Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Protection Standard; General Motors Corporation

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