Petition for Modification of a Previously Approved Antitheft Device; BMW |
|---|
Topics: BMW 7 Series
|
Ricardo Martinez
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
September 19, 1994
[Federal Register: September 19, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Modification of a Previously Approved Antitheft
Device; BMW
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Grant of petition for modification of a previously approved
antitheft device.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In 1986, this agency granted BMW of North America, Inc.'s
(BMW) petition for exemption from the parts marking requirements of the
vehicle theft prevention standard for the BMW 7 Car line. This notice
grants BMW's petition for a modification of the previously approved
antitheft device. The agency grants this petition because it has
determined, based on substantial evidence, that the modified antitheft
device described in BMW'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 parts marking
requirements.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective at the
beginning of the 1995 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: In October 1986, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register a notice granting the petition from BMW of North
America, Inc. (BMW) for an exemption from the parts marking
requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard for the model
year (MY) 1988 BMW 7 Car line. (See 51 FR 36333, October 9, 1986). The
agency determined that the antitheft device which BMW intended to
install on the 7 Car line as standard equipment is 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.
On February 17, 1994, BMW submitted a letter to the agency stating
that the MY 1995 7 Car line would include modifications to the
antitheft system that is installed as standard equipment. In a letter
dated August 12, 1994, the agency informed BMW that the modification to
the antitheft system on the 7 Car line appeared to be subject to NHTSA
approval pursuant to 49 CFR section 543.9, Terminating or modifying an
exemption. The agency had determined that the changes to the previously
approved antitheft system were not de minimis, based on BMW's
discussions of proposed changes to radio and glove box monitoring, and
the addition of a glass breakage sensor.
On August 26, 1994, BMW submitted its petition for modification.
The petition incorporated by reference certain information, dated May
29, 1986, that BMW already provided to NHTSA in its petition for
exemption for the MY 1988 7 Car line. Together, the above information
submitted by BMW constitutes a complete petition, as required by 49 CFR
section 543.9(d), in that it meets the general requirements contained
in section 543.5 and the specific content requirements of section
543.6.
In its petition for MY 1988, BMW included a detailed description of
the identity, design and location of the components of the antitheft
device, including diagrams of components and their location in the
vehicle. BMW stated that the system consists of three lines of defense
designed to prevent entry, disable the car, and scare away potential
thieves. BMW described the antitheft device that was installed as
standard equipment as passively activated.
BMW stated that, for MY 1995, the antitheft system will be modified
in three ways:
(1) A remote control device will be added. BMW describes the remote
control device as ``an integral component within the vehicle key,''
used to lock/unlock the door(s) and actuate the alarm system. BMW
stated that the remote control device is identical to that provided for
the antitheft device on the BMW 8 Car line. In a letter to BMW dated
October 4, 1993, NHTSA determined that the addition of the remote on
the 8 Car line is a de minimis change to the antitheft device.
(2) Monitoring circuits for the radio and glove box are removed. In
their place, the antitheft device will monitor glass breakage. As under
the original exemption, the antitheft device monitors door opening. BMW
asserts that the combination of the door and glass monitoring make the
occupant compartment impenetrable. If the glass is broken in order to
unlock and open a door, the device sounds. Likewise, if a door is
opened by a means other than breaking the glass, e.g., through the use
of a slim jim, the device sounds when a door is opened.
(3) The alarm siren's decibel level is raised from 104 decibels to
112 decibels.
BMW stated that, for MY 1995, the antitheft device features a
comprehensive security alarm system and an ignition/fuel system
disabling device that is activated by locking the door (either driver
or passenger) with the metal key. The key can be turned in the front
door locks in three positions: off; 45 degrees; and 90 degrees. If the
driver holds the key a little past the 90 degree position, any open
windows and the sunroof close. When the key is turned 45 degrees and
removed, the doors, trunk, and fuel filler door are locked and the
alarm system is armed. Additionally, when the key is removed from the
driver's or passenger's door lock after having been turned 45 degrees,
the ignition and fuel injection systems are deactivated, immobilizing
the car.
When the key is turned 90 degrees and removed, the car's alarm is
armed and the doors are ``double locked.'' The alarm monitors the
doors, hood, trunk, side window glazing and ignition switch. If the key
is not first turned in the driver's or passenger's door lock, the alarm
will sound if someone tampers with the doors, hood, or trunk, or turns
the ignition switch. When this happens, the horn will sound, and the
hazard warning lamps and high beam headlights will flash.
After 30 seconds, the alarm will automatically shut off and then
rearm itself within 5 seconds. The alarm system has its own separate
fuse, so removal of any of the fuses in the fuse box of the engine
compartment will not disarm the system. The hood has an inside lock
release located underneath the dashboard, and is also tied into the
alarm system. BMW stated that the electronic control unit for the
system is hidden within the vehicle. Cutting, disconnecting, or
manipulating system wiring will trigger the alarm. Therefore, if a
thief did manage to penetrate to the battery circuit and interrupt it,
the alarm systems' memory will trigger the alarm when the circuit is
again completed.
The steering/ignition lock is hardened against the grip of a screw,
and the housing is reinforced to prevent removal of the lock. When the
key is removed, the steering lock has a mechanism that causes the lock
to instantly engage, preventing steering wheel movement without any
additional action. BMW states that the steering lock cannot be broken
by forcing the steering wheel because a clutch in the steering drive is
designed to slip long before torque sufficient to break the lock can be
administered.
