Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Motor Theft Prevention Standard; General Motors Corporation, 21172-21173 [E8-8477]

Download as PDF 21172 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 76 / Friday, April 18, 2008 / Notices review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). Dated: April 10, 2008. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Murray Bloom, Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E8–8431 Filed 4–17–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–81–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. pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES 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 Chevrolet Equinox vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 2009. 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 the Theft Prevention Standard. DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with model year (MY) 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA,1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard’s phone number is (202) 366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493– 2290. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated January 11, 2008, GM requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Chevrolet Equinox vehicle line beginning with MY 2009. 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:38 Apr 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an exemption for one of its vehicle lines per year. 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. GM’s petition provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the new vehicle line. GM will install its passive, transponder-based, electronic immobilizer device as standard equipment on its Chevrolet Equinox vehicle line beginning with MY 2009. 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 stated that it will install the PASS-Key III+ on its MY 2009 Chevrolet Equinox vehicle line. 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 an electronically coded ignition key, a PASS-Key III+ controller module and an engine 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 (NCIC), are lower for GM models equipped with the ‘‘PASSKey’’-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 partsmarked. Based on the performance of the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASSKey III systems on other GM models, and the advanced technology utilized by PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the modification, GM believes that the PASS-Key III+ antitheft device will be more effective in deterring theft than the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. 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 its own test information on the reliability and durability of its device, and believes that the device is reliable and durable since it complied with the specified requirements for each test. 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. GM compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with other devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-marking requirements. GM stated that the reduction in theft rates for the Chevrolet Camaro and the Pontiac Firebird models equipped with a passive theft-deterrent system (‘‘PASS-Key’’) 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 PASSKey III+. The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to devices for which the agency has previously approved exemptions. 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 PASSKey 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 E:\FR\FM\18APN1.SGM 18APN1 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 76 / Friday, April 18, 2008 / Notices or audio alarm has not prevented these antitheft devices from being effective protection against theft. 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 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 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 Equinox vehicle line from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR Part 541, Appendix A–1, identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR Part 543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the parts marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. If GM decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR Parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts). NHTSA notes that if GM wishes in the future to modify the device on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543 exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line’s exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:38 Apr 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 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. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50. Issued on: April 15, 2008. Stephen R. Kratzke, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. [FR Doc. E8–8477 Filed 4–17–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Ford National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of Ford Motor Company (Ford) in accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard, for the Ford Escape vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 2009. 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 the Theft Prevention Standard. DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with model year (MY) 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck’s telephone number is (202) PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 21173 366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493– 2290. In a petition dated February 8, 2008, Ford requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Ford Escape vehicle line beginning with MY 2009. The petition requested an exemption from partsmarking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for an entire vehicle line. Under § 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant exemptions for one of its vehicle lines per year. Ford has petitioned the agency to grant an exemption for its Ford Escape vehicle line beginning with MY 2009. In its petition, Ford provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the Ford Escape vehicle line. Ford will install its passive antitheft device as standard equipment on the vehicle line. Features of the antitheft device will include an electronic key, ignition lock, and a passive immobilizer. Ford’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 2009 Ford Escape is the SecuriLock Passive Anti-Theft Electronic Engine Immobilizer System (SecuriLock). The Ford SecuriLock is a transponder-based electronic immobilizer system. Ford stated that the integration of the transponder into the normal operation of the ignition key assures activation of the system. When the ignition key is turned to the start position, the transceiver module reads the ignition key code and transmits an encrypted message to the cluster. Validation of the key is determined and start of the engine is authorized once a separate encrypted message is sent to the powertrain’s control module (PCM). The powertrain will function only if the key code matches the unique identification key code previously programmed into the PCM. If the codes do not match, the powertrain engine starter will be disabled. Ford also stated that the SecuriLock electronic engine immobilizer device makes conventional theft methods such as hot-wiring or attacking the ignition lock cylinder ineffective and virtually eliminates drive-away thefts. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\18APN1.SGM 18APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 76 (Friday, April 18, 2008)]
[NOTIC]
[Pages 21172-21173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-8477]


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

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 Equinox vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 2009. 
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) 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of 
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA,1200 
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone 
number is (202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated January 11, 2008, GM 
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft 
prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Chevrolet Equinox vehicle 
line beginning with MY 2009. 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 an 
exemption for one of its vehicle lines per year. 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.
    GM's petition provided a detailed description and diagram of the 
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft 
device for the new vehicle line. GM will install its passive, 
transponder-based, electronic immobilizer device as standard equipment 
on its Chevrolet Equinox vehicle line beginning with MY 2009. 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 stated that it will install the PASS-Key III+ on its MY 2009 
Chevrolet Equinox vehicle line. 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 an electronically coded 
ignition key, a PASS-Key III+ controller module and an engine 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 (NCIC), 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 PASS-Key 
III+ antitheft device will be more effective in deterring theft than 
the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.
    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 its 
own test information on the reliability and durability of its device, 
and believes that the device is reliable and durable since it complied 
with the specified requirements for each test.
    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.
    GM compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with other 
devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and 
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-
marking requirements. GM stated that the reduction in theft rates for 
the Chevrolet Camaro and the Pontiac Firebird models equipped with a 
passive theft-deterrent system (``PASS-Key'') 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 agrees that the device is substantially similar to 
devices for which the agency has previously approved exemptions.
    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

[[Page 21173]]

or audio alarm has not prevented these antitheft devices from being 
effective protection against theft.
    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 
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 Equinox vehicle line from the 
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. The agency notes that 49 
CFR Part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted 
from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR Part 
543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition 
of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of 
future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the 
petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device 
is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle 
lines exempted from the parts marking requirements of the Theft 
Prevention Standard.
    If GM decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should 
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must 
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR Parts 541.5 
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if GM wishes in the future to modify the device on 
which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a 
petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543 
exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under 
this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's 
exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the 
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of 
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in 
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part 
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself. 
The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the 
submission of a modification petition for every change to the 
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many 
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the 
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which 
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency 
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.50.

    Issued on: April 15, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-8477 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P