[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 58 (Monday, March 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12132-12133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7146]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard; General Motors

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This notice grants in full the petition of General Motors 
Corporation (GM) for an exemption of a high-theft line, the Chevrolet 
Cavalier, from the parts-marking requirements of the Federal Motor 
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the 
agency has determined that the antitheft device to 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. GM requested 
confidential treatment for some of the information and attachments 
submitted in support of its petition. In a letter to GM dated January 
18, 1996, the agency granted the petitioner's request for confidential 
treatment of most aspects of its petition.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of 
Planning and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-
0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 15, 1995, 
General Motors Corporation (GM), requested exemption from the parts-
marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) 
for the Cavalier car line. The petition is pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, 
Exemption From Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the 
installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for the 
entire line.
    GM's submittal is considered a complete petition, as required by 49 
CFR Part 543.7, in that it met the general requirements contained in 
Sec. 543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec. 543.6.
    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 line. GM will install its PASSLOCK antitheft device 
as standard equipment on its MY 1997 Chevrolet Cavalier car line. GM 
states that this device will provide the same kind of functionality and 
protection as its ``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-Key II'' systems. GM utilizes 
a coded lock cylinder on its PASSLOCK device rather than the 
electronically coded ignition key previously used on in its PASS-Key 
device. The ignition key in the PASSLOCK device is cut to provide only 
a mechanical code. The device is activated by turning off the ignition 
and removing the key.
    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 the tests conducted. GM stated its belief that the 
device is reliable and durable since the device complied with GM's 
specified requirements for each test. Additionally, GM stated that it 
will continue to monitor warranty data and make further changes, as 
necessary, to improve system reliability.
    GM compared the PASSLOCK device proposed for the Cavalier car line 
with its first generation ``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-Key II'' devices 
which the agency has determined to be as effective in reducing and 
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the part-marking 
requirements. GM stated that the PASSLOCK device provides the same kind 
of functionality and protection as its predecessors. The new PASSLOCK 
device was introduced as optional equipment on the MY 1995 Cavalier Z24 
and the Pontiac Sunfire GT models. It became standard equipment on all 
Cavalier and Sunfire models beginning with the 1996 model year. GM 
believes that its third generation passive antitheft device will be at 
least as effective as the ``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-Key II'' devices.
    GM stated that the thefts as reported by the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation's National Crime Information Center, are lower for GM 
``PASS-Key'' equipped models having partial exemptions from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, than the thefts for earlier 
models with similar appearance and construction, which were parts-
marked. Therefore, GM concluded that the ``PASS-Key'' device was at 
least as effective in deterring motor vehicle theft as the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. Based on the system 
performance of ``PASS-Key'' on other models and the similarity of 
design and functionality of the PASSLOCK antitheft device to the 
``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-Key II'' devices, GM believes that the agency 
should determine that the PASSLOCK device will be at least as effective 
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as the parts-marking 
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541).
    The agency notes that the reason that the vehicle lines whose theft 
data GM cites in support of its petition received only a partial 
examption from parts-marking was that the agency did not believe that 
that antitheft system on these vehicles (PASS-Key and PASS-Key II) by 
itself would be as effective as parts-marking in deterring theft 
because it lacked an alarm system. On that basis, it decided to require 
GM to mark the vehicle's most interchangeable parts (the engine and the 
transmission), as a supplement to the antitheft device. Like those 
earlier antitheft systems GM used, the new PASSLOCK system on which 
this petition is based also lacks an alarm system. Accordingly, it 
cannot perform one of the functions listed in 49 CFR Sec. 542.6(a)(3), 
that is, to call attention to unauthorized attempts to enter or move 
the vehicle.
    Since deciding those petitions, however, the agency became aware 
that theft data shows declining theft rates for GM vehicles equipped 
with either

[[Page 12133]]
version of the PASS-Key system. Based on that data, it concluded that 
the lack of a visual or audio alarm had not prevented the antitheft 
system from being effective protection against theft and granted two GM 
petitions for full exemptions for car lines equipped with PASS-Key II. 
See 60 FR 25939 (May 15, 1995) (grant in full of petition for Chevrolet 
Lumina and Buick Regal car lines equipped with PASS-Key II); and 58 FR 
44874 (grant in full of petition for exemption of Buick Riviera and 
Oldsmobile Aurora car lines of confidential model year equipped with 
PASS-Key II). In both of those instances, the agency concluded that a 
full exemption was warranted because PASS-Key II had shown itself as 
likely as parts-marking to be effective protection against theft 
despite the absence of a visual or audio alarm.
    The agency concludes that, given the similarities between the 
PASSLOCK system and the PASS-Key and PASS-Key II systems, it is 
reasonable to assume that PASSLOCK, like those systems, will be as 
effective as parts-marking in deterring theft. Accordingly, it has 
granted this petition for exemption in full and will not require any 
parts to be marked on the Chevrolet Cavalier car line beginning with MY 
1997.
    The agency believes that the device will provide the types of 
performance listed in 49 CFR 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 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 antitheft device. This 
confidential information included a description of reliability and 
functional tests conducted by GM for the antitheft device and its 
components.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full GM's 
petition for exemption for the MY 1997 Cavalier car line from the 
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.
    If GM decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must 
formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, the line must be fully 
marked as required by 49 CFR 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, Sec. 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 with Sec. 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: March 19, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-7146 Filed 3-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P