[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 2, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29736-29739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13956]


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

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 a petition for modification for previously approved 
antitheft devices.

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

SUMMARY: This agency granted in part General Motors Corporation's (GM) 
petitions for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the 
vehicle theft prevention standard on April 27, 1990, April 9, 1991 and 
March 26, 1992, for the Cadillac DeVille, Pontiac Bonneville, and Buick 
LeSabre car lines, respectively. On August 25, 1993, this agency 
granted in full General Motors Corporation's (GM) petition for 
exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the vehicle theft 
prevention standard for the Oldsmobile Aurora car line. This notice 
grants in full GM's petition for modification of the previously 
approved antitheft device for the Aurora car line, and provides for 
full exemption of three car lines (Cadillac DeVille, Pontiac 
Bonneville, and Buick LeSabre) that were previously granted partial 
exemptions. 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 lines 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) 2000.

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) 366-4807. 
Her fax number is (202) 493-2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In April 1990, 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 MY 1991 Cadillac DeVille. The DeVille car line was equipped 
with the ``PASS-Key'' antitheft device. (See 55 FR 17854, April 27, 
1990). In April 1991, 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 MY 1992 
Pontiac Bonneville. The Bonneville car line was equipped with the 
``PASS-Key'' antitheft device. (See 56 FR 14413, April 9, 1991). In 
March 1992, 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 MY 1993 Buick LeSabre. 
The LeSabre car line was equipped with the ``PASS-Key II'' antitheft 
device. (See 57 FR 10517, March 26, 1992). In August 1993, 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 model year 1995 Oldsmobile Aurora. The Aurora car 
line was equipped with the ``PASS-Key II'' antitheft device. (See 58 FR 
44872, August 25, 1993).
    The agency granted partial exemptions for the Cadillac DeVille, 
Pontiac Bonneville and Buick LeSabre lines at that time because the 
devices lacked an audible and visual alarm system. As such, the GM 
systems lacked, 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. The lack 
of an audible or visual warning device made the agency uncertain as to 
whether the device would be as effective as parts marking in deterring 
theft of these vehicles. Consequently, the agency believed that because 
of the lack of theft data and information available at that time for 
lines installed with antitheft

[[Page 29737]]

devices that did not have an audible or visual alarm system, GM should 
be granted a partial rather than full exemption. Therefore, GM was 
required to mark the lines' engine and transmission only.
    The ``PASS-Key'' theft deterrent system utilized an ignition key, 
an ignition lock cylinder and a decoder module. The conventional 
mechanical code permits the key to release the steering wheel and 
transmission shift lever locks. Before the vehicle can be started the 
electrical resistance of a pellet embedded in the shank of the key must 
be sensed by elements in the lock cylinder and its value compared to a 
fixed resistance in the decoder module located in the instrument panel 
in the passenger compartment. If the key pellet has the proper 
resistance, the starter enable relay is energized and a discrete signal 
is transmitted to the electronic control module. If a key other than 
the one with the proper resistance for that vehicle is inserted, the 
decoder module will shut down for two to four minutes. Use of any keys 
with different resistance pellets will cause the time to recycle and 
begin again with each failed attempt. The components are located in the 
passenger compartment behind the instrument panel, with the exception 
of the starter solenoid/starter motor combination which is physically 
located in the engine compartment.
    GM's ``PASS-Key II'' device, used on the Oldsmobile Aurora 
beginning in the1995 model year, utilizes an ignition key, an ignition 
lock cylinder and a decoder module and is passively activated. Unlike 
the ``PASS-Key'', in the ``PASS-Key II'', if a key other than the one 
with proper resistance for the vehicle is inserted, the decoder module 
will shut down the fuel injector pulses to the engine for three minutes 
plus or minus eighteen seconds. In the ``PASS-Key'' this shut down 
period is two to four minutes. Additionally, if during the time the 
decoder module has shut down in ``PASS-Key II,'' trial and error 
attempts are made to start the engine with various keys, the timer for 
the decoder module does not reset back to zero.
    ``PASS-Key II'' is a modification of the ``PASS-Key'' theft 
deterrent system. Since August 1989, the agency has determined that the 
``PASS-Key'' system, installed as standard equipment, will likely be as 
effective reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with 
the theft prevention standard (see 54 FR 33655, August 15, 1989). In a 
February 7, 1992 letter to GM, the agency determined that changes in 
the ``PASS-Key II'' constituted a de minimis change in the ``PASS-Key'' 
system, which was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a 
partial theft exemption for car lines that had, as standard equipment, 
the ``PASS-Key'' system.
    GM stated that for MY 2000, the ``PASS-Key III'' antitheft device 
to be used on the Cadillac DeVille, Pontiac Bonneville, Buick LeSabre 
and Oldsmobile Aurora car lines 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 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 III'' device has the potential for over four 
trillion unique electrical key codes. GM states that the sheer volume 
of these codes is a highly effective deterrent to the common intruder. 
If an invalid key is detected, the ``PASS-Key'' was designed to shut 
down for two to four minutes and, the ``PASS-Key II'' for three minutes 
plus or minus eighteen seconds, preventing further attempts at starting 
the vehicle during that shutdown. 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.
    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 the MY 2000 Oldsmobile Aurora and Pontiac Bonneville. The 
``PASS-Key III'' decoder module and antenna will be located in the 
steering column for the MY 2000 Cadillac DeVille and Buick LeSabre 
lines. 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.
    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, and the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac 
Firebird car lines equipped with a passive antitheft device without an 
alarm feature. Results of the GM comparison indicate that the lack of 
an alarm feature did not reduce the effectiveness of the anti-theft 
system. In fact, while there was a 24 percent reduction in thefts of 
Corvettes, the Camaro and Firebird car lines experienced theft 
reductions of 66 and 69 percent respectively.
    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 33655, 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 and Buick Park Avenue, 
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).
    Since deciding those petitions, the agency has become aware that 
theft data

