Petition for Modification of a Previously Approved Antitheft Device; Volkswagen |
|---|
Topics: Audi A6, Audi S6
|
Christopher A. Hart
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Federal Register
November 3, 1994
[Federal Register: November 3, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Modification of a Previously Approved Antitheft
Device; Volkswagen
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Grant of petition for modification of a previously approved
antitheft device.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In 1988, this agency granted Volkswagen of America, Inc.'s
(Volkswagen) petition for exemption from the parts marking requirements
of the vehicle theft prevention standard for the Audi 100 and Audi 200
lines. The lines have been redesignated for model year 1995 as,
respectively, the Audi A6 and Audi S6. This notice grants Volkswagen's
petition for a modification of the exemption originally granted in
1988, and modified in 1992. The agency grants this petition because it
has determined, based on substantial evidence, that the modified
antitheft device described in Volkswagen's petition to be placed on the
car lines as standard equipment, is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with parts
marking requirements.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective at the
beginning of model year 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara A. Gray, Office of Market
Incentives, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
Ms. Gray's telephone number is (202) 366-1740.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In February 1988, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register a notice granting the petition from Volkswagen of
America, Inc. (Volkswagen) for an exemption from the parts marking
requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard for two model
year (MY) 1989 Volkswagen car lines, the Audi 100 and Audi 200. (See 53
FR 4095, February 11, 1988). The agency determined that the antitheft
device which Volkswagen intended to install on the two car lines as
standard equipment was likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts
marking requirements of the theft prevention standard.
Subsequently, on April 29, 1992, NHTSA published a notice granting
Volkswagen's petition for a modification of the 1988 exemption so that
company could begin installing a new version of its antitheft device
(See 57 FR 18203). The new device was placed as standard equipment on
the MY 1992 Audi 100 and S4 (formerly the 200) lines. Volkswagen stated
that the MY 1992 antitheft device included a modified central locking
system, and included, on the higher priced models in the 100 line, a
remote control signaling unit.
In a letter dated May 11, 1994, Volkswagen informed NHTSA of
contemplated changes to the antitheft device to be placed as standard
equipment on the MY 1995 Audi A6 and S6 car lines, and requested that
the modified antitheft device be permitted. In a letter dated July 14,
1994, Volkswagen submitted a letter showing ``good cause'' why NHTSA
should make the grant of the petition for modification applicable to MY
1995. In a letter dated August 3, 1994, Volkswagen provided
supplemental information addressing section 543.6(a)(4), reasons for
the petitioner's belief that the antitheft device will be effective in
reducing motor vehicle theft, and section 543.6(a)(5), reasons for the
petitioner's belief that NHTSA should determine that the antitheft
device is likely to be as effective as parts marking. Together,
Volkswagen's submissions of May 11, July 14, and August 3 constitute a
complete submission, as required by 49 CFR 543.9(c)(2), in that the
petition meets the general content requirements of section 543.5
paragraphs (b) (1) through (3) and (7); and the specific content
requirements under section 543.6.
In a letter dated May 23, 1994 to Volkswagen, the agency granted
the petitioner's request for confidential treatment of bracketed
information in its May 11, 1994 letter. On September 6, 1994,
Volkswagen informed NHTSA in writing that the names of the A6 and S6
car lines and the model year of their introduction, had been publicly
released, and therefore, Volkswagen no longer requested confidential
treatment for this information.
Volkswagen's petition contains a detailed description of the
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device, including the electrical schematics of the device. There are
locks on the trunk, the driver's door, and the front passenger door.
Volkswagen stated that the antitheft device planned for MY 1995 is
activated by removing the key from the ignition and locking the
driver's door or trunk. When the operator removes the ignition key,
exits from the vehicle and locks the driver's door with the key, the
central locking system is activated. Activation of the central locking
system renders the starter motor nonfunctional and arms an audible
alarm. The alarm is triggered by sensors in the light contact switches
for the doors and engine compartment, by a sensor located in the trunk
key cylinder, and by disconnection of the ground wire between the radio
housing and the antitheft alarm unit.
The theft deterrent system of the antitheft device planned for MY
1995 has an engine starter interrupt function. While the system is
armed, any breach of it will automatically interrupt the starter relay.
