[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 59 (Monday, March 29, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14963-14965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7606]


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

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 May 15, 1995, NHTSA granted in full General Motors 
Corporation's (GM) petition for exemption from the parts-marking 
requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard for the Chevrolet 
Lumina/Monte Carlo and Buick Regal car lines. This notice grants in 
full GM's petition for modification of the previously approved 
antitheft device for the Chevrolet Lumina/Monte Carlo line. This notice 
also acknowledges GM's notification that the nameplate for the 
Chevrolet Lumina/Monte Carlo line will be changed to the Chevrolet 
Impala/Monte Carlo line beginning with model year (MY) 2000. The agency 
grants this petition for modification because it has determined 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 of the Theft Prevention Standard.

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, Safety Performance Standards, NHTSA, 
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone 
number is (202) 366-0846, and her fax number is (202) 493-2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In May of 1995, NHTSA published in the 
Federal Register a notice granting in full 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 
MY 1996 Chevrolet Lumina/Monte Carlo and Buick Regal car lines. (See 60 
FR 25938, May 15, 1995). The agency determined that the ``PASS-Key II'' 
antitheft device, which GM intended to install on the Chevrolet Lumina/
Monte Carlo and Buick Regal lines as standard equipment, was likely to 
be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as 
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention 
Standard.
    In its petition for MY 1996, GM included a detailed description of 
the components of PASS-Key II, including diagrams of components and 
their location in the vehicle. GM described PASS-Key II as passively 
activated. It also stated that the device utilized an electrically-
coded ignition key, an ignition lock-cylinder and a decoder module.
    On December 7, 1998, GM petitioned to modify the exemption granted 
for the Chevrolet Lumina/Monte Carlo car line to allow its new 
``Passlock'' antitheft device to be used in place of the PASS-Key II 
device. GM's submission 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

[[Page 14964]]

attachments submitted in support of its petition. In a letter to GM 
dated February 12, 1999, the agency granted the petitioner's request 
for confidential treatment of most aspects of its petition.
    GM's petition also informed the agency of its planned nameplate 
change for the four-door Chevrolet Lumina to the Chevrolet Impala 
nameplate beginning with the 2000 model year. GM stated that while the 
MY 2000 Impala will feature a new name and new styling, it will remain 
a continuation of the Chevrolet ``W'' platform and target the same 
market segment. GM also stated that the original Impala nameplate was 
discontinued in MY 1997 with the discontinuance of the Impala SS model, 
a performance model of its Caprice line. GM further stated that the 
resurrection of the Impala nameplate for application to its four-door 
Lumina would complete the renaming of the line which began with the 
renaming of its 2-door model as the Monte Carlo.
    GM stated that for MY 2000, the Chevrolet Lumina/Monte Carlo 
(renamed Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo) line will utilize its 
``Passlock'' antitheft device as standard equipment. The Passlock 
device provides the functionality of the ``PASS-Key'' devices but 
features a coded-lock cylinder instead of an electrically-coded 
ignition key. When the electronic sensor detects proper lock rotation, 
it sends a code to the body function controller. If the correct code is 
received, the controller enables fuel and starting of the vehicle. If 
an incorrect code is received, the controller disables fuel and 
starting of the vehicle for ten minutes and prevents any other attempts 
to start the vehicle during this time. The Passlock device is designed 
to be active at all times without direct intervention by the vehicle 
operator. The device is fully functional immediately after the ignition 
has been turned off, requiring no other operator action other than 
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 believes that its device is 
reliable and durable since the device complied with its specified 
requirements for each test. Additionally, GM believes that the security 
of the vehicle will be protected in many ways by the installation of 
its modified device. Specifically, the Passlock device will protect the 
vehicle from any attempts to override the lock assembly by using an 
external magnet, forcibly removing the ignition lock cylinder, forcibly 
rotating the lock, bypassing the lock assembly electronics with an 
external lock assembly, or removing and subsequently applying the 
vehicle's battery power.
    GM compared the Passlock device proposed for the Impala/Monte Carlo 
car line with its first generation PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key 
III 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 device will 
be at least as effective as its PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key III 
devices. However, as in the first and second-generation PASS-Key 
devices, as well as other comparable devices that have received full 
exemptions from the parts-marking requirements, the Passlock device 
does not provide an audible or visual alarm. Therefore, as with those, 
this device cannot perform one of the functions listed in 49 CFR 
Sec. 543.6(a)(3)(ii), that is, to attract attention to the efforts of 
an unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means other than a 
key. To substantiate its belief that an alarm system is not necessary 
for effective deterrence of vehicle theft, GM compared the reduction in 
thefts for Corvettes equipped with a passive antitheft device with an 
audible/visible alarm feature, and the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac 
Firebird lines equipped with a passive antitheft device without an 
alarm feature.
    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 devices on these vehicles (PASS-Key and PASS-Key II) by 
themselves would be as effective as parts-marking in deterring theft 
because they lacked an alarm system. On that basis, NHTSA decided to 
require GM to mark the vehicle's most interchangeable parts (the engine 
and the transmission), as a supplement to the antitheft device.
    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 device. 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 five GM petitions for full exemptions for car lines equipped 
with the PASS-Key II device. The following lines have been granted full 
exemptions: the Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora, beginning with MY 
1995 (See 58 FR 44874; August 25, 1993); the Chevrolet Lumina/Monte 
Carlo and Buick Regal, beginning with MY 1996 (See 60 FR 25939; May 15, 
1995) and the Cadillac Seville (antitheft device modification), 
beginning with MY 1998 (See 62 FR 20058; April 24, 1997). In all five 
of these 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.
    Additionally, the agency has granted four full exemptions for car 
lines equipped with the Passlock device. The following lines have been 
granted full exemptions: the Chevrolet Cavalier, beginning with MY 1997 
(See 61 FR 12132; March 25, 1996); the Pontiac Sunfire, beginning with 
MY1998 (See 62 FR 20240; April 25, 1997); the Oldsmobile Alero, 
beginning with MY 1999 (See 63 FR 24587; May 4, 1998); and the Pontiac 
Grand Am, beginning with MY 2000 (See 63 FR 68503; December 11, 1998).
    The agency concludes that, given the similarities between the 
Passlock device and the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II and PASS-Key III systems, 
it is reasonable to assume that the Passlock device, 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 Impala/Monte 
Carlo car line beginning with MY 2000.
    The agency believes that the modified device will provide the 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 the Passlock device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full GM's 
petition for modification of an existing exemption for the MY 2000 
Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo car line from the parts-marking 
requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.
    If, in the future, GM decides not to use the exemption for these 
car lines, it must formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, the car 
lines must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 49 CFR 541.6 
(marking of major component parts and replacement parts).

[[Page 14965]]

    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: March 23, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-7606 Filed 3-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P