[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24179-24181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11946]


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

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 
Venture, 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) 2002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of 
Planning and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-0846. 
Her fax number is (202) 493-2290.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated October 5, 2000, General 
Motors Corporation (GM), requested an exemption from the parts-marking 
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541) for the 
Chevrolet Venture vehicle line beginning withMY 2002. 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 vehicle 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, it does not address the 
contingency of what to do after model year 2000 in the absence of a 
decision under Section 33103(d). 49 U.S.C. Sec. 33103(d)(3) states that 
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 antitheft devices and finds that antitheft devices are 
an effective substitute for parts marking. 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. Upon 
consultation with the Department of Justice, we determined that the 
appropriate reading of Section 33103(d) is that the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) may continue to grant parts-
marking exemptions for not more than one additional model line each 
year, as specified for model years 1997-2000 by 49 U.S.C. 
33106(b)(2)(C). This is the level contemplated by the Act for the 
period before the Attorney General's decision. The final decision on 
whether to continue granting exemptions will be made by the Attorney 
General at the conclusion of the review pursuant to section 
330103(d)(3).
    GM's submission 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 that vehicle line. GM will install its PASS-Key III 
antitheft device as standard equipment on its MY 2002 Chevrolet Venture 
vehicle line. GM stated that the PASS-Key III device provides the same 
kind of functionality as the PASS-Key and PASS-Key II devices, which 
have been the basis for exemptions previously granted to GM. However, 
the PASS-Key III device uses more advanced technology than the PASS-Key 
II device and provides new features and refinements.
    Specifically, the PASS-Key III device uses a transponder embedded 
in the head of the key which is excited 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 a unique code 
within the modulated signal. The key cylinder coil receives and sends 
the modulated signal to the

[[Page 24180]]

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 believes that the sheer volume of these 
codes is a highly effective deterrent to the common intruder. The PASS-
Key III device is designed to shut down for three to four minutes if an 
invalid key is detected, preventing further attempts to start the 
vehicle during that shutdown.
    GM states that the design and assembly process of the PASS-Key III 
device and components are validated for a vehicle life of 10 years and 
150,000 miles of performance. 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 it complied with the specified requirements for each test.
    GM compared the PASS-Key III device proposed for the Chevrolet 
Venture 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 PASS-Key III 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.
    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.
    Further, GM states that the PASS-Key III device has been designed 
to significantly enhance the functionality and theft protection 
provided by earlier generations of PASS-Key devices. Based on the 
performance of PASS-Key and PASS-Key II devices on other GM models, and 
the advanced technology utilized in the PASS-Key III device, GM 
believes that the PASS-Key III device will be more effective in 
deterring theft than the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
    GM also stated that as with previous PASS-Key devices, the PASS-Key 
III device will not provide any visible or audible indication of 
unauthorized entry. However, 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 devices 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 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 device. 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 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 PASS-
Key III device and the earlier PASS-Key devices (PASS-Key and PASS-Key 
II), it is reasonable to assume that PASS-Key III device, like those 
devices, 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, some 
of which includes confidential information describing 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 January 2, 2001, the agency granted the petitioner's 
request for confidential treatment of these materials.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full GM's 
petition for exemption for the MY 2002 Chevrolet Venture vehicle line 
from the parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
    If GM decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must 
notify the agency formally, and thereafter must mark the line fully 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

[[Page 24181]]

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: May 7, 2001.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Safety, Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 01-11946 Filed 5-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P