[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 79 (Thursday, April 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20058-20061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10603]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Modification of Exemption From the Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; General Motors Corporation
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for modification of a previously approved
antitheft device.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 19, 1993, this agency granted in part General
Motors Corporation's (GM) petition for exemption from the parts-marking
requirements of the vehicle theft
[[Page 20059]]
prevention standard for the Cadillac Seville car line. This notice
grants in full GM's petition for modification of the previously
approved antitheft device for that line. The agency grants this
petition because it has determined, based on substantial evidence, that
the modified antitheft device described in GM's petition to be placed
on the car 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) 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of
Planning and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-0846.
Her fax number is (202) 493-2739.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In February 1993, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register a notice granting in part the petition from General
Motors Corporation (GM) for an exemption from the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the
model year 1994 Cadillac Seville car line. (See 58 FR 11659, February
26, 1993). The agency determined that the ``PASS-Key II'' antitheft
device, which GM intended to install on the Cadillac Seville car line
as standard equipment, was likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-
marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard. The agency
decided based on the information available at that time that a full
exemption was not appropriate and granted a partial exemption which
required that the engine and transmission on this line continue to be
marked. The agency limited the exemption because the antitheft device
lacked both an audible and visual alarm to call attention to
unauthorized entry of the vehicle. The lack of such a warning device
made the agency uncertain whether the device would be as effective as
parts marking in deterring theft of this vehicle.
On January 16, 1997, GM submitted its petition for modification to
its previously approved ``PASS-Key II'' antitheft device. The petition
also asked that the line be granted a full rather than partial
exemption. GM's submittal is considered a complete petition, as
required by 49 CFR Part 543.9(d), in that it meets the general
requirements contained in Sec. 543.5 and the specific content
requirements of Sec. 543.6. GM requested confidential treatment for
some of the information and attachments submitted in support of its
petition for modification. In a letter to GM dated March 12, 1997, the
agency granted the petitioner's request for confidential treatment.
In its petition for MY 1994, GM included a detailed description of
the identity, design and location of the components of the ``PASS-Key
II'' antitheft device, including diagrams of components and their
location in the vehicle. GM described the ``PASS-Key II'' antitheft
device installed as standard equipment as passively activated. The
``PASS-Key II'' antitheft device utilizes an ignition key, an ignition
lock cylinder and a decoder module.
GM stated that for MY 1998, the ``PASS-Key III'' antitheft device
will utilize more advanced technology than the ``PASS-Key'' or ``PASS-
Key II'' devices. The ``PASS-Key III'' device will add new features and
refinements to some of the previous ``PASS-Key/PASS-Key II''
components. As with the ``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-Key II'' antitheft
devices, the ``PASS-Key III'' device will remain fully functional once
the ignition has been turned off and the key has been removed. No
operator action will be required other than removing the key. The
``PASS-Key III'' will also use a special ignition key and decoder
module. The conventional mechanical key unlocks and releases the
steering wheel and transmission lever. However, before the vehicle can
be operated, the key's electrical code must be sensed by the key
cylinder and properly decoded by the decoder module.
GM stated that the transponder, now embedded in the head of the key
for the ``PASS-Key III'' device, is stimulated by a coil surrounding
the key cylinder. The transponder in the key then emits a modulated
signal at a specified radio frequency. The identity of the key is an
integral and unique code within the modulated signal. The ``PASS-Key
III'' device has the potential for four trillion or more unique
electrical key codes. The key cylinder coil receives and sends the
modulated signal to the decoder. When the decoder module recognizes a
valid key code, it sends an encoded message to the Powertrain Control
Module (PCM) to enable fuel flow and starter operation. If an invalid
key is detected, the ``PASS-Key III'' decoder module will transmit a
different password to the PCM to disable fuel flow and starter
operation.
The ``PASS-Key II'' device was designed to shut down for three to
four minutes if an invalid key was detected, preventing further
attempts at starting the vehicle during that shutdown. However, GM
believes that the time-consuming task of attempting to defeat a device
having over four trillion key codes by a trial-and-error method
eliminates the need for such an extensive shutdown period. Therefore,
with the ``PASS-Key III'' device, a shut-down period occurs only if
someone is attempting to program a new electronically coded key. Shut-
down occurs for ten seconds with a valid key and thirty minutes with a
non-valid key. As an additional security measure, GM will provide the
MY 1998 Cadillac Seville owner/operator with a ``valet'' version of the
``PASS-Key III'' ignition key that will be modified to prevent the ten-
second code-duplication possible with the normal ignition key.
