Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; General Motors LLC, 5642-5644 [2017-00977]
Download as PDF
5642
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Notices
between June 29, 2016 and October 10,
2016 are potentially involved:
• 2017 BMW X1 SAV (X1 sDrive28i, X1
xDrive28i)
• 2017 BMW 5 Series Gran Turismo
(535i Gran Turismo, 535i xDrive Gran
Turismo, 550i xDrive Gran Turismo)
• 2016 BMW 5 Series (528i, 528i
xDrive, 535i, 535i xDrive, 550i, 550i
xDrive, M5)
• 2016 BMW 5 Series (535d, 535d
xDrive)
• 2016 Mini Cooper Clubman and Mini
Cooper S Clubman
• Mini Hardtop 4-door Cooper and Mini
Hardtop 4-door Cooper S
• 2017 Rolls-Royce Ghost
III. Noncompliance
BMW explains that the
noncompliance involves the Emergency
Locking Retractor (ELR) in the safety
belt assembly of the vehicle’s front left
seat. These ELRs are equipped with a
vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism
and a webbing-sensitive locking
mechanism. The noncompliance
specifically involves the vehiclesensitive locking mechanism, which
does not lock as designed when
subjected to the requirements of
paragraph S4.3(j)(2)(ii) of FMVSS No.
209.
IV. Rule Text
Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 209
states in pertinent part:
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
S4.3 Requirements for hardware . . .
(j) Emergency-locking retractor . . .
(2) For seat belt assemblies manufactured
on or after February 22, 2007 and for
manufacturers opting for early compliance.
An emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1
or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in
accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph S5.2(j)(2) . . .
(ii) Shall lock before the webbing payout
exceeds the maximum limit of 25 mm when
the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of
0.7 g under the applicable test conditions of
S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A) or (B). The retractor is
determined to be locked when the webbing
belt load tension is at least 35 N.
V. Summary of BMW’s Petition
BMW described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that
the noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, BMW
submitted the following reasoning:
(a) The vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism functions, but the noncompliance involves a slight exceedance
of the FMVSS No. 209 Section
S4.3(j)(2)(ii) requirement.
(b) The slight exceedance is such that,
based upon testing of non-compliant
units, the vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism locks at approximately 1.0g
within 25mm, or at 0.7 g within 90mm.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
(c) The tilt-lock function of the ELR is
compliant, and locks at angles greater
than 15-deg up to 41-deg when
subjected to the FMVSS No. 209 Section
S4.3(j)(2) rollover requirements.
(d) The ELR also contains a voluntary
webbing-sensitive locking mechanism
which provides crash and rollover
restraint performance comparable to the
performance provided by an FMVSS No.
209 compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism.
(e) Crash test results comparing
FMVSS No. 209 S4.3(j)(2)(ii) compliant
ELRs and ELRs in which the vehiclesensitive locking mechanism has been
disabled (to demonstrate a ‘‘worst-case
scenario’’, even though in affected
vehicles the vehicle-sensitive
mechanism remains functional)
demonstrate comparable results
according to FMVSS No. 208
assessments.
Test results indicate that any
performance differences are with
normal ‘‘data scatter’’ and are attributed
to test tolerances.
(f) Affected safety belt assemblies
comply with all other applicable
provisions of FMVSS No. 209.
(g) NHTSA previously granted a
petition from General Motors in which
the ELR’s vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism was completely nonfunctional, whereas the ELR’s vehiclesensitive locking mechanism in the
affected BMW vehicles is functional, but
may experience a slight exceedance of
the FMVSS no. 209 S4.3(j)(2)(ii)
requirement.
(h) BMW has not received any
customer complaints related to this
issue.
(i) BMW is not aware of any accidents
or injuries related to this issue.
(j) Vehicle production has been
corrected.
BMW concluded by expressing the
belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of
the noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
To view BMW’s petition, test data and
analyses in its entirety you can visit
https://www.regulations.gov by
following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets and by using the
docket ID number for this petition
shown in the heading of this notice.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any
decision on this petition only applies to
the subject vehicles that BMW no longer
controlled at the time it determined that
the noncompliance existed. However,
any decision on this petition does not
relieve vehicle distributors and dealers
of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their
control after BMW notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017–01005 Filed 1–17–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; General Motors LLC
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
This document grants in full
the General Motors LLC’s (GM) petition
for an exemption of the Chevrolet Volt
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 partsmarking requirements of 49 CFR part
541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard (Theft Prevention
Standard).
SUMMARY:
The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2018 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah Mazyck, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Programs, NHTSA, W43–443, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590. Ms. Mazyck’s phone number is
(202) 366–4139. Her fax number is (202)
493–2990.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM
18JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Notices
In a
petition dated October 6, 2016, GM
requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Chevrolet
Volt vehicle line beginning with MY
2018. 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 2018
Chevrolet Volt vehicle line. GM stated
that its Chevrolet Volt vehicle line will
be installed with the PASS-Key III+
antitheft device as standard equipment.
