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