The ``PASS-Key III'' antenna will be located in the ignition switch
assembly, and the decoder module will be mounted behind the instrument
panel for MY 1998. GM stated that the device cannot be defeated by
removing and then subsequently reapplying vehicle power. Additionally,
GM stated that replacement of the decoder module will not defeat the
device because of its decoder module password.
Upon starting the vehicle, the ignition switch will enable power to
the ``PASS-Key III'' device causing the decoder module to illuminate a
``security'' light on the instrument cluster. GM states that this
``bulb check'' sequence will last for five seconds and then the light
will return to the normal state (``off'') for a valid key. Any attempts
to start the vehicle with an electronically invalid key will cause the
``security'' light to turn on. Should an error arise during normal
operation, the ``security'' light is enabled, signaling to the operator
that a fault has been detected in the ``PASS-Key III'' device.
According to GM, the vehicle will continue to operate despite the
fault, however, vehicle security may be compromised.
GM stated that the ``PASS-Key III'' device has been designed to
enhance the functionality and theft protection of the first and second-
generation ``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-Key II'' devices. However, as in the
first and second-generation ``PASS-Key'' devices, the ``PASS-Key III''
device does not provide an alarm, either audible or visual to attract
the attention to the efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or move
the vehicle by means other than a key 49 CFR Sec. 543.6(a)(3)(ii). To
substantiate its belief that an alarm system is not a necessary feature
to effectively deter the theft of a vehicle, GM compared the reduction
in thefts for Corvettes equipped with a passive antitheft device with
an audible/visible alarm feature (24% reduction), and the Chevrolet
Camaro and Pontiac Firebird car lines
[[Page 20060]]
equipped with a passive antitheft device without an alarm feature (66%
and 69% reduction).
The following GM car lines have the ``PASS-Key'' device as standard
equipment and have been exempted in part from the requirements of 49
CFR Part 541: the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird, beginning with
MY 1990 (See 54 FR 3365, August 15, 1989); the Cadillac DeVille/
Fleetwood and Oldsmobile 98, beginning with MY 1991 (See 55 FR 17854,
April 27, 1990); and the Pontiac Bonneville, beginning with MY 1992
(See 56 FR 14413, April 9, 1991). NHTSA has also granted exemptions in
part for the following GM car lines that have ``PASS-Key II'' as
standard equipment: the Oldsmobile 88 Royale and Buick LeSabre,
beginning with MY 1993 (See 57 FR 10517, March 26, 1992) and the
Cadillac Eldorado and Cadillac Seville, beginning with MY 1994 (see 58
FR 11659, February 26, 1993).
The agency had granted partial, rather than full exemptions for the
car lines listed above because neither the ``PASS-Key'' nor ``PASS-Key
II'' antitheft devices included an audible or visual alarm system. As
such, the GM systems lack, as standard equipment, an important feature
that the agency has defined in its rulemaking on Part 543 as one of
several attributes which contribute to the effectiveness of an
antitheft device: automatic activation of the device; an audible or
visual signal that is connected to the hood, doors, and trunk, and
draws attention to vehicle tampering; and a disabling mechanism
designed to prevent a thief from moving a vehicle under its own power
without a key.
Since deciding those petitions, however, the agency has become
aware that theft data show declining theft rates for GM vehicles
equipped with either version of the ``PASS-Key'' device. A comparison
of theft data for car lines incorporating the ``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-
Key II'' devices do not show that the lack of an audible or visual
alarm system detracts from the effectiveness of the ``PASS-Key'' and
``PASS-Key II'' devices. The agency believes that the data show that
over time, despite the absence of an audible or visual alarm system,
the ``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-Key II'' devices, when placed on car lines
as standard equipment, are as likely to be as effective in deterring
and reducing motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements.
Based on this information, the agency has granted two GM petitions
for full exemptions for car lines equipped with the ``PASS-Key II''
antitheft device. Those lines are the Chevrolet Lumina and Buick Regal
car lines (See 60 FR 25938, May 15, 1995) and the Buick Riviera and
Oldsmobile Aurora car lines (See 58 FR 44872, August 25, 1993). In both
of those instances, the agency concluded that a full exemption was
warranted because the ``PASS-Key II'' device had shown itself to be as
likely as parts marking to be effective protection against theft
despite the absence of a visual or audible alarm. Because the ``PASS-
Key III'' device to be used in the Cadillac Seville beginning in MY
1998 is an improved version of these systems, the agency concludes that
a full exemption is appropriate for this car line as well. NHTSA has
also granted an exemption in full for the Buick Park Avenue car line
which has had the ``PASS-Key III'' device as standard equipment
beginning with the 1997 model year (See 61 FR 25734, May 22, 1996).
