[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
