Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft Prevention Standard; General Motors Corporation, 74105-74107 [E5-7285]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 14, 2005 / Notices
74105
Total annual
burden cost
(dollars)
CFR section
Respondent
universe
Total annual
responses
Average time
per response
Total annual
burden hours
Death, Injury, or Occupational Illness (Form FRA F 6180.55a).
225.21—Railroad Injury and Illness
Summary—Form FRA F 6180.55.
225.21—Annual Railroad Report of Employee Hours and Casualties, By
State—Form FRA F 6180.56.
225.21/25—Railroad Employee Injury
and/or Illness Record—Form FRA F
6180.98.
Copies of Forms to Employees ......
225.21—Initial Rail Equipment Accident/
Incident Record—Form FRA F
6180.97.
225.21—Alternative Record for Illnesses
Claimed to Be Work Related—Form
FRA F 6180.107.
225.25 (h)—Posting of Monthly Summary.
225.27—Retention of Records ...............
225.33—Internal
Control
Plans—
Amendments.
225.35—Access to Records and Reports.
Subsequent Years ..........................
225.37—Magnetic Media Transfer and
Electronic Submission.
Electronic Submission: Batch Control Forms (6180.99) and Form
FRA F 6180.55.
685 railroads .........
12,000 forms .........
20 minutes .............
4,000 hours ...........
152,000
685 railroads .........
8,220 forms ...........
10 minutes .............
1,370 hours ...........
52,060
685 railroads .........
685 forms ..............
15 minutes .............
171 hours ..............
6,498
685 railroads .........
18,000 forms .........
60 minutes .............
18,000 hours .........
792,000
685 railroads .........
685 railroads .........
540 form copies ....
13,000 forms .........
2 minutes ...............
30 minutes .............
18 hours ................
6,500 hours ...........
792
286,000
685 railroads .........
300 forms ..............
15 minutes .............
75 hours ................
2,850
685 railroads .........
8,220 lists ..............
16 minutes .............
2,192 hours ...........
83,296
685 railroads .........
685 railroads .........
1,900 records ........
25 amendments ....
2 minutes ...............
14 hours ................
63 hours ................
350 hours ..............
2,394
13,300
15 railroads ...........
400 lists .................
20 minutes .............
133 hours ..............
5,054
4 railroads .............
8 railroads .............
16 lists ...................
96 transfers ...........
20 minutes .............
10 minutes .............
5 hours ..................
16 hours ................
190
608
685 railroads .........
200 forms ..............
3 minutes ...............
10 hours ................
380
Total Responses: 76,602.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
45,921 hours.
Status: Regular Review.
Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5
CFR 1320.5(b), 1320.8(b)(3)(vi), FRA
informs all interested parties that it may
not conduct or sponsor, and a
respondent is not required to respond
to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520.
Issued in Washington, DC on December 7,
2005.
D.J. Stadtler,
Director, Office of Budget, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. E5–7288 Filed 12–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–06–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft
Prevention Standard; General Motors
Corporation
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:29 Dec 13, 2005
Jkt 208001
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 § 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 partsmarking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR part 541)
for the Chevrolet Malibu/Malibu Maxx
vehicle line beginning with MY 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 § 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 § 543.5 and
the specific content requirements of
§ 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
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
74106
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 14, 2005 / Notices
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, similarlyconstructed models which were partsmarked. 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:29 Dec 13, 2005
Jkt 208001
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 partsmarking 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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 239 / Wednesday, December 14, 2005 / Notices
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
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft
Prevention Standard; General Motors
Corporation
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document grants in full
the petition of General Motors
Corporation, (GM) for an exemption in
accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR
part 543, Exemption from the Theft
Prevention Standard, for the Pontiac G6
vehicle line beginning with model year
(MY) 2007. 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) 2007.
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 partsmarking requirements of the theft
prevention standard (49 CFR part 541)
for the Pontiac G6 vehicle line
beginning with MY 2007. The petition
requested an exemption from partsmarking 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 § 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:29 Dec 13, 2005
Jkt 208001
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 Pontiac G6 vehicle line beginning
with MY 2007. 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.
The antitheft device to be installed on
the MY 2007 Pontiac G6 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
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, similarlyconstructed models which were partsmarked. 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 2007 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
74107
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 partsmarking 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.
E:\FR\FM\14DEN1.SGM
14DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74105-74107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