[[Page 29738]]

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, beginning with the 1997 model year (See 60 FR 25938, May 15, 
1995) and the Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora car lines, beginning 
with the 1995 model year (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. NHTSA has also 
granted two exemptions in full for car lines which have the ``PASS-Key 
III'' device as standard equipment. Those lines are the Buick Park 
Avenue (See 61 FR 25734, May 22, 1996) beginning with the 1997 model 
year and the Cadillac Seville beginning with the 1998 model year (See 
62 FR 20058, April 24, 1997).
    To ensure reliability and durability of the device, GM stated that 
it conducted tests based on its own specified standards. GM provided a 
detailed list of specific tests used to validate the integrity, 
reliability and durability of the ``PASS-Key III'' device. GM stated 
that the ``PASS-Key III'' device complied with the specified 
requirements for each test.
    To substantiate its beliefs as to the effectiveness of the ``PASS-
Key III'' antitheft device, GM referenced data which provide the basis 
for GM's confidence that the ``PASS-Key III'' system will be effective 
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft that are contained in the 
response of the American Automobile Manufacturers Association to Docket 
97-042; Notice 1 (NHTSA Request for Comments on its preliminary report 
to Congress on the Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 and the Motor Vehicle 
Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984).
    Additionally, GM compared its MY 2000 antitheft modification to 
similar devices that have previously been granted exemptions by the 
agency. GM stated that theft data have indicated a decline in theft 
rates for vehicle lines that have been equipped with the ``PASS-Key''-
like systems which have exemptions from the parts-marking standard 
greater than that for earlier models which were parts marked. ``PASS-
Key'' was made standard on the Camaro, Firebird, Seville and Eldorado 
beginning with MY 1989 and on Eldorado beginning with MY 1989 and on 
the DeVille/Fleetwood beginning with 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.
    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 2000 Cadillac DeVille, Pontiac 
Bonneville, Buick LeSabre and Oldsmobile Aurora lines 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 2000 Cadillac DeVille, Pontiac Bonneville, Buick 
LeSabre and Oldsmobile Aurora car lines 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 four of the five types 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.
    The agency has evaluated GM's MY 2000 petition for modification of 
the previous exemptions granted for the Cadillac DeVille, Pontiac 
Bonneville, Buick LeSabre and Oldsmobile Aurora car lines from the 
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. The agency has 
determined that the modified device to be installed on the DeVille, 
Bonneville and LeSabre car lines are likely to be as effective as parts 
marking in preventing and deterring theft of these vehicles, and 
therefore qualifies for a full rather than partial exemption under 49 
CFR Part 543.
    Additionally, the agency concludes that the improvements made to 
the device to be installed on the MY 2000 Oldsmobile Aurora car line 
constitute a de minimis modification to the existing antitheft device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants GM's petition 
for modification of the exemptions from the parts-marking requirements 
previously granted to the MY 2000 Cadillac DeVille, Pontiac Bonneville, 
Buick LeSabre and Oldsmobile Aurora car lines beginning with the 2000 
model year.
    If, in the future, GM decides not to use the exemption for the car 
lines that are the subject of this notice, it should formally notify 
the agency. If such a decision is made, the car line(s) must be fully 
marked according to the requirements under 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, it may have to submit a petition to 
modify the exemption. Section 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 
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

[[Page 29739]]

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: May 27, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-13956 Filed 6-1-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P