The PASS-Key III+ is a passive,
transponder based, electronic engine
immobilizer antitheft device. GM stated
that a keyless ignition system will be
installed on its Chevrolet Volt vehicle
line. Key components of its PASS-Key
III+ system will include an
electronically-coded ignition key, a
body control module (BCM) with
integrated PASS-Key III+ controller,
engine control module (ECM),
immobilizer exciter module, radio
frequency (RF) receiver module, passive
antenna module and low frequency
antennas (LF). The electronic key is
incorporated within a remote key fob.
The key fob contains buttons 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 § 543.5 and
the specific content requirements of
§ 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
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
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+ incorporates a higher
level of electrical sophistication by
utilizing an electronic key that is
protected from electrical duplication.
GM stated that the PASS-Key III+
device is designed to be active at all
times without direct intervention by the
vehicle operator. No separate
intentional action to turn on the security
system is needed to achieve protection.
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 key and matching
immobilization code is verified,
allowing the engine to start and
continue normal operations. When the
operator pushes the Engine Start/Stop
switch to begin vehicle operation, the
vehicle transmits randomly generated
data and a vehicle identifier within the
passenger compartment of the vehicle
through three low-frequency antennas
that is controlled by the passive antenna
module. The electronic key receives the
data and compares its vehicle identifier
with the identifier previously assigned
to the vehicle. If the vehicle identifier
matches the identifier of the vehicle for
which the key is programmed, the
electronic key will transmit a response
through the RF channel to a vehicle
mounted receiver. The PASS-Key III+
control module receives the RF
transmission and compares the received
response with an internally calculated
response. If the values match, the key is
recognized as valid and a password is
then transmitted through a serial data
link to the ECM to enable fueling and
vehicle starting. If an invalid key code
is detected, the system will not transmit
a password to the ECM to allow
operation of the vehicle. Additionally, if
an invalid electronic key code is
received, the vehicle will not be allowed
to transition from the ‘‘Off’’ mode to the
‘‘Accessory’’, ‘‘On’’, or ‘‘Start’’ mode
positions inhibiting starting, ignition,
and fuel flow of the vehicle.
GM further stated that the ignition key
contains electronics which provides
billions of possible electronic
combinations. The electronics receive
energy and data from the antenna
module. Upon receipt of the data, and
a vehicle indicator match, the electronic
key will calculate a response to the data
using an internal encryption algorithm
and transmit the response back to the
vehicle. The antenna module then
translates the radio frequency signal
received from the key into a digital
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5643
signal and passes the signal on to the
controller module. The controller
module then compares the received
response to an internally calculated
value. If the values match, the key is
recognized as valid and a password is
transmitted through a serial data link to
the ECM to enable fueling and vehicle
starting. GM also stated that a secondary
data challenge and response process
using another encryption algorithm
must be validated by the engine
controller to allow continued operation.
If an invalid key code is received, the
PASS-Key III+ controller module will
send a ‘‘Disable Password’’ to the engine
control module and starting, ignition,
and fuel flow will be inhibited.
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 found in 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).
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 PASSKey, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key III
devices on other GM models, and the
advanced technology utilized in PASSKey III+, GM believes that the PASS-Key
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 PASSKey III+ devices will be at least as
effective in deterring theft as the partsmarking requirements and that the
agency should find that installation of
the PASS-Key III+ device on the
Chevrolet Volt vehicle line is sufficient
to qualify it for full exemption from the
parts-marking requirements.
E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM
18JAN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
5644
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 18, 2017 / Notices
Based on the evidence submitted by
GM, the agency believes that the
antitheft device for the Chevrolet Volt
vehicle line is likely to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541).
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. The agency concludes that
the device will provide the four of the
five types of performance listed in
§ 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 partsmarking 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 Volt vehicle
line is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541).
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 Volt
vehicle line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541
beginning with the 2018 model year.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:41 Jan 17, 2017
Jkt 241001
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.
[FR Doc. 2017–00977 Filed 1–17–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Devices and Associated Equipment. GM
has filed a noncompliance report dated
March 2, 2015. GM also petitioned
NHTSA on March 24, 2015, for a
decision that the subject noncompliance
is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
ADDRESSES: For further information on
the decision contact Mike Cole, Office of
Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), telephone (202) 366–5319,
facsimile (202) 366–3081.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview
General Motors, LLC, (GM) has
determined that certain model year
(MY) 2012–2015 Chevrolet Sonic
passenger cars do not fully comply with
paragraph S6.5.3.4.1 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and
Associated Equipment. GM has filed a
noncompliance report dated March 2,
2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. GM also
petitioned NHTSA on March 24, 2015,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49
CFR part 556) for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that
this noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety.
Notice of receipt of the GM petition
was published, with a 30-day public
comment period, on May 12, 2015, in
the Federal Register (80 FR 27229). No
comments were received. To view the
petition and all supporting documents
log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ‘‘NHTSA–2015–
0035.’’
