[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