To ensure reliability and durability of the device, GM stated that
it conducted tests based on its own specified standards. GM provided
the test results for the ``PASS-Key III'' device showing that the
device complied with the specified performance requirements of each
test. GM stated that the ``PASS-Key III'' device complied with its
standards for power temperature cycling, high and low temperature
storage, humidity, salt fog, drop, dust, thermal shock, frost,
altitude, shock, random vibration, potential contaminants,
flammability, terminal retention, crush, connector retention/strain
relief and connector insertion.
To substantiate its beliefs as to the effectiveness of the ``PASS-
Key III'' antitheft device, GM compared its MY 1998 antitheft
modification to similar devices that have previously been granted
exemptions by the agency. GM provided data on the Chevrolet Camaro,
Pontiac Firebird, Cadillac DeVille/Fleetwood, Cadillac Seville and
Cadillac Eldorado car line theft rates for MYs 1986 through 1991.
``PASS-Key'' was made standard on the Camaro, Firebird, Seville and
Eldorado beginning with MY 1989 and on the DeVille/Fleetwood beginning
with MY 1990. The data provided by GM were reported by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's National Crime Information Center (NCIC),
which is NHTSA's official source of theft data (See 50 FR 46666,
November 12, 1985). The NCIC receives reports on all thefts.
The NCIC data reported by GM showed that the Camaro, Firebird,
DeVille/Fleetwood, Seville and Eldorado theft rates (per thousand
vehicles) by Model Year were: For MY 1986, 29.49 for the Camaro, 27.83
for the Firebird, 7.11 for the DeVille/Fleetwood, 1.71 for the Seville
and 2.27 for the Eldorado; for MY 1987, 26.03 for the Camaro, 30.14 for
the Firebird, 6.16 for the DeVille/Fleetwood, 9.24 for the Seville and
3.90 for the Eldorado; for MY 1988, 25.74 for the Camaro, 29.39 for the
Firebird, 7.91 for the DeVille/Fleetwood, 9.54 for the Seville and 3.16
for the Eldorado; for MY 1989, 8.69 for the Camaro, 9.00 for the
Firebird, 5.57 for the DeVille/Fleetwood, 8.31 for the Seville and 2.35
for the Eldorado; for MY 1990, 9.04 for the Camaro, 8.04 for the
Firebird, 3.85 for the DeVille/Fleetwood, 9.43 for the Seville and 2.44
for the Eldorado; for MY 1991, 7.80 for the Camaro, 6.37 for the
Firebird, 4.06 for the DeVille/Fleetwood, 7.95 for the Seville and 2.83
for the Eldorado.
GM believes that based on the reduced theft rates of its ``PASS-
Key'' and ``PASS-Key II'' equipped car lines and the proven theft-
deterrence success of transponder electronics security, the ``PASS-Key
III'' device to be introduced on the MY 1998 Cadillac Seville is likely
to be more effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft than
compliance with the parts marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.
The agency believes that there is substantial evidence indicating
that the modified antitheft device to be installed as standard
equipment on the MY 1998 Cadillac Seville car line will likely be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part
541). This determination is based on the information that GM submitted
with its petition and on other available information. The agency
believes that the modified device will continue to provide all but one
of the aspects of performance listed in Section 543.6(a)(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.
As required by 49 CFR Section 543.6(a)(4), the agency also finds
that GM has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the modified
antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based
on the information GM provided on its ``PASS-Key III'' device. This
information included a description of reliability and functional tests
conducted by GM for the ``PASS-Key III'' antitheft device and its
components.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby exempts the Cadillac
Seville car line, which is the subject of this notice,
[[Page 20061]]
in whole, from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.
Section 543.9(h)(2)(i), specifically reads, ``. . . an exemption
under this section takes effect on the first day of the model year
following the model year in which NHTSA issued the modification
decision.'' Therefore, since the agency is issuing its decision on the
General Motors Corporation modification during model year 1997, the
modification for the Buick Park Avenue car line becomes effective
beginning with Model Year 1998.
If, in the future, GM decides not to use the exemption for the car
line that is the subject of this notice, it should formally notify the
agency. If such a decision is made, the car line must be fully marked
according to the requirements under 49 CFR Section 541.5 and Section
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, it 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, Section 543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of
petitions ``(t)o 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 which
section 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 18, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-10603 Filed 4-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P