[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34498-34500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16840]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Modification of a Previously Approved Antitheft
Device; Porsche
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for modification of a previously approved
antitheft device.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 2, 1989, this agency granted Porsche Cars of North
America, Inc.'s (Porsche) petition for exemption from the parts-marking
requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard for the 911 and
928 car lines. On September 9, 1994, the agency determined that the
proposed changes made on the 911 antitheft device for model year (MY)
1995 were de minimis changes and did not require Porsche to submit a
petition to modify its exemption pursuant to 49 CFR 543.9(c)(2). This
notice grants Porsche's petition for a new modification to its
previously approved antitheft device for the 911 car line beginning
with the 1998 model year. The agency grants this petition because it
has determined, based on substantial evidence, that the modified
antitheft device described in Porsche'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 the parts-marking
requirements.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of
Planning and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-1740.
Her fax number is (202) 493-2739.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In its MY 1989 petition, Porsche included a
detailed description and diagrams of the identity, design, and location
of the components of the antitheft device for the MY 1990 Porsche 911
and 928 car lines. The antitheft device consisted of a central-locking
system, a starter-interrupt feature and an audible and visible alarm
system. The device was activated by locking either the driver or
passenger door with the ignition key. When the ignition key was used to
lock either the driver or passenger door, the remaining door was
automatically locked. When all the doors were locked, the vehicle's
alarm system automatically armed to monitor the protected areas of the
vehicle. The alarm monitored the doors, front hood, rear trunk (911) or
hatch (928), radio and ignition switch. If any of the protected areas
were violated, the alarm horn would sound, and the fog and brake lights
would flash. In its petition, Porsche stated that the car would not
start as long as the alarm remained armed. Disarming the device was
accomplished by unlocking either the driver or passenger door with the
ignition key. The agency determined that the antitheft device Porsche
intended to install on the MY 1990 911 and 928 car lines as standard
equipment was likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor
vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements.
In its MY 1995 request for modification, Porsche 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. Porsche stated that the MY 1995
device added a remote control, automatic activation and expanded anti-
start features to the MY 1990 device. Porsche also described the
antitheft device installed as standard equipment as passively
activated. By letter dated September 9, 1994, the agency determined
that the proposed changes made on the MY 1995 911 antitheft device were
de minimis changes and did not require Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
(Porsche) to submit a petition to modify its exemption. The agency
determined that the antitheft device, which Porsche intended to install
on the 911 car line as standard equipment, would be 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.
By letter dated February 21, 1996, Porsche submitted its petition
for a second modification to its previously approved antitheft device.
Porsche's submittal is a complete petition, as required by 49 CFR
543.9(d), in that it meets the general requirements contained in
Sec. 543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec. 543.6.
[[Page 34499]]
Porsche stated that the antitheft device on the MY 1998 car line
differs from the MY 1995 device in that it is simpler and better
integrated. In the MY 1998 device, the disablement of the engine can
only be accomplished by using the key in the ignition, while in the MY
1995 device it could be done through the use of the remote control.
Also, in the MY 1995 antitheft device the vehicle could only be locked
or unlocked using the remote control, while in the MY 1998 antitheft
device, it can be done by using the key or the remote control.
The MY 1998 antitheft device will consist of a micro-processor
based immobilizer system, which prevents the engine management system
from functioning when the system is engaged, and a central-locking and
alarm system. The immobilizer system is automatically activated by
removing the correct key from the ignition switch/steering lock. The
ignition key contains a radio signal transponder which sends a signal
to the control unit to allow the engine to start. According to Porsche,
only by inserting the proper key into the ignition switch will the
correct signal be sent to the control unit. The time for the control
unit to verify the correct signal takes only milliseconds and is
completed in the time it takes to turn the key to start the engine.
Disablement of the immobilizer system is virtually impossible, since
the only way to enable the engine management system is by using the
correct ignition key to send the proper code to the immobilizer system,
which then signals the engine management system to operate. Removal of
the key returns the device to its normal ``off'' state where engine
operation is impossible. Therefore, even if the driver/operator forgets
to lock the doors upon leaving the vehicle, an unauthorized person will
be unable to move the vehicle unless the proper ignition key is used to
disable the immobilizer system.