II. Vehicles Involved
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2015–0035; Notice 2]
General Motors, LLC, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT)
ACTION: Grant of petition
AGENCY:
General Motors, LLC, (GM)
has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2012–2015 Chevrolet Sonic
passenger cars do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Affected are approximately 310,243
MY 2012–2015 Chevrolet Sonic
passenger cars manufactured between
May 5, 2011 and February 4, 2015.
III. Noncompliance:
GM explains that the noncompliance
is that the high-beam headlamp lenses
on the subject vehicles are not marked
with ‘‘HB3’’ (the HB bulb type) as
required by paragraph S6.5.3.4.1 of
FMVSS No. 108.
IV. Rule Text
Paragraph S6.5.3.4.1 of FMVSS No.
108 requires in pertinent part:
S6.5.3.4.1 The lens of each replaceable
bulb headlamp must bear permanent marking
E:\FR\FM\18JAN1.SGM
18JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5642-5644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00977]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; General Motors LLC
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 LLC's (GM)
petition for an exemption of the Chevrolet Volt 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 2018 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-
443, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's
phone number is (202) 366-4139. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
[[Page 5643]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated October 6, 2016, GM
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Chevrolet Volt vehicle line beginning with
MY 2018. 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 2018 Chevrolet Volt vehicle line. GM stated that its
Chevrolet Volt vehicle line will be installed with the PASS-Key III+
antitheft device as standard equipment. The PASS-Key III+ is a passive,
transponder based, electronic engine immobilizer antitheft device. GM
stated that a keyless ignition system will be installed on its
Chevrolet Volt vehicle line. Key components of its PASS-Key III+ system
will include an electronically-coded ignition key, a body control
module (BCM) with integrated PASS-Key III+ controller, engine control
module (ECM), immobilizer exciter module, radio frequency (RF) receiver
module, passive antenna module and low frequency antennas (LF). The
electronic key is incorporated within a remote key fob. The key fob
contains buttons 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+ incorporates a higher level of
electrical sophistication by utilizing an electronic key that is
protected from electrical duplication.
GM stated that the PASS-Key III+ device is designed to be active at
all times without direct intervention by the vehicle operator. No
separate intentional action to turn on the security system is needed to
achieve protection. 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 key and
matching immobilization code is verified, allowing the engine to start
and continue normal operations. When the operator pushes the Engine
Start/Stop switch to begin vehicle operation, the vehicle transmits
randomly generated data and a vehicle identifier within the passenger
compartment of the vehicle through three low-frequency antennas that is
controlled by the passive antenna module. The electronic key receives
the data and compares its vehicle identifier with the identifier
previously assigned to the vehicle. If the vehicle identifier matches
the identifier of the vehicle for which the key is programmed, the
electronic key will transmit a response through the RF channel to a
vehicle mounted receiver. The PASS-Key III+ control module receives the
RF transmission and compares the received response with an internally
calculated response. If the values match, the key is recognized as
valid and a password is then transmitted through a serial data link to
the ECM to enable fueling and vehicle starting. If an invalid key code
is detected, the system will not transmit a password to the ECM to
allow operation of the vehicle. Additionally, if an invalid electronic
key code is received, the vehicle will not be allowed to transition
from the ``Off'' mode to the ``Accessory'', ``On'', or ``Start'' mode
positions inhibiting starting, ignition, and fuel flow of the vehicle.
GM further stated that the ignition key contains electronics which
provides billions of possible electronic combinations. The electronics
receive energy and data from the antenna module. Upon receipt of the
data, and a vehicle indicator match, the electronic key will calculate
a response to the data using an internal encryption algorithm and
transmit the response back to the vehicle. The antenna module then
translates the radio frequency signal received from the key into a
digital signal and passes the signal on to the controller module. The
controller module then compares the received response to an internally
calculated value. If the values match, the key is recognized as valid
and a password is transmitted through a serial data link to the ECM to
enable fueling and vehicle starting. GM also stated that a secondary
data challenge and response process using another encryption algorithm
must be validated by the engine controller to allow continued
operation. If an invalid key code is received, the PASS-Key III+
controller module will send a ``Disable Password'' to the engine
control module and starting, ignition, and fuel flow will be inhibited.
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
found in 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).
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
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 at
least as effective in deterring theft as the parts-marking requirements
and that the agency should find that installation of the PASS-Key III+
device on the Chevrolet Volt vehicle line is sufficient to qualify it
for full exemption from the parts-marking requirements.
[[Page 5644]]
Based on the evidence submitted by GM, the agency believes that the
antitheft device for the Chevrolet Volt 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).
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. The agency concludes that the device will
provide the 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 Volt 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full GM's
petition for exemption for the Chevrolet Volt vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541 beginning with the 2018
model year. 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.
[FR Doc. 2017-00977 Filed 1-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P