[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74105-74107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


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

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 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 in accordance with Sec.  543.9(c)(2) 
of 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard, for 
the Chevrolet Malibu/Malibu Maxx vehicle line beginning with model year 
(MY) 2006. 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) 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number 
is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated July 19, 2005, GM 
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft 
prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) for the Chevrolet Malibu/Malibu 
Maxx vehicle line beginning with MY 2006. 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 
exemptions for one line of its vehicle lines per year. 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. The antitheft device is a transponder-based, electronic, 
immobilizer system. GM will install its antitheft device as standard 
equipment on its Chevrolet Malibu /Malibu Maxx vehicle line beginning 
with MY 2006. 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.
    The antitheft device to be installed on the MY 2006 Chevrolet 
Malibu/Malibu Maxx is the PASS-Key III+. The PASS-Key III+ device is 
designed to be active at all times without direct intervention by the 
vehicle operator. The system is fully armed immediately after the 
ignition has been turned off and the key removed. The system will 
provide

[[Page 74106]]

protection against unauthorized starting and fueling of the vehicle 
engine. Components of the antitheft device include a special ignition 
key and decoder module. Before the vehicle can be operated, the key's 
electrical code must be sensed and properly decoded by the PASS-Key 
III+ control module. The ignition key contains electronics molded into 
the key head. These electronics receive energy and data from the 
control module. Upon receipt of the data, the key will calculate a 
response to the data using secret information and an internal 
encryption algorithm, and transmit the response 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 the vehicle can be operated.
    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, similarly-constructed models 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 
antitheft device will be more effective in deterring theft than the 
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. Additionally, GM stated 
that the PASS-Key III+ system has been designed to enhance the 
functionality and theft protection provided by GM's first, second, and 
third generation PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key III systems.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, GM 
provided information on the reliability and durability of the proposed 
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, GM 
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. GM provided a 
detailed list of the tests conducted on the components of its 
immobilizer device and believes that the device is reliable and durable 
since it complied with the specified requirements for each test. 
Specifically, GM stated that the components of the device were tested 
and met compliance in climatic, mechanical and chemical environments, 
and immunity to various electromagnetic radiation.
    GM also stated that although its 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+.
    GM's proposed device, as well as other comparable devices that have 
received full exemptions from the parts-marking requirements, lack an 
audible or visible alarm. Therefore, these devices cannot perform one 
of the functions listed in 49 CFR part 543.6(a)(3), that is, to call 
attention to unauthorized attempts to enter or move the vehicle. 
However, theft data have indicated a decline in theft rates for vehicle 
lines that have been equipped with devices similar to that which GM 
proposes. In these instances, the agency has concluded that the lack of 
a visual or audio alarm has not prevented these antitheft devices from 
being effective protection against theft.
    On the basis of this comparison, GM has concluded that the proposed 
antitheft device is no less effective than those devices installed on 
lines for which NHTSA has already granted full exemption from the 
parts-marking requirements.
    Based on the evidence submitted by GM, the agency believes that the 
antitheft device for the GM 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 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 part 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 device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full GM's 
petition for exemption for the Chevrolet Malibu/Malibu Maxx 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 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 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 parts 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 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, part 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.


[[Page 74107]]


    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.

    Issued on: December 7, 2005.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E5-7285 Filed 12-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P