[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10954-10955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04568]



[[Page 10954]]

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

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, Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the General Motors Corporation's 
(GM) petition for an exemption of the Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line in 
accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from 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 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard (Theft Prevention Standard).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2017 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-
439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's 
phone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated November 30, 2015, GM 
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard for the Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line beginning with 
MY 2017. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking 
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 49 CFR part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to 
grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model 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 MY 2017 Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line. GM stated that it 
will install the PASS-Key III+ antitheft device as standard equipment 
on its MY 2017 Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line. The PASS-Key III+ is a 
passive, transponder based, electronic engine immobilizer antitheft 
device. GM stated that a keyless ignition system will also be installed 
on its Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line. Key components of its PASS-Key III+ 
system will include an electronically-coded ignition key (remote key 
fob), a PASS-Key III+ controller module, engine control module (ECM), 
immobilizer exciter module, radio frequency (RF) receiver, low 
frequency antennas (LF) and a passive antenna module. The remote key 
fob incorporates buttons that are designed to perform normal remote 
keyless door entry functions. GM stated that the device will provide 
protection against unauthorized use (i.e., starting and engine 
fueling), but will not provide any visible or audible indication of 
unauthorized vehicle entry (i.e., flashing lights or horn alarm).
    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 addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, GM 
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed 
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, GM 
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. GM provided 
information on the specific tests it uses to validate the integrity, 
durability and reliability of the PASS-Key III+ device and believes 
that the device is reliable and durable since the components must 
operate as designed after each test. GM also stated that the design and 
assembly processes of the PASS-Key III+ subsystem and components are 
validated for 10 years of vehicle life and 150,000 miles of 
performance.
    The PASS-Key III+ device is designed to be active at all times 
without direct intervention by the vehicle operator (i.e., no separate 
intentional action to turn on the security system is needed to achieve 
protection). GM stated that activation of the device occurs when the 
operator pushes the Engine Start/Stop switch to the ``OFF'' position. 
Deactivation of the immobilizer device occurs when a valid electronic 
key which resides in a remote key fob and matching immobilization code 
is verified, allowing the engine to start and continue normal 
operations. Specifically, GM stated that when the operator pushes the 
Engine Start/Stop switch to begin vehicle operation, the vehicle 
transmits randomly generated data and a vehicle identifier through 
three low-frequency antennas (within the passenger compartment of the 
vehicle) that are controlled by the passive antenna module. The 
electronic key receives the data and if the vehicle identifier matches 
the vehicle's programmed key, the electronic key will calculate a 
response to the vehicle using the challenge and secret information that 
was shared between the key and the vehicle. The electronic key will 
then transmit a response through the RF channel to a vehicle mounted 
receiver which conveys the information to the PASS-Key III+ control 
module. The PASS-Key III+ control module compares the received response 
with an internally calculated response. GM stated that if the values 
match, the system will allow the vehicle to enter functional modes and 
transmit a fixed code pre-release password to the engine controller 
over the serial data bus enabling computation and communication of a 
response. If a valid key is not detected, the system will not transmit 
a password to the engine controller to allow operation of the vehicle.
    GM stated that the PASS-Key III+ device has been designed to 
enhance the functionality and theft protection provided by its first, 
second and third generation PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key III 
devices. GM also referenced data provided by the American Automobile 
Manufacturers Association (AAMA) in support of the effectiveness of 
GM's PASS-Key devices in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft. 
Specifically, GM stated that the AAMA's comments referencing the 
agency's Preliminary Report on ``Auto Theft and Recovery Effects of the 
Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 and the Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement 
Act of 1984'', (Docket 97-042; Notice 1), showed that between MYs 1987 
and 1993, the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird vehicle lines 
experienced a significant theft rate reduction after installation of a 
Pass-Key like antitheft device as standard equipment on the vehicle 
lines.
    GM also noted that theft data have indicated a decline in theft 
rates for vehicle lines equipped with comparable devices that have 
received full exemptions from the parts-marking requirements. GM stated 
that the theft data, as provided by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and compiled 
by the agency, show that theft rates are lower for exempted GM models 
equipped with the PASS-Key like systems than the theft rates for 
earlier models with similar appearance and construction that were 
parts-marked. Based on the performance of the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, 
and PASS-Key III devices on other GM models, and the advanced 
technology utilized in PASS-Key III+, GM believes that the PASS-Key

[[Page 10955]]

III+ device will be more effective in deterring theft than the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
    GM stated that it believes that PASS-Key III+ devices will be more 
effective in deterring theft than the parts-marking requirements, the 
agency should find that installation of the PASS-Key III+ device on the 
Chevrolet Bolt vehicle line is sufficient to qualify it for full 
exemption from the parts-marking requirements.
    Based on the evidence submitted by GM, the agency believes that the 
antitheft device for the Chevrolet Bolt 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.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants 
a petition for 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 GM has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the 
antitheft device for the Chevrolet Bolt 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 GM 
provided about its device.
    GM's proposed device lacks an audible or visible alarm therefore, 
this device 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. GM compared its proposed device to other 
devices NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and 
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-
marking requirements. GM compared its device to those antitheft devices 
installed on the Chevrolet Corvette, Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac 
Firebird vehicle lines, which have all been granted parts-marking 
exemptions by the agency. Using an average of three model years' data 
(2011-2013), theft rates for the Chevrolet Corvette, Chevrolet Camaro 
and the Pontiac Firebird vehicle lines are 1.2698 and 2.7032 
respectively. GM has not produced the Pontiac Firebird vehicle line 
since MY 2002. Therefore, no current theft rate data exist for this 
vehicle line.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full GM's 
petition for exemption for the Chevrolet Bolt 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 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 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.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 
1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
(Signature page, Grant of Petition for Exemption, MY 2017 Chevrolet 
Bolt)

[FR Doc. 2016-04568 Filed 3-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P