Porsche also stated that, for MY 1998, the antitheft device will
feature a central-locking system that can be activated by using either
the ignition key or the remote control. When either the ignition key or
the remote control is used to lock any door, all doors are locked and
the vehicle's alarm system is automatically armed to monitor the
protected areas of the vehicle. The device monitors for opening of the
doors, front luggage compartment, rear decklid, fuel filler door, soft
top storage compartment, glove compartment, radio contact switches and
interior movement via an infra-red sensor. If one of the protected
areas of the vehicle is violated, the horn will sound and the lights
will flash.
The antitheft device will function separately from the immobilizer
system in that the immobilizer system cannot be disabled by any
manipulation of the door locks or the central-locking system. Porsche
states that any manipulation of the door locks or the central-locking
system will not disable the immobilizer system because neither the door
locks or the central-locking system are capable of sending the
necessary codes to the control unit. When the alarm system is armed, a
``safe'' function is activated that removes the mechanical link between
the inside and outside door handles and the locking mechanism. This
prevents the manipulation of the door handles from having any influence
on the door locks.
Porsche states that an unauthorized person will be unable to
operate the vehicle without the use of the proper key. Porsche also
states that disconnection of power to the antitheft device or the
engine management system does not affect their operation.
The immobilizer and alarm systems are located within the passenger
compartment of the vehicle. The control unit is located under the
driver seat and the battery and alarm horn are inaccessibly located
inside the front trunk of the vehicle.
Porsche addressed the reliability and durability of its antitheft
device by providing a list of specific tests that ensure the system's
integrity. The tests included testing for extreme temperature, voltage
spike, reverse polarity, electromagnetic interference, vibration and
endurance. Additionally, the antitheft device utilizes a built-in self
test which constantly checks for system failures. If a failure is
detected, the driver/operator is signaled by the alarm indicator.
Porsche compares its MY 1998 antitheft device to similar devices
that have previously been granted exemptions by the agency. It compared
its proposed device to devices that do not have alarms such as the
General Motors' PASS-Key device, the Mercedes-Benz 202 car line device
and the Porsche MY 1997 (confidential nameplate) device. Porsche states
that the agency has previously determined that these devices without
alarms are as effective as parts marking. Therefore, Porsche contends
that since the MY 1998 device will include the same features and an
alarm as standard equipment, its device will also be as effective in
reducing and deterring theft as parts marking. Based on data from the
FBI's National Crime Information Center, NHTSA's official source of
theft data, Porsche showed that the theft rate of the Chevrolet Camaro
fell below the median after installation of the PASS-Key device in MY
1989. Porsche reports that for MY 1988, the Chevrolet Camaro had a
theft rate of 25.7394 (per thousand vehicles produced) and for MY 1993,
it fell to 2.7243. Preliminary theft data for MY 1994 show that theft
rates for the Chevrolet Camaro and Mercedes-Benz 202 car lines remain
below the median of 3.5826. The preliminary data for MY 1994 show a
theft rate of 3.5375 for the Chevrolet Camaro and 1.3810 for the
Mercedes-Benz 202 car line. Porsche also stated that other GM models
equipped with the PASS-KEY device, such as the Pontiac Firebird and
Chevrolet Corvette, have shown large decreases in theft rates.
Preliminary theft data for MY 1994 show a theft rate of 3.0927 for the
Pontiac Firebird and 4.5884 for the Chevrolet Corvette. Additionally,
Porsche reaffirmed that its MY 1998 device will provide engine
disablement for its 911 line, which it believes is at least as
effective as that provided by the GM PASS-Key device.
For these reasons, Porsche believes that the antitheft device
proposed for installation on its 911 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 device installed as standard equipment on the MY
1998 Porsche 911 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 Porsche submitted with its petition and
other available information. The agency believes that the modified
device will continue to provide the types of performance listed in
Sec. 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
Porsche has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the modified
antitheft device will reduce and deter theft. This information included
a description of reliability and functional tests conducted by Porsche
for the antitheft device and its components.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby exempts the Porsche
911 car line that is the subject of this notice, in
[[Page 34500]]
whole, from the requirements of 49 CFR part 541.
If, in the future, Porsche 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).
NHTSA notes that if Porsche 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 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.''
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: June 27, 1996.
Patricia Breslin,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 96-16840 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P