[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24587-24588]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11782]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Modification of Exemption From the Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; General Motors Corp.
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 Oldsmobile
Alero (formerly the Oldsmobile Achieva), 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. GM requested confidential treatment for some of
the information and attachments submitted in support of its petition.
In a letter to GM dated November 26, 1997, 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) 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of
Planning and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-0846.
Her fax number is (202) 493-2739.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated October 25, 1997,
General Motors Corporation (GM) informed the agency of its planned
nameplate change for its Oldsmobile Achieva car line beginning with
model year (MY) 1999. GM also informed the agency that the nameplate
for the Oldsmobile Achieva will be changed to Oldsmobile Alero, and
that the Alero car line will be a continuation of the Achieva line. The
Achieva car line is subject to the parts-marking requirements of the
theft prevention standard.
In its petition dated October 25, 1997, GM requested an exemption
from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR part 541) for the Oldsmobile Alero 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 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 1999 Oldsmobile Alero car line.
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.
GM compared the ``Passlock'' device proposed for the Alero 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 parts-
marking requirements. GM believes that its ``Passlock'' antitheft
device will be at least as effective as the ``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-Key
II'' devices.
The following GM car lines have the ``Passlock'' device as standard
equipment and have been granted a full exemption from the parts-marking
requirements: The Chevrolet Cavalier, beginning with MY 1997 (see 61 FR
12132, March 25, 1996) and the Pontiac Sunfire, beginning with MY 1998
(see 62 FR 20240, April 25, 1997). The ``Passlock'' device provides the
same kind of functionality as the ``PASS-Key'' and ``PASS-Key II''
devices, but features a coded lock cylinder rather than an electrically
coded ignition key. The ``Passlock'' device utilizes an electronic
sensor located near the ignition lock instead of a coded key, allowing
the device to incorporate a standard key. GM stated that when the
sensor detects proper lock rotation, it sends a code to the controller.
If the correct code is received, fuel is enabled. If an incorrect code
is received, fuel is disabled.
GM also 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. GM also concluded
that based on the system performance of the ``PASS-Key''-like devices
on other GM models, and the similarity of design and functionality of
the device on the Oldsmobile Alero to the ``PASS-Key'' device, 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).
Based on comparison of the reduction in theft rates of Corvettes
using a passive antitheft system and audible/visible alarm with the
reduction in theft rates for 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 device 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 devices GM used, the new ``Passlock'' 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
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 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) granting in full
the petition for
[[Page 24588]]
Chevrolet Lumina and Buick Regal car lines equipped with ``PASS-Key
II''; and 58 FR 44874 (August 25, 1993), granting in full the petition
for exemption of Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora car lines 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'' device 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 Oldsmobile Alero car line beginning with
MY 1999.
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 1999 Oldsmobile Alero 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. 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: April 29, 1998.
L. Robert Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 98-11782 Filed 5-1-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
