[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 59 (Monday, March 29, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14963-14965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-7606]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Modification of Exemption From the Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; General Motors Corporation
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for modification of a previously approved
antitheft device.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 15, 1995, NHTSA granted in full General Motors
Corporation's (GM) petition for exemption from the parts-marking
requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard for the Chevrolet
Lumina/Monte Carlo and Buick Regal car lines. This notice grants in
full GM's petition for modification of the previously approved
antitheft device for the Chevrolet Lumina/Monte Carlo line. This notice
also acknowledges GM's notification that the nameplate for the
Chevrolet Lumina/Monte Carlo line will be changed to the Chevrolet
Impala/Monte Carlo line beginning with model year (MY) 2000. The agency
grants this petition for modification because it has determined that
the modified antitheft device described in GM's petition to be placed
on the car 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) 2000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of
Planning and Consumer Programs, Safety Performance Standards, NHTSA,
400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone
number is (202) 366-0846, and her fax number is (202) 493-2739.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In May of 1995, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register a notice granting in full the petition from General
Motors Corporation (GM) for an exemption from the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the
MY 1996 Chevrolet Lumina/Monte Carlo and Buick Regal car lines. (See 60
FR 25938, May 15, 1995). The agency determined that the ``PASS-Key II''
antitheft device, which GM intended to install on the Chevrolet Lumina/
Monte Carlo and Buick Regal lines as standard equipment, was likely to
be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard.
In its petition for MY 1996, GM included a detailed description of
the components of PASS-Key II, including diagrams of components and
their location in the vehicle. GM described PASS-Key II as passively
activated. It also stated that the device utilized an electrically-
coded ignition key, an ignition lock-cylinder and a decoder module.
On December 7, 1998, GM petitioned to modify the exemption granted
for the Chevrolet Lumina/Monte Carlo car line to allow its new
``Passlock'' antitheft device to be used in place of the PASS-Key II
device. GM's submission is considered a complete petition, as required
by 49 CFR Part 543.9(d), in that it meets the general requirements
contained in Sec. 543.5 and the specific content requirements of
Sec. 543.6. GM requested confidential treatment for some of the
information and
[[Page 14964]]
attachments submitted in support of its petition. In a letter to GM
dated February 12, 1999, the agency granted the petitioner's request
for confidential treatment of most aspects of its petition.
GM's petition also informed the agency of its planned nameplate
change for the four-door Chevrolet Lumina to the Chevrolet Impala
nameplate beginning with the 2000 model year. GM stated that while the
MY 2000 Impala will feature a new name and new styling, it will remain
a continuation of the Chevrolet ``W'' platform and target the same
market segment. GM also stated that the original Impala nameplate was
discontinued in MY 1997 with the discontinuance of the Impala SS model,
a performance model of its Caprice line. GM further stated that the
resurrection of the Impala nameplate for application to its four-door
Lumina would complete the renaming of the line which began with the
renaming of its 2-door model as the Monte Carlo.
GM stated that for MY 2000, the Chevrolet Lumina/Monte Carlo
(renamed Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo) line will utilize its
``Passlock'' antitheft device as standard equipment. The Passlock
device provides the functionality of the ``PASS-Key'' devices but
features a coded-lock cylinder instead of an electrically-coded
ignition key. When the electronic sensor detects proper lock rotation,
it sends a code to the body function controller. If the correct code is
received, the controller enables fuel and starting of the vehicle. If
an incorrect code is received, the controller disables fuel and
starting of the vehicle for ten minutes and prevents any other attempts
to start the vehicle during this time. The Passlock device is designed
to be active at all times without direct intervention by the vehicle
operator. The device is fully functional immediately after the ignition
has been turned off, requiring no other operator action other than
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 believes that its device is
reliable and durable since the device complied with its specified
requirements for each test. Additionally, GM believes that the security
of the vehicle will be protected in many ways by the installation of
its modified device. Specifically, the Passlock device will protect the
vehicle from any attempts to override the lock assembly by using an
external magnet, forcibly removing the ignition lock cylinder, forcibly
rotating the lock, bypassing the lock assembly electronics with an
external lock assembly, or removing and subsequently applying the
vehicle's battery power.
GM compared the Passlock device proposed for the Impala/Monte Carlo
car line with its first generation PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key
III 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 device will
be at least as effective as its PASS-Key, PASS-Key II, and PASS-Key III
devices. However, as in the first and second-generation PASS-Key
devices, as well as other comparable devices that have received full
exemptions from the parts-marking requirements, the Passlock device
does not provide an audible or visual alarm. Therefore, as with those,
this device cannot perform one of the functions listed in 49 CFR
Sec. 543.6(a)(3)(ii), that is, to attract attention to the efforts of
an unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means other than a
key. To substantiate its belief that an alarm system is not necessary
for effective deterrence of vehicle theft, GM compared the reduction in
thefts for Corvettes equipped with a passive antitheft device with an
audible/visible alarm feature, and the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac
Firebird lines equipped with a passive antitheft device without an
alarm feature.
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
themselves would be as effective as parts-marking in deterring theft
because they lacked an alarm system. On that basis, NHTSA decided to
require GM to mark the vehicle's most interchangeable parts (the engine
and the transmission), as a supplement to the antitheft device.
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 device. 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 five GM petitions for full exemptions for car lines equipped
with the PASS-Key II device. The following lines have been granted full
exemptions: the Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora, beginning with MY
1995 (See 58 FR 44874; August 25, 1993); the Chevrolet Lumina/Monte
Carlo and Buick Regal, beginning with MY 1996 (See 60 FR 25939; May 15,
1995) and the Cadillac Seville (antitheft device modification),
beginning with MY 1998 (See 62 FR 20058; April 24, 1997). In all five
of these 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.
Additionally, the agency has granted four full exemptions for car
lines equipped with the Passlock device. The following lines have been
granted full exemptions: the Chevrolet Cavalier, beginning with MY 1997
(See 61 FR 12132; March 25, 1996); the Pontiac Sunfire, beginning with
MY1998 (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).
The agency concludes that, given the similarities between the
Passlock device and the PASS-Key, PASS-Key II and PASS-Key III systems,
it is reasonable to assume that the Passlock device, 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 Impala/Monte
Carlo car line beginning with MY 2000.
The agency believes that the modified 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 the Passlock device.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full GM's
petition for modification of an existing exemption for the MY 2000
Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo car line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR Part 541.
If, in the future, GM decides not to use the exemption for these
car lines, it must formally notify the agency, and, thereafter, the car
lines must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 49 CFR 541.6
(marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
[[Page 14965]]
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: March 23, 1999.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-7606 Filed 3-26-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
