95-9885. Petitions for Modification of Exemptions From the Vehicle Theft Protection Standard; Saab Cars USA, Inc.  

  • [Federal Register Volume 60, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 1995)]
    [Notices]
    [Pages 19984-19986]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 95-9885]
    
    
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    
    
    Petitions for Modification of Exemptions From the Vehicle Theft 
    Protection Standard; Saab Cars USA, Inc.
    
    AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
    Department of Transportation.
    
    ACTION: Grant of petitions for modification of exemptions from vehicle 
    theft protection standard.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: On September 8 and September 12, 1994, Saab Cars, USA, Inc. 
    (``Saab'') filed petitions with the National Highway Traffic Safety 
    Adminsitration (``NHTSA'') asking for modification to agency-approved 
    exemptions from the vehicle theft protection standard for its model 
    years (MY) 1995-1997 900 and 9000 car lines. NHTSA is granting Saab's 
    petitions for modification of its exemption from the parts-marking 
    requirement of the vehicle theft prevention standard for the MY 1995-
    1997 900 and 9000 car lines because it has determined, based on 
    substantial evidence, that the antitheft devices described in Saab's 
    petition to be placed on the car lines as standard equipment, are 
    likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle 
    [[Page 19985]] theft as compliance with parts-marking requirements.
    
    DATES: The exemptions granted by this notice are effective for MY 1995 
    and thereafter.
    