Once the alarm has been triggered, the engine cannot be started until
the alarm has been deactivated with the key in one of the front doors
or the trunk lock.
Volkswagen states that the antitheft device planned for the MY 1995
car lines differs somewhat from the device on the MY 1992 lines.
Volkswagen states that the differences in the planned MY 1995 device
are a revision in the central locking system, the addition of an LED
activation indicator, and changes in the audible and visible warning
devices.
With the MY 1992 antitheft device, once the central locking system
and alarm are activated, the operator could choose to open only a
specific door lock or the trunk lock by turning the key and quickly
releasing it. Holding the key for more than 0.5 seconds in the open
position deactivates the alarm, and opens both door locks and the trunk
lock. Additionally, when the key is inserted and turned
counterclockwise to open the trunk lock, the central locking system
also opens both door locks and deactivates the alarm system. Turning
the key in either front door lock or in the trunk lock rearms the
device and locks both doors and the trunk. Tampering with the device
will cause both the horn and lights to activate for up to 4 minutes.
For MY 1995, Volkswagen plans to modify the antitheft device so
that when the key is inserted into a front door lock or trunk lock, the
key will only open the lock being turned. However, an operator can open
all the door locks and the trunk lock simultaneously if, within 5
seconds of the first turn of the key, the operator turns the key a
second time to the open position. Tampering with the MY 1995 system
would cause the horn to sound for 30 seconds, instead of sounding for
up to 4 minutes, as the MY 1992 system does. In addition, the device
planned for MY 1995 will utilize the hazard warning flashers, which
operate up to 5 minutes. For MY 1995, an LED activation indicator light
will be added on the front dashboard. A flashing light shows that the
antitheft device is activated.
For the planned MY 1995 device, Volkswagen provided a drawing
indicating that all the switches and wiring activating the device are
protected. The door, trunk, and engine hood contact switches are all
hidden within the vehicle. Additionally, the control unit for the
antitheft device is located in the passenger-side dashboard, with the
battery being protected under the hood. If an unauthorized attempt
should be made to open the hood, an audible signal and flashing of the
hazard warning lamps will be triggered via the contact switch for the
engine compartment light when it is opened. The alarm system horn is
located in the trunk compartment and can only be reached after the
trunk lock is opened.
Volkswagen addressed the reliability and durability of its
antitheft device by providing a list of Volkswagen's internal
performance and durability tests that were conducted on the device.
Among these tests were tests for: Material requirements; operating
voltages; temperature stability; mechanical properties; electrical
requirements; electromagnetic compatibility; environmental
compatibility; and service life. With its petition, Volkswagen included
a certification that the antitheft device was tested according to
Volkswagen's standard, including those tests relating to electrical and
mechanical durability, and passed all the performance requirements of
the tests.
As further evidence of the antitheft device's reliability and
durability, Volkswagen stated that the functions of the antitheft
device are to be handled by a specially developed microchip
manufactured with the latest complementary metal oxide semiconductor
(C-MOS) technology. Volkswagen asserts that among the advantages of
this method are that it reduces the number of discrete components by
about 60 percent compared with conventional antitheft devices; it has
better reliability, as there are fewer solder joints; it has a high
degree of parameter stability; and by the use of a chip, the suggestion
of contact bounce and interference on input signals from the protected
areas can be digitalized. Volkswagen further states that in addition to
a high degree of protection (the unit will withstand -150 V to +100 V
pulses without damage), this achieves a high degree of resistance to
interference.
Volkswagen stated that the antitheft device planned for the MY 1995
A6 and S6 car lines is, except for the changes noted earlier, almost
identical to the devices on the Audi 100, S4, 500 and Quattro car lines
that have been granted exemptions from parts marking requirements of
the theft prevention standard.
The agency has reviewed the theft experience of the Audi 100 and
200 car lines equipped with the antitheft device as standard equipment,
for 1989, 1990, and 1991. The data from the FBI's National Crime
Information Center, NHTSA's official source of theft data, show that
for 1990/91 the most recent year for which theft data is available, the
Audi 100/200 had a theft rate of 1.3564 (per thousand vehicles
produced), a rate that is below the 1990/91 median theft rate of
3.5826. For 1990/91, out of 235 vehicle lines, the Audi 100/200 line
was ranked 204, far lower than the median rank of 116.
