[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25938-25940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11929]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Protection 
Standard; General Motors Corporation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This notice grants in full the petition of General Motors 
Corporation (GM) for an exemption from the parts-marking requirements 
of the vehicle theft prevention standard for the Chevrolet Lumina and 
Buick Regal car lines for model year (confidential). This petition is 
granted because the agency has determined that the antitheft devices to 
be placed on these car lines as standard equipment are 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 
the (confidential) model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara A. Gray, Office of Market 
Incentives, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 
Gray's telephone number is (202) 366-1740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 5, 1995, General Motors 
Corporation (``GM'') filed with NHTSA a petition for exemption from the 
parts-marking requirements of the Federal motor vehicle theft 
prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Chevrolet Lumina and 
Buick Regal car lines. Both car lines are currently designated as high-
theft car lines subject to the parts-marking requirements of the theft 
prevention standard, 49 CFR Part 541, Appendix A. GM submitted its 
petition pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption From Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard, and requested an exemption based on the 
installation of a theft deterrent device as standard equipment for the 
Chevrolet Lumina and Buick Regal car lines. At the same time, GM 
requested confidential treatment for much of the information submitted 
in support of its petition, including the model year and date of 
introduction of the car lines. In a letter dated February 13, 1995, 
NHTSA granted the petitioner's request for confidential treatment.
    In its petition, GM provided a detailed description of the 
identity, design and location of the components of the antitheft device 
for the Chevrolet Lumina and Buick Regal car lines, including diagrams 
of the components and their location in the vehicle. GM stated that the 
system, known as ``PASS-Key II,'' is a second-generation version of the 
``PASS-Key'' system introduced by GM in 1988. According to GM, the 
``PASS-Key II'' system continues to provide the same kind of functions 
and protection as its predecessor. On February 7, 1992, NHTSA notified 
GM that the differences between the first and second generation systems 
were de minimis.
    GM stated that in the ``PASS-Key II'' system, the resistance value 
measured in the key pellet is compared to a fixed resistance in the 
vehicle's decoder module. If the key pellet's resistance matches that 
in the decoder module, the starter enable relay is energized and a 
signal is transmitted to the engine control module (``ECM''). 
Recognition of that signal by the ECM permits fuel to flow. Should the 
resistance in the key pellet not match that in the decoder module, the 
system will shut down for a period of three minutes (plus or minus 18 
seconds), preventing any further attempt to make resistance comparisons 
during that time. The length of shutdown time is controlled by a timer 
within the decoder module and is not a programmable feature. After the 
module [[Page 25939]] timer has completed its three-minute cycle, any 
further comparisons with a key pellet of improper resistance will cause 
the module to shut down for an additional three-minute period. The car 
cannot be started by either cutting the wires and reapplying them or 
directly activating the starter alone, since, in order for fuel to 
flow, the ECM must also have received a signal from the decoder module.
    Based on its theft rate comparisons between GM vehicles using the 
PASS-Key or PASS-Key II systems and Corvettes using the ``VATS'' 
system, GM believes that an alarm is unnecessary, and that the lack of 
a visible or audible alarm or other attention-attracting device in the 
``PASS-Key II'' system does not compromise the system's performance as 
a theft deterrent. In addition, a yellow ``security'' light will be 
included on the instrument panel for the Chevrolet Lumina and Buick 
Regal lines. The light is designed to illuminate in the event that a 
key with a correct mechanical but incorrect electronic code is used to 
try to start the vehicle. When this happens, it will be necessary to 
delay a further attempt to start the engine with the proper key until 
the ``PASS-Key II'' timer has run its three-minute cycle. The security 
light will also come on if the proper key with a dirty or contaminated 
resistor pellet is used. Under such conditions, the vehicle will not 
start. If this happens, GM states that it will be necessary to clean 
the key and observe the three-minute delay before trying to start the 
vehicle again.
    The security light illuminates briefly during engine starting to 
indicate that the bulb and its circuits are functioning properly. The 
light will go out and remain out after the engine has started. If the 
light does not function as prescribed, or illuminates while driving, 
servicing of the system is required.
    GM stated that, if any unauthorized person enters the vehicle, the 
entrant would be unable to start the vehicle with anything but the 
proper key.
    GM stated that it believes that the antitheft device on the 
Chevrolet Lumina and Buick Regal car lines will be at least as 
effective as parts marking in reducing and deterring motor vehicle 
theft. GM bases its belief on the past performance of the PASS-Key II 
system on other models and the similarities of the PASS-Key II and 
PASS-Key systems in design and function. In addition, GM reported that 
the theft rates, as reported by NHTSA, are lower for the GM models 
equipped with a PASS-Key system than those for earlier GM models of 
similar appearance and construction that were parts-marked.