    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: On June 1, 1988, NHTSA published in the 
    Federal Register a notice granting a petition from Saab Cars USA, Inc. 
    (Saab) for an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the 
    vehicle theft prevention standard for the Saab 9000 car line beginning 
    with MY 1989. (See 53 FR 20061, June 1, 1988.) On July 26, 1993, the 
    agency published a Federal Register notice granting a petition from 
    Saab for an exemption from the parts-marking requirement of the vehicle 
    theft protection standard beginning with MY 1994 for a car line whose 
    nameplate was at that time confidential. (See 58 FR 39853, July 26, 
    1993.) With the beginning of production in MY 1994, the identity of 
    that car line, the Saab 900, became publicly available. The agency 
    determined that the antitheft devices, which Saab intends 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.
        Saab submitted petitions for modification of those previously 
    approved antitheft systems, dated September 8, 1994, and September 12, 
    1994, for the MYs 1995 through 1997 Saab 900 and 9000 car lines, 
    respectively. This notice responds to both of those petitions.
        These petitions contained detailed descriptions of the identity, 
    design, and location of the components of the antitheft systems, 
    including diagrams of the components and their location in each 
    vehicle. Saab stated that the modified antitheft systems have been 
    enhanced to incorporate a glass- breakage sensor; a remote transmitter 
    which arms, locks, unlocks, and disarms the systems; and an ignition-
    fuel disengagement feature.
        The functions of the existing systems have been modified by adding 
    three components: (1) A radio frequency remote transmitter; (2) a 
    separate glass breakage sensor for the windows (excluding the Saab 900 
    convertible models); (3) an ignition and fuel-cutoff feature to 
    supplement the starter disengagement feature. Presently, the operator 
    may activate these systems by using the key. This function has been 
    extended to incorporate the use of a remote transmitter. Saab stated 
    that the transmitter uses radio frequencies and rolling security codes. 
    Thus, each time the driver uses the remote transmitter, a different 
    code is set, making it virtually impossible to circumvent. The 
    transmitter also has a small LED indicator beside each button of the 
    transmitter to show battery charge. On the Saab 9000, locking of either 
    front door with the key or the remote transmitter will automatically 
    lock all vehicle doors and the hatch/trunk lid, and arm the starter 
    interrupt, fuel pump, and ignition system relays. On the 900 activation 
    of the system can only be accomplished by using the remote. The 
    ignition key will only lock the doors. Furthermore, Saab stated, in a 
    telephone call, that use of the key or the remote transmitter to lock 
    the doors will protect all windows (except on the Saab 900 convertible) 
    from unauthorized entry.
        Once the systems are armed, unauthorized entry or breach of the 
    protected areas will trigger the antitheft system. In addition to 
    activating the audible alarm, flashing lights and starter interrupt, 
    arming the new system causes the fuel and ignition systems to be 
    disabled for 30 minutes. If the alarm is disarmed within a 30 to 300 
    second period, the alarm will be interrupted and the turn signals will 
    stop. However, if another attempted unauthorized entry is made during 
    that time, the system will reset itself for another 30-minute period. 
    Saab has added a glass breakage sensor (except on the Saab 900 
    convertible), which will further attract attention to unauthorized 
    entry attempts. There is an LED display on the dashboard that indicates 
    the various states of alarm.
        Saab has customized some features of the alarm system, giving 
    customers the ability to configure the system to automatic arming 
    whenever the ignition is turned off, to change the type of confirmation 
    signal when the alarm is armed/disarmed, or to select among different 
    responses when the alarm is triggered.
        To prevent defeat of these system, all system components will be 
    inaccessibly located and be monitored by the antitheft system for 
    unauthorized tampering. In addition, all door lock mechanisms are 
    covered and recessed inside the door, making it very difficult for an 
    unauthorized person to unlock the doors using an instrument that slides 
    between the window and the outer door. The interior door lock plungers 
    are designed so that they cannot be snagged with a wire inserted 
    between the weatherstripping and the window glass. Because the latch 
    mechanism will be located in the door, it will be more difficult to 
    unlatch the door by sliding an instrument between the door and the B- 
    or C-pillar. In the event that there is unauthorized entry without a 
    key despite activation of the visual and audible alarm features, the 
    fuel, ignition and starter disengagement features will be activated, 
    preventing operation of the vehicle.
        Saab also stated that the keylocks on the 900 and 9000 are unique 
    to Saab and almost impossible to pick; and it would be extremely 
    difficult to duplicate the keys on either vehicle. Special key-cutting 
    equipment and blanks are needed to duplicate the keys. In addition, 
    access to codes and key blanks is made more difficult by the fact that 
    they are protected within the Saab dealer and corporate network.
        Saab addressed the reliability and durability of its antitheft 
    device by providing a list of specific testing programs that validate 
    the system's integrity. The examinations included testing for 
    electrical strength, electromagnetic compatibility, radiated 
    interference susceptibility, conduction emissions/audio frequency, 
    disturbance (supply lines), transient emissions, radiated emissions/
    radio-frequency disturbance (vehicle level), mechanical vibration, 
    random and cycled temperature, durability life cycle, mechanical shock, 
    ambient temperature extremes, corrosion resistance, dust and small 
    particle exposure, salt spray and low air pressure.
        In addition, Saab stated that its antitheft systems are protected 
    against false activation caused by sound wave vibration, air 
    turbulence, and temperature or light changes. They are also equipped 
    with a self-diagnosis system which monitors proper functioning of the 
    system each time it is armed. If the system detects failure, a fault 
    code is stored, and the LED will blink for ten seconds after the arming 
    of the alarm (rather than remaining steadily lit for ten seconds) as 
    long as the code is left in memory.
        In discussing why it believes these antitheft devices will be 
    effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft, Saab said that 
    the modified systems will add features to already effective antitheft 
    systems. Saab based its contention in part on NHTSA's preliminary MY 
    1992 theft data, which shows that the Saab 9000 car line equipped with 
    the system for which it was previously granted an exemption has a theft 
    rate of .4695, ranking it 195th out of 215 vehicle lines. Saab also 
    based its contention on Highway Loss Data [[Page 19986]] Institute 
    (HLDI) results for MYs 1991-1993. Based on that data, the Saab 9000 had 
    a relative theft rate of 57, compared with an average rate for mid-size 
    luxury models of 94. This included the following specific vehicle theft 
    rate numbers: Buick Riviera--114; Volvo 940/960--68; Infiniti J30--71; 
    Mercedes 190E--121; BMW 318i/325i--126; and the BMW 525i/535i--112.
        Saab contends that its system for the 900 line is effective at 
    reducing theft based on the HLDI data for 1991-1993. That data 
    indicated that for the Saab 900 convertible, which used an antitheft 
    system that was activated by a remote transmitter but lacked the 
    immobilization feature of the modified system, the relative theft rate 
    was 128 as compared to 140 for all cars in the ``small sports model 
    category.'' Comparable models were the Chevrolet Corvette convertible, 
    the Mazda Miata convertible, and the Mercury Capri convertible. Saab 
    also stated that the preliminary NHTSA theft data for MY 1992 showed 
    that the rate for the Saab 900 line was 1.7442, well below the median. 
    Saab said that it expects the rate for the MYs 1995-1996 900 line will 
    be below this low rate, and close to the 9000's rate of .4695.
        Saab states that it believes that the antitheft systems to be 
    installed on the 9000 and 900 car lines will be more effective than 
    parts marking in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft because the 
    existing system already comply with all of the criteria of 
    Sec. 543.6(a)(3), the new modifications are designed to improve the 
    current systems, and Saab now uses visible antitheft system window 
    warning labels.
        NHTSA believes that there is substantial evidence indicating that 
    the modified antitheft systems planned to be installed as standard 
    equipment on the MY 1995 Saab 900 and 9000 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 Saab 
    submitted with its petitions 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 543.6(a)(4), the agency also finds that Saab 
    has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the modified 
    antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This conclusion is based 
    on the information Saab provided on its devices. This information 
    included a description of reliability and functional tests conducted by 
    Saab 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 exemptions 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. Saab's petitions sought a 1995 model year effective date 
    for the modification of its exemption, which is earlier than the model 
    year following the one in which its petition is granted. Making the 
    modification of Saab's antitheft systems effective beginning with MY 
    1995 are in the public interest since it would permit expeditious 
    manufacture and sale of vehicles with the modified antitheft systems as 
    standard equipment. Saab cited the 1992 theft data published by NHTSA 
    in the Federal Register showing that the Saab 9000 line had a theft 
    rate of .4695 and for the 900 the rate was 1.7442, well below the 
    median theft rate. Saab stated its belief that the antitheft device 
    proposed for the MY 1995 900, which is essentially the same device, 
    will continue to have a theft rate well below the median. NHTSA finds 
    that this constitutes a showing of ``good cause'' and that making the 
    modification of Saab's petition effective beginning with MY 1995 is 
    consistent with the public interest and 49 U.S.C. 33106.
        For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby exempts the Saab 900 
    and 9000 car lines that are the subject of this notice, in whole, from 
    the requirements of 49 CFR part 541 for MYs 1995 through 1997.
        If, in the future, Saab decides not to use the exemptions for a car 
    lines that are the subject of this notice, it should formally notify 
    the agency. If such a decision is made, the car lines 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 Saab wishes in the future to modify the 
    device on which these exemptions are based, the company may have to 
    submit a petition to modify the exemptions. 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, 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.''
        However, 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 14, 1995.
    Ricardo Martinez,
    Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 95-9885 Filed 4-20-95; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
    
    

Document Information

Published:
04/21/1995
Department:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Entry Type:
Notice
Action:
Grant of petitions for modification of exemptions from vehicle theft protection standard.
Document Number:
95-9885
Dates:
The exemptions granted by this notice are effective for MY 1995 and thereafter.
Pages:
19984-19986 (3 pages)
PDF File:
95-9885.pdf