Petition To Modify an Exemption of a Previously Approved Antitheft Device; General Motors Corporation, 20635-20636 [05-7814]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 20, 2005 / Notices
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sharon Cassidy, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime
Administration, MAR–830 Room 7201,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–5506.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As
described by the applicant the intended
service of the vessel WOLF is:
Intended Use: ‘‘Charter passenger
service and sailing instruction’’
Geographic Region: ‘‘Maine to North
Carolina (summer) and Florida (winter)’’
Dated: April 14, 2005.
By order of the Maritime Administrator.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–7908 Filed 4–19–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Marine Transportation System National
Advisory Council
Maritime Administration,
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting;
Marine Transportation System National
Advisory Council.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration
announces that the Marine
Transportation System National
Advisory Council (MTSNAC) will hold
a meeting to discuss MTS needs,
regional MTS outreach initiatives, the
West Coast port congestion issue,
Council team assignments, and other
issues. A public comment period is
scheduled for 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. on
Thursday, May 5, 2005. To provide time
for as many people to speak as possible,
speaking time for each individual will
be limited to three minutes. Members of
the public who would like to speak are
asked to contact Richard J. Lolich by
April 27, 2005. Commenters will be
placed on the agenda in the order in
which notifications are received. If time
allows, additional comments will be
permitted. Copies of oral comments
must be submitted in writing at the
meeting. Additional written comments
are welcome and must be filed by May
12, 2005.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
Wednesday, May 4, 2005, from 2 p.m.
to 5 p.m. and Thursday, May 5, 2005
from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in
the Radisson Hotel Sacramento, 500
Leisure Lane, Sacramento, CA 95815.
The hotel’s phone number is (800) 333–
3333.
14:54 Apr 19, 2005
Authority: 49 CFR 1.66
Dated: April 14, 2005.
Joel C. Richard,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 05–7907 Filed 4–19–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition To Modify an Exemption of a
Previously Approved Antitheft Device;
General Motors Corporation
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.
AGENCY:
Maritime Administration
VerDate jul<14>2003
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Lolich, (202) 366–4357;
Maritime Administration, MAR–830,
Room 7201, 400 Seventh St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20590;
richard.lolich@marad.dot.gov.
Jkt 205001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20635
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
E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM
20APN1
20636
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 20, 2005 / Notices
line will be equipped with the PASSKey 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:54 Apr 19, 2005
Jkt 205001
compromise the theft deterrent
performance of a system such as PASSKey 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 PASSKey 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, PASSKey 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
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 34685]
D&I Railroad Company—Trackage
Rights Exemption—BNSF Railway
Company
BNSF Railway Company (BNSF),
pursuant to supplemental agreement
Nos. 1 and No. 2 entered into between
BNSF and D&I Railroad Company (D&I),
has agreed to grant certain nonexclusive trackage rights to D&I over
BNSF’s rail line between milepost
145.91 and milepost 145.45 on BNSF’s
Corson Subdivision, as well as between
milepost 0.0 and milepost 1.09 on
BNSF’s Madison Subdivision, in Sioux
Falls, SD, a total distance of
approximately 1.55 miles. D&I will
operate its own trains with its own
crews over the trackage.
The purpose of the trackage rights is
to provide D&I with a route to replace
trackage being removed in connection
with a redevelopment project by the
City of Sioux Falls.
E:\FR\FM\20APN1.SGM
20APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20635-20636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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