[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24587-24588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11782]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Modification of Exemption From the Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard; General Motors Corp.

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 Oldsmobile 
Alero (formerly the Oldsmobile Achieva), 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 November 26, 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) 1999.

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) 366-0846. 
Her fax number is (202) 493-2739.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated October 25, 1997, 
General Motors Corporation (GM) informed the agency of its planned 
nameplate change for its Oldsmobile Achieva car line beginning with 
model year (MY) 1999. GM also informed the agency that the nameplate 
for the Oldsmobile Achieva will be changed to Oldsmobile Alero, and 
that the Alero car line will be a continuation of the Achieva line. The 
Achieva car line is subject to the parts-marking requirements of the 
theft prevention standard.
    In its petition dated October 25, 1997, GM requested an exemption 
from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard 
(49 CFR part 541) for the Oldsmobile Alero 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 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 1999 Oldsmobile Alero 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 Alero 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 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) and the Pontiac Sunfire, beginning with MY 1998 
(see 62 FR 20240, April 25, 1997). The ``Passlock'' device provides the 
same kind of functionality as the ``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-Key II'' 
devices, but features a coded lock cylinder rather than an electrically 
coded ignition key. The ``Passlock'' device utilizes an electronic 
sensor located near the ignition lock instead of a coded key, allowing 
the device to incorporate a standard key. GM stated that when the 
sensor detects proper lock rotation, it sends a code to the controller. 
If the correct code is received, fuel is enabled. If an incorrect code 
is received, fuel is disabled.
    GM also 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 the ``PASS-Key''-like devices 
on other GM models, and the similarity of design and functionality of 
the device on the Oldsmobile Alero to the ``PASS-Key'' device, 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 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 the 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 
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) granting in full 
the petition for

[[Page 24588]]

Chevrolet Lumina and Buick Regal car lines equipped with ``PASS-Key 
II''; and 58 FR 44874 (August 25, 1993), granting in full the 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 Oldsmobile Alero car line beginning with 
MY 1999.
    The agency believes that the device will provide the 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 1999 Oldsmobile Alero 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: April 29, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-11782 Filed 5-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P