[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 63 (Friday, March 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17333-17335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7956]


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

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 document grants in full the petition of General Motors 
Corporation (GM) for an exemption of a high-theft line, the Chevrolet 
Malibu, 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.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
model year (MY) 2001.

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) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated November 19, 1999, 
General Motors Corporation (GM), requested an exemption from the parts-
marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) 
for the Chevrolet Malibu and Chevrolet Venture car lines beginning with 
MY 2001. The petition is pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption From 
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, which provides for exemptions based 
on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment on a 
car line.
    Section 33106(b)(2)(D) of Title 49, United States Code, authorized 
the Secretary of Transportation to grant an exemption from the parts 
marking requirements for not more than one additional line of a 
manufacturer for MYs 1997--2000. However, for a model year after MY 
2000, the number of lines for which the agency can grant an exemption 
is to be decided after the Attorney General completes a review of the 
effectiveness of parts marking and antitheft devices and finds that 
antitheft devices are an effective substitute for parts marking. 49 
U.S.C. 33103(d)(3). The Attorney General has not yet made a finding and 
has not decided the number of lines, if any, for which the agency will 
be authorized to grant an exemption. Therefore, until this decision has 
been made by the Attorney General, the agency will continue to grant an 
exemption for not more than one additional line of any manufacturer. On 
December 21, 1999, the agency informed GM that until an authorization 
level for granting parts-marking exemptions has been established by the 
Attorney General, GM must determine which of the two lines for MY 2001 
it seeks an exemption from the parts-marking requirements. In response, 
on January 4, 2000, GM withdrew its petition for exemption of the 
Chevrolet Venture car line and requested the agency to process its 
petition for exemption of the Chevrolet Malibu car line for MY 2001.
    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 2001 Chevrolet Malibu car line. GM 
stated that the Passlock device provides the same kind of functionality 
as the PASS-Key and PASS-Key II devices, which have been the basis for

[[Page 17334]]

exemptions previously granted to GM, 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 the specified 
requirements for each test.
    The Passlock device utilizes a special lock assembly and decoder 
module to determine if fuel is to be enabled or disabled. Inserting and 
rotating the conventional key with the proper mechanical cut into the 
lock cylinder unlocks and releases the transmission shift lever. 
However, the vehicle can only be operated when the proper resistive 
element in the lock housing is sensed and decoded by the module. A 
magnet encased in the lock sensor will enable the resistive code to be 
read by the decoder module. If a valid resistive code is received, the 
decoder module sends an encoded signal to the Power Control Module to 
start the flow of fuel.
    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 removing its battery power.
    GM compared the Passlock device proposed for the Chevrolet Malibu 
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, considering 
the electrical and mechanical challenges associated with defeating the 
Passlock, this antitheft device will be at least as effective as its 
PASS-Key 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), 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). 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 
Chevrolet Malibu 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 an 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, it cannot call attention to unauthorized attempts to enter or 
move the vehicle.
    After deciding those petitions, however, the agency obtained theft 
data that show 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 the PASS-Key II device. The agency granted in full the petition 
for the petition for the Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora car lines 
beginning with model year 1995, (see 58 FR 44874, August 25, 1993); the 
Chevrolet Lumina and Buick Regal car lines beginning with model year 
1996, (see 60 FR 25938, May 15, 1995); and, the petition for the 
Cadillac Seville car line beginning with model year 1998, (see 62 FR 
20058, April 24, 1997). 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 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. GM requested confidential treatment for some of the 
information and attachments submitted in support of its petition. In a 
letter to GM dated February 28, 2000, the agency granted the 
petitioner's request for confidential treatment of most aspects of its 
petition.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full GM's 
petition for exemption for the MY 2001 Chevrolet Malibu 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

[[Page 17335]]

notify the agency, and, thereafter, must fully mark the line 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 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. The agency wishes to minimize the 
administrative burden which Sec. 543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted 
vehicle manufacturers and itself. 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 27, 2000.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-7956 Filed 3-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P