BMW states that the inside locking mechanism operates by means of a
vertical plunger on each door, and that the plunger on the driver's
door overrides the other plunger. In the event of an accident, an
inertia switch will unlock all doors. The same key operates door locks
and the ignition/steering lock, and can be inserted in a keyhole in
either direction. To prevent locking the keys in the car upon exiting,
the driver's door can only be locked with a key after it is closed.
BMW describes the key for the 7 Car line as being unique in that it
has the equivalent of four rows of teeth. BMW asserts that the unique
design makes the locks almost impossible to pick and the keys
impossible to duplicate on the open market. Special key blanks, key
cutting machines, and codes will be closely controlled and new keys
will only be issued to authorized persons. Additionally, the first gate
in the door lock keyway is hardened to resist the grip of a screw to
prevent use of a slampuller.
BMW states that an LED warning lamp on the center console which is
visible from outside of the vehicle informs the driver of the arming
status of the alarm/no-start systems. Upon return to the operator's
vehicle, the warning lamp informs the operator if a theft attempt has
been made, or if a door, hood or trunk is not completely closed. It
also indicates if there are any problems with the system. Additionally,
BMW states that the vehicle's diagnostic umbilical contains extra
circuits which, when plugged into the vehicle diagnostic machine at the
dealership, identifies problems with the antitheft system.
As a complementary feature to the passive system, the operator may
manually arm another alarm system and deactivate the vehicle's
ignition/fuel systems so that a thief would not be able to start the
engine and steal the vehicle. This active system is armed by the driver
keying in a 4-digit code into the computer built into the dashboard.
BMW addressed the reliability and durability of its antitheft
device by providing a list of American and international standards for
which the antitheft system has been tested and found in compliance.
This list includes various environmental tests and a Swedish regulation
that requires door and ignition locks to be able to resist commonly
available tools for a minimum period of 5 minutes in attempted forced
entries. BMW uses the proposed system's conformance to these standards
as support for the likely effectiveness of the system in reducing and
deterring theft.
BMW noted that NHTSA's February 1986 Report to Congress indicates
that the first year's theft rate for new introductions are generally
lower because the demand for replacement parts is relatively small. BMW
believes that this finding applies to its 7 Car line and that theft
rates will generally be lower because of the limited total sales of
these vehicles. Additionally, BMW believes that most of this car line
will be stolen for the value of the whole car, not its parts. BMW
stated that since parts marking seeks to deter thefts of automobiles
for their parts, while antitheft devices deter all thefts, BMW believes
that its antitheft system ``should be considerably more effective'' in
reducing and deterring theft than parts marking.
BMW compares its MY 1995 antitheft system to similar systems which
have previously been granted exemptions by the agency. It compared its
proposed system to systems installed in the Saab 9000, Mazda 929,
Infiniti M30, and Lexus LS. BMW believes that its analysis reveals that
its system is equivalent to, or has more extensive features than, all
of the compared systems previously granted an exemption by the agency.
The agency believes that the BMW antitheft device is comparable to the
systems on the cited car lines.
The 1983/84 median theft rate was 3.2712 thefts per thousand
vehicles produced. (See 50 FR 46666, November 12, 1985). Based on data
from the FBI's National Crime Information Center, NHTSA's official
source of theft data, BMW showed that for MYs 1989 through 1992, the
theft rates of the Saab 9000, Mazda 929, Infiniti M30, and Lexus LS
fell mostly below 3.2712. For 1989, the Saab 9000 had a theft rate of
2.3691 (per thousand vehicles manufactured), and the Mazda 929 had a
theft rate of 3.3610. No theft data were available for the Infiniti M30
or Lexus LS for 1989. For 1990/91, the Saab 9000 had a theft rate of
0.5125, the Mazda 929 had a theft rate of 2.7178, the Infiniti M30 had
a theft rate of 2.7496, and the Lexus LS had a theft rate of 1.8977.
For 1992, preliminary data show that the Saab 9000 had a theft rate of
0.4695, the Mazda 929 had a theft rate of 2.6477, the Infiniti M30 had
a theft rate of 2.7117, and the Lexus LS had a theft rate of 2.4390.
For these reasons, BMW believes that the antitheft system proposed
for installation on its 7 Car line 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 installed as standard equipment on the MY
1995 BMW 7 Car line 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 BMW 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 BMW has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the modified
antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based
on the information BMW provided on its device. This information
included a description of reliability and functional tests conducted by
BMW for the antitheft device and its components.
49 CFR section 543.9(h)(2)(ii) permits the agency to establish an
effective date for the modification of the antitheft device 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, BMW 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.
BMW stated the 1989 theft data published by NHTSA in the Federal
Register (56 FR 7444, February 22, 1991) show that the BMW 7 Car line
had a theft rate of 3.9505 per thousand vehicles stolen, somewhat above
the 1983/84 median theft rate of 3.2712. BMW stated its belief that the
antitheft device proposed for the MY 1995 7 Car line, with improvements
that enhance the effectiveness of the antitheft system, will lower the
7 Car line's theft rate. NHTSA has reviewed this showing of ``good
cause'' and finds that making the modification of BMW'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 BMW 7 Car
line that is the subject of this notice, in whole, from the
requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
If, in the future, BMW 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 section 541.5 and section
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 that if BMW 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.''
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: September 13, 1994.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator
[FR Doc. 94-23093 Filed 9-16-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P