In discussing why it believes the antitheft device will be
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft, Volkswagen
compared its MY 1995 antitheft device to similar devices for which
NHTSA has previously granted exemptions from parts marking. Volkswagen
stated that the theft rates of these comparable lines decreased when
the antitheft device was made standard equipment, and have remained,
for the most part, below 1983/84 median theft rate of 3.2712 (per
thousand vehicles produced). (See 50 FR 46666, November 12, 1985).
Volkswagen stated its belief that its device proposed for MY 1995 is
equivalent to all of these comparable devices previously granted an
exemption by the agency. The agency believes that the MY 1995
Volkswagen antitheft device is comparable to the devices on the car
lines cited below.
Based on data from the FBI's National Crime Information Center,
Volkswagen showed that the theft rate of the Toyota Cressida went from
4.7 (all figures provided are for thefts per thousand vehicles
produced) in 1985 to 4.26 in 1986; the theft rate of the Toyota Supra
went from 10.39 in 1985 to 2.79 in 1986; the theft rate of the Nissan
Maxima went from 4.18 in 1984 to 1.99 in 1985; the theft rate of the
Nissan 300ZX went from 8.74 in 1983/84 to 5.14 in 1989; and the theft
rate of the Mazda RX-7 went from 12.11 in 1984 to a theft rate of 6.09
in 1989.
For these reasons, Volkswagen believes that the antitheft system
planned for installation on its MY 1995 A6 and S6 lines is likely to be
as effective in reducing thefts as compliance with the parts marking
requirements of part 541.
NHTSA believes that there is substantial evidence indicating that
the modified antitheft system planned to be installed as standard
equipment on the MY 1995 Audi A6 and S6 car lines will likely be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR part
541). This determination is based on the information that Volkswagen
submitted with its petition and on other available information. The
agency believes that the modified device will continue to provide the
types of performance listed in section 543.6(a)(3): promoting
activation; attracting attention to unauthorized entries; 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.
As required by 49 CFR section 543.6(a)(4), the agency also finds
that Volkswagen has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
modified antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion
is based on the information Volkswagen provided on its device. This
information included a description of reliability and functional tests
conducted by Volkswagen for the antitheft device and its components.
In 49 CFR 543.9, paragraph (h)(2)(ii) permits the agency to
establish an effective date for the modification of the exemption
earlier than ``the model year following the model year in which NHTSA
issued the modification decision'' upon a showing of good cause by the
manufacturer that an earlier effective date for modifying its exemption
is consistent with the public interest and purposes of 49 U.S.C.
section 33106. In its petition, Volkswagen stated that making the
modification of its antitheft system effective beginning with MY 1995
is in the public interest since it would permit expeditious manufacture
and sale of vehicles with the modified antitheft system as standard
equipment. Volkswagen cited the 1990/91 theft data published by NHTSA
in the Federal Register (59 FR 12400, March 16, 1994) shows that the
Audi 100/200 car lines had a theft rate of 1.3564 (per thousand
vehicles stolen), substantially below the 1990/91 theft rate of 3.5826.
Volkswagen stated its belief that the antitheft device proposed for the
MY 1995 Audi A6 and S6 car lines, with essentially the same device,
will continue to have a theft rate well below the median. NHTSA has
reviewed this showing of ``good cause'' and finds that making the
modification of Volkswagen's petition effective beginning with the 1995
model year is consistent with the public interest and 49 U.S.C. section
33106.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby exempts the Volkswagen
Audi A6 and S6 car lines that are the subject of this notice, in whole,
from the requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
If, in the future, Volkswagen decides not to use the exemption for
the car line that is the subject of this notice, it should formally
notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the car line must be
fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6
(marking of major component parts 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 an
antitheft device with the effectiveness of compliance with 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 also that if Volkswagen 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, section 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.''
However, the agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden
which section 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 October 27, 1994.
Christopher A. Hart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-27260 Filed 11-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P