Petition To Modify an Exemption of a Previously Approved Antitheft Device; General Motors Corporation, 4963-4965 [E6-1071]

Agencies

• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4963-4965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1071]


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

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,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 July 12, 2005, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) granted in full General Motors Corporation's 
(GM) petition to exempt the Chevrolet Cobalt vehicle line from the 
parts-marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard 
(See 70 FR 40102). The exemption was granted because the agency 
determined that the antitheft device proposed to be placed on the line 
as standard equipment was likely to be as effective in reducing and 
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking 
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. On August 24, 2005, GM 
petitioned the agency to amend the exemption currently granted for the 
Chevrolet Cobalt vehicle line. NHTSA is granting in full GM's petition 
to modify the exemption because it has determined that the modified 
antitheft device to be placed on the Chevrolet Cobalt line as standard 
equipment will also likely 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. Deborah Mazyck, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's phone number is 
(202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 12, 2005, NHTSA published in the

[[Page 4964]]

Federal Register a notice granting in full the petition from GM for an 
exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention 
Standard (49 CFR 541) for the MY 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt vehicle line. 
The Chevrolet Cobalt is equipped with the Passlock III antitheft device 
(See 70 FR 40102).
    This notice grants in full GM's August 24, 2005, petition to modify 
the exemption of the previously granted petition for the MY 2006 
Chevrolet Cobalt. GM's August 24, 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.
    The current antitheft device (Passlock III) installed on the 
Chevrolet Cobalt is a passively activated, transponder-based electronic 
immobilizer system. GM stated that its current device uses a standard 
ignition key to rotate a specially coded ignition switch. Before the 
vehicle can be operated, the electrical code in the ignition switch 
must be read and determined to match the value stored in the decoder 
module.
    The electrical code in the ignition switch is provided by resistive 
elements enabled by the lock cylinder. When a key with the proper 
mechanical cut is inserted in the lock cylinder and rotated from 
``RUN'' to ``Crank'', the resistive code will become readable by the 
decoder module. When the decoder module recognizes a valid code, fuel 
flow is enabled and the vehicle can be operated.
    In its petition to modify its exemption, GM stated that it proposes 
to install its Chevrolet Cobalt vehicle line with its PASS-Key III+ 
antitheft device for MY 2006. The PASS-Key III+ device is designed to 
be active at all times without direct intervention by the vehicle 
operator. The antitheft device is fully armed immediately after the 
ignition has been turned off and the key removed and it will continue 
to provide protection against unauthorized starting and fueling of the 
vehicle engine.
    Components of the modified antitheft device include a special 
ignition key and decoder module. Before the vehicle can be operated, 
the key's electrical code must be properly sensed and 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 vehicle starting is allowed.
    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 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 also provided 
a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is 
reliable and durable since the device complied with its specified 
requirements for each test. Additionally, GM stated that its proposed 
device is reliable and durable because the components are validated for 
a vehicle life of 10 years and 150,000 miles of performance. GM stated 
that for reliability/durability purposes, its key and key cylinders 
must also meet unique strength tests against attempts of mechanical 
overriding. The PASS-Key III+ device performs the same function as its 
predecessors, however it uses a higher level of electrical 
sophistication to provide a key, which is protected from electrical 
duplication.
    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 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.
    On the basis of this comparison, GM stated that 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 2005 
Passlock III device 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 Cobalt 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 Cobalt 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

[[Page 4965]]

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: January 23, 2006.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
 [FR Doc. E6-1071 Filed 1-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P