    To support its belief, GM provided theft data published by NHTSA on 
car lines equipped with the PASS-Key theft deterrent system. The 
Chevrolet Camaro, Pontiac Firebird, Cadillac Eldorado and Seville car 
lines had the PASS-Key system as standard equipment beginning with MY 
1989; the Cadillac DeVille/Fleetwood, Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile 
Toronado car lines all had the PASS-Key system as standard equipment 
beginning with MY 1990. Theft rates indicate a significant decrease for 
the Riviera (80 per cent), Toronado (58 per cent) for the MY 1987-1990 
period; and for the DeVille Fleetwood (32 per cent) from MY 1989 to MY 
1990.
    Based on the system performance of PASS-Key on other car lines, the 
reduction of theft rates for GM car lines using the PASS-Key system, 
and the similarities in design and function of the PASS-Key and PASS-
Key II systems, GM believes that the PASS- Key system is extremely 
effective in deterring motor vehicle theft and that the PASS-Key II 
system will be at least as effective as its predecessor. Accordingly, 
GM believes that the agency should determine that the PASS-Key II 
system is likely to be as effective as parts marking in reducing and 
deterring motor vehicle theft, and that inclusion of that system (which 
is completely passive) on the Chevrolet Lumina and Buick Regal car 
lines should qualify those lines for full exemption from the Part 541 
theft prevention standard.
    The agency's review of the theft data for these vehicle lines shows 
results consistent with GM's analysis. In the three model years 
beginning with 1989, the model year in which the PASS-Key system was 
introduced on the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird as standard 
equipment, the theft rate for the Firebird has declined from 8.9873 to 
5.3202 (a 41 per cent reduction) and the rate for the Camaro has 
declined from 8.6893 to 6.2142 (a 28 per cent reduction). In addition, 
over a longer period, the rate for the Corvette has declined by 26 per 
cent from MY 1987 (the first year that line received an exemption) to 
MY 1992.
    NHTSA believes that there is substantial evidence that the 
antitheft device that will be installed on the Chevrolet Lumina and 
Buick Regal car lines will likely be as effective in reducing motor 
vehicle theft as compliance with the theft prevention standard (49 CFR 
Part 541). The GM system will 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.
    The PASS-Key II system does not have a device for attracting 
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)(ii). The agency 
continues to believe that such a feature is desirable for an antitheft 
system. Such a device may deter a thief from trying to steal the 
vehicle or from entering the vehicle and destroying the dashboard or 
steering column.
    Nevertheless, theft data for 1992 shows that theft rates have 
continued to decline for the 12 car lines equipped with the PASS-Key 
system that have received partial exemptions from the agency. (The 
agency granted these vehicle lines partial rather than full exemptions 
because it concluded that these vehicles still needed parts-marking 
protection for their most interchangeable parts (the engine and 
transmission) because of the PASS-Key system's lack of an audible or 
visual alarm, one of the elements listed in 49 CFR Sec. 543.6. See 
e.g., 557 FR 10518 (Mar. 26, 1992).) In addition, the agency has 
granted GM's petition for a full exemption for the MY 1995 Buick 
Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora car lines based on the installation of 
the PASS-Key II system as standard equipment on those lines.
    As required by 49 U.S.C. 33106(c)(2) and 49 CFR Sec. 543.6(a)(4), 
the agency also 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 device, 
much of which is confidential. This information included a confidential 
description of reliability and functional tests conducted by GM for the 
antitheft device and its components, which was granted confidential 
treatment by the agency.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full GM's 
petition for exemption of the Chevrolet Lumina and Buick Regal car 
lines from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.
    If GM decides not to use the exemption for these car lines, it 
should formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the car 
lines must be fully marked according to the requirements of 49 CFR 
541.5 and 541.6 (marking of major components and replacement parts.
    The agency notes that the limited and apparently conflicting data 
on the effectiveness of the pre-standard parts-marking programs 
continue to make it difficult to compare the effectiveness of 
[[Page 25940]] an antitheft device with the effectiveness of the theft 
prevention standard. The statute clearly invites such a comparison, 
which the agency has made on the basis of the limited data available. 
With implementation of the requirements of the ``Anti Car Theft Act of 
1992,'' NHTSA anticipates more probative data upon which comparisons 
may be made.
    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. 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 upon which that 
lines exemption is based. Further, Sec. 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 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: May 10, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-11929 Filed 5-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P