[Federal Register: July 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 39661-39662]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19jy07-91]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Hyundia-Kia America Technical Center, Inc.
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants in full the petition of Hyundai-Kia
Motors Corporation (Hyundai) in accordance with 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR
Part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard, for the Hyundai
Azera vehicle line beginning with model year (MY) 2008. This petition
is granted because the agency has determined that the antitheft device
to be placed on the line as standard equipment is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
model year (MY) 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of
International Vehicle, Fuel Economy and Consumer Standards, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., NVS-131, Room W43-302 (4th Floor), Washington,
DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number is (202) 366-4807. Her fax
number is (202) 493-0073.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated March 2, 2007, Hyundai-
Kia America Technical Center, Inc., on behalf of Hyundai-Kia Motors
(Hyundai) requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of
the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Hyundai Azera
vehicle line beginning with MY 2008. The petition requested an
exemption from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption
from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the installation of an
antitheft device as standard equipment for an entire vehicle line.
Under Sec. 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant an
exemption for one of its vehicle lines per year. Hyundai has petitioned
the agency to grant an exemption for its Azera vehicle line beginning
with MY 2008. In its petition, Hyundai provided a detailed description
and diagram of the identity, design, and location of the components of
the antitheft device for the Azera vehicle line. Hyundai will install
its passive antitheft device as standard equipment on the vehicle line.
Features of the antitheft device will include a passive immobilizer
consisting of an EMS (engine control unit), SMARTRA (immobilizer unit),
an antenna coil and transponder ignition keys. Additionally, the
Hyundai Azera will have a standard alarm system which will monitor all
the doors, the trunk and the hood of the vehicle. The audible and
visual alarms are activated when an unauthorized person attempts to
enter or move the vehicle by unauthorized means. Hyundai's submission
is considered a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that
it meets the general requirements contained in Sec. 543.5 and the
specific content requirements of Sec. 543.6.
The antitheft device to be installed on the MY 2008 Hyundai is a
transponder-based electronic immobilizer system. Hyundai stated that
the EMS carries out the check of the ignition key by a special
encryption algorithm which runs in the transponder and in the EMS in
parallel. The engine can only be started if the results of the ignition
key check and algorithm are equal.
Hyundai stated that the device is automatically activated by
removing the key from the ignition switch and locking the vehicle door.
In order to arm the device, the key must be removed from the ignition
switch, all of the doors and hood must be closed and the driver's door
must be locked with the ignition key or all doors must be locked with
the keyless entry. When the device is armed, the visual (flashing
hazard lamps) and audible (horn sound) alarm system will be triggered
if unauthorized entry is attempted through the doors, trunk or the
hood. Hyundai stated that the alarm will be operated in three cycles
(30 seconds on and 10 seconds off) and if the alarm shuts down, the
device will remain armed. The device is disarmed when the driver's door
is unlocked with the transponder key or keyless entry.
Hyundai further stated that since its antitheft device has been
installed as standard equipment on the Azera line since MY 2006 and
that it is the first vehicle line that comprises both an immobilizer
and an alarm system as standard equipment for the U.S. market, there is
currently no available theft rate data for Hyundai vehicle lines that
have
[[Page 39662]]
been installed with similar devices. However, by supplemental letter
dated May 16, 2007, Hyundai submitted further data to support its
belief that its device will be at least as effective as comparable
devices installed on other vehicle lines previously granted exemptions
by the agency.
Hyundai further stated that it believes that the GM Pass-Key and
Ford Securilock devices contain components that are functionally and
operationally similar to its device. Hyundai also stated that the theft
data from the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) show a clear
reduction in vehicle thefts after the introduction of the GM and Ford
devices. Therefore, Hyundai believes that its device will be at least
as effective as those GM and Ford devices that have been installed on
lines previously granted exemptions by the agency. Hyundai provided
theft rate data for the Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac Firebird vehicle
lines showing a substantial reduction in theft rates comparing the
lines between pre- and post-introduction of the Pass-Key device.
Hyundai also provided ``percent reduction'' data for theft rates
between pre- and post-production years for the Ford Taurus and Mustang,
and Oldsmobile Toronado and Buick Riviera vehicle lines normalized to
the three-year average of the Camaro and Firebird pre-introduction
data. Hyundai stated that the data shows a dramatic reduction of theft
rates due to the introduction of devices substantially similar to the
Hyundai immobilizer device. Specifically, the Taurus, Mustang, Riviera
and Toronado vehicle lines showed a 63, 70, 80 and 58 percent theft
rate reductions respectively, between pre- and post-introduction of
immobilizer devices as standard equipment on these vehicle lines.
In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Hyundai
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Hyundai
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Hyundai also
provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the
device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its
specified requirements for each test.
Based on the evidence submitted by Hyundai, the agency believes
that the antitheft device for the Azera vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR Part 541). Based on the information Hyundai provided about its
device, the agency concludes that the device will provide the five
types of performance listed in Sec. 543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;
attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or
operate a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or
circumvention 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 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(4) and (5),
the agency finds that Hyundai has provided adequate reasons for its
belief that the antitheft device, will reduce and deter theft.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full
Hyundai's petition for exemption for the Azera vehicle line from the
parts-marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. The agency notes that 49
CFR Part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted
from the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR Part
543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition
of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of
future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the
petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device
is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle
lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
If Hyundai decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR Parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Hyundai 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 anti-theft device on which the
line's exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to 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 that Part
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: July 12, 2007.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E7-13948 Filed 7-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P