[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 58 (Monday, March 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12132-12133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7146]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
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 notice grants in full the petition of General Motors
Corporation (GM) for an exemption of a high-theft line, the Chevrolet
Cavalier, 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 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 January
18, 1996, 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) 1997.
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) 493-2739.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 15, 1995,
General Motors Corporation (GM), requested exemption from the parts-
marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541)
for the Cavalier 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 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 1997 Chevrolet Cavalier car line. GM
states that this device will provide the same kind of functionality and
protection as its ``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-Key II'' systems. GM utilizes
a coded lock cylinder on its PASSLOCK device rather than the
electronically coded ignition key previously used on in its PASS-Key
device. The ignition key in the PASSLOCK device is cut to provide only
a mechanical code. The device is activated by turning off the ignition
and removing the key.
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. Additionally, GM stated that it
will continue to monitor warranty data and make further changes, as
necessary, to improve system reliability.
GM compared the PASSLOCK device proposed for the Cavalier 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 part-marking
requirements. GM stated that the PASSLOCK device provides the same kind
of functionality and protection as its predecessors. The new PASSLOCK
device was introduced as optional equipment on the MY 1995 Cavalier Z24
and the Pontiac Sunfire GT models. It became standard equipment on all
Cavalier and Sunfire models beginning with the 1996 model year. GM
believes that its third generation passive antitheft device will be at
least as effective as the ``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-Key II'' devices.
GM stated that the thefts as reported by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's National Crime Information Center, are lower for GM
``PASS-Key'' equipped models having partial exemptions from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541, than the thefts for earlier
models with similar appearance and construction, which were parts-
marked. Therefore, GM concluded that the ``PASS-Key'' device was at
least as effective in deterring motor vehicle theft as the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. Based on the system
performance of ``PASS-Key'' on other models and the similarity of
design and functionality of the PASSLOCK antitheft device to the
``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-Key II'' devices, 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).
The agency notes that the reason that the vehicle lines whose theft
data GM cites in support of its petition received only a partial
examption from parts-marking was that the agency did not believe that
that antitheft system 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 systems GM used, the new PASSLOCK system on which
this petition is based also lacks an alarm system. Accordingly, it
cannot perform one of the functions listed in 49 CFR Sec. 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
[[Page 12133]]
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) (grant in full of petition for Chevrolet
Lumina and Buick Regal car lines equipped with PASS-Key II); and 58 FR
44874 (grant in full of petition for exemption of Buick Riviera and
Oldsmobile Aurora car lines of confidential model year 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 system 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 Chevrolet Cavalier car line beginning with MY
1997.
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 1997 Cavalier 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. Part 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 with 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: March 19, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-7146 Filed 3-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
