based on the information GM provided about its antitheft device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full GM's 
petition for an exemption for the MY 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt vehicle line 
from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. 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 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of 
major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if GM wishes in the future to modify the device on 
which this exemption is based, the company

[[Page 40103]]

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, 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 in drafting 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: July 7, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 05-13654 Filed 7-11-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P