[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 238 (Friday, December 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68503-68505]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32964]


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

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 (GM) for an exemption of a high-theft line, the Pontiac 
Grand Am, 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

[[Page 68504]]

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 [awaiting 
letter granting confidentiality], 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) 2000.

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 August 27, 1998, General 
Motors Corporation (GM), requested an exemption from the parts-marking 
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the 
Pontiac Grand Am 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 2000 Pontiac Grand Am car line. 
GM stated that the ``Passlock'' device provides the same kind of 
functionality as the ``VATS'', ``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-Key II'devices 
but features an electronically-coded lock cylinder rather than an 
electrically-coded ignition key. Specifically, when the sensor detects 
proper lock rotation, it sends a code to the body function controller. 
If the correct code is received, fuel is enabled. If an incorrect code 
is received, fuel will be disabled for a ten-minute lockout period 
during which any attempts to start the vehicle will be unsuccessful.
    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 states its belief that the 
device is reliable and durable since it complied with its specified 
requirements for each test. GM also stated that the ``Passlock'' device 
is designed to provide protection against any attempts to defeat it by 
overriding its lock assembly with an external magnet, forcibly removing 
the ignition lock cylinder, forcibly rotating the lock, applying a 
torque to the lock cylinder or its keyway, bypassing the vehicle's lock 
assembly electronics, or by removing its battery power.
    GM compared the ``Passlock'' device proposed for the Pontiac Grand 
Am line with its first generation ``PASS-Key'' device, 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 stated that its ``Passlock'' device is activated when the owner/
operator turns off the ignition of the vehicle and removes the key. 
According to GM, no other intentional action is necessary to achieve 
protection of the vehicle other than removing the key from the 
ignition. The ``PASS-Key'' devices are activated in the same manner. GM 
believes that its ``Passlock'' antitheft device will be at least as 
effective as its ``PASS-Key'' and ``VATS'' devices.
    The following GM car lines have the ``Passlock'' device as standard 
equipment and have been granted a full exemption from the parts-marking 
requirements: The Chevrolet Cavalier, beginning with MY 1997 (see 61 FR 
12132, March 25, 1996), the Pontiac Sunfire, beginning with MY 1998 
(see 62 FR 20240, April 25, 1997), and the Oldsmobile Alero, beginning 
with MY 1999 (see 63 FR 24587). GM stated that the theft rates, as 
reported by the National Crime Information Center, are lower for GM 
models equipped with ``PASS-Key'-like devices which have been granted 
exemptions from the parts-marking requirements than theft rates for 
similar, earlier models that have been parts-marked. Therefore, GM 
concludes that the ``PASS-Key'-like devices are more effective in 
deterring motor vehicle theft than the parts-marking requirements of 49 
CFR Part 541. GM also concluded that based on the system performance of 
``PASS-Key'-like devices on other GM models, and the similarity of 
design and functionality of the ``Passlock'' device on the Pontiac 
Grand Am to the ``PASS-Key'' device, it believes that the agency should 
determine that the proposed device will be at least as effective in 
deterring theft as the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
    Based on comparison of the reduction in theft rates of Chevrolet 
Corvettes using a passive antitheft device and audible/visible alarm 
with the reduction in theft rates for the 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 device 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 transmission), as a supplement to the antitheft device. Like those 
earlier antitheft devices 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 543.6(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 visible or audible alarm had not prevented 
the antitheft device from being effective protection against theft and 
granted three GM petitions for full exemptions for car lines equipped 
with ``PASS-Key II''. See 60 FR 25939 (May 15, 1995) granting in full 
the petition for the Chevrolet Lumina and Buick Regal car lines 
equipped with ``PASS-Key II'; 58 FR 44874 (August 25, 1993), granting 
in full the petition for exemption of the Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile 
Aurora car lines equipped with ``PASS-Key II'; and 62 FR 20058 (April 
24, 1997), granting in full the petition for exemption of the Cadillac 
Seville car line equipped with ``PASS-Key II''. In all three 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 visible 
or audible 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. The agency 
believes that the device will provide the

[[Page 68505]]

other 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 2000 Pontiac Grand Am 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. Sec. 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: December 7, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-32964 Filed 12-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P