[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 80 (Friday, April 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20240-20242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10674]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


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

[[Page 20241]]

(GM) for an exemption of a high-theft line, the Pontiac Sunfire, 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 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. GM requested 
confidential treatment for some of the information and attachments 
submitted in support of its petition. In a letter to GM dated February 
19, 1997, 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) 1998.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated January 7, 1997, General 
Motors Corporation (GM), requested exemption from the parts-marking 
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the 
Sunfire 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 1998 Pontiac Sunfire car line.
    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.
    GM compared the ``Passlock'' device proposed for the Sunfire 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 parts-
marking requirements. GM believes that its ``Passlock'' antitheft 
device will be at least as effective as the ``Pass-Key'' and ``Pass-Key 
II'' devices.
    The Pontiac Sunfire has been voluntarily equipped with the 
``Passlock'' antitheft device as standard equipment since model year 
1996. The proposed antitheft device is identical to the antitheft 
device currently equipped on the MY 1997 Chevrolet Cavalier as standard 
equipment. On March 25, 1996 (See 61 FR 12132) the Chevrolet Cavalier 
was granted a full exemption from the parts-marking requirements 
beginning with MY 1997.
    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).
    Based on comparison of the reduction in theft rates of Corvettes 
using a passive antitheft system and audible/visible alarm with the 
reduction in theft rates for Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird 
models equipped with a passive antitheft device without an alarm, GM 
believes that an alarm or similar attention attracting device is not 
necessary and does not compromise the antitheft performance of these 
systems.
    The agency notes that the reason that the vehicle lines whose theft 
data GM cites in support of its petition received only a partial 
exemption from parts-marking was that the agency did not believe that 
the 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'' device on 
which this petition is based also lacks an alarm system. Accordingly, 
it cannot perform one of the functions listed in 49 CFR Part 
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 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 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'' device 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 Pontiac Sunfire car line beginning with 
MY 1998.
    The agency believes that the device will provide the types of 
performance listed in 49 CFR Part 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 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 1998 Pontiac

[[Page 20242]]

Sunfire 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 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, 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 which 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: April 21, 1997.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 97-10674 Filed 4-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P