22384 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Notices 

components. Tesla stated that these 

measures protect the immobilizer device 

from exposure to the elements and limit 

its access by unauthorized persons. 

Additionally, Tesla stated that the 

immobilizer relies on electronic 

functions versus mechanical functions 

and therefore expects the components to 

last at least the life of the vehicle. 

Tesla also compared the device 

proposed for its vehicle line with other 

devices which NHTSA has already 

determined to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as would compliance with the 

parts-marking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. Tesla compared 

the BMW 5 series and the MercedesBenz E-Class to its Model S vehicle line. 

Specifically, the agency’s data show that 

theft rates for the BMW 5 series are 

0.9044, 0.6550 and 0.4098 and for the 

Mercedes-Benz E-Class, 0.5898, 0.6286 

and 0.9041 respectively. Using an 

average of 3 MYs data (2007–2009), the 

agency theft rate data show that the 

average theft rate for the BMW 5 series 

is 0.6564 and 0.7075 for the MercedesBenz E-Class, well below the median 

theft rate of 3.5826. Tesla also stated 

that its 2008–2011 roadsters are already 

equipped with an antitheft device as 

standard equipment. Agency theft rate 

data for the roadster vehicles using an 

average of the most current theft rate 

data available is 0.0000. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

Tesla, the agency believes that the 

antitheft device for the Model S vehicle 

line is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541). 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 

CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants a 

petition for exemption from the partsmarking requirements of Part 541, either 

in whole or in part, if it determines that, 

based upon substantial evidence, the 

standard equipment antitheft device is 

likely to be as effective in reducing and 

deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of Part 541. The agency 

finds that Tesla has provided adequate 

reasons for its belief that the antitheft 

device for the Model S 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). This 

conclusion is based on the information 

Tesla provided about its device. 

The agency concludes that the device 

will provide the five types of 

performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): 

promoting activation, attracting 

attention to the efforts of an 

unauthorized person to enter or move 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. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full Tesla’s petition for 

exemption for the Model S vehicle line 

from the parts-marking requirements of 

49 CFR Part 541, beginning with the 

2012 model year vehicles. 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 MY. 49 CFR 

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 Tesla decides not to use the 

exemption for this line, it shall formally 

notify the agency. If such a decision is 

made, the 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 Tesla 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, § 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 § 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 10, 2012. 

Christopher J. Bonanti, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8893 Filed 4–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition To Modify an Exemption of a 

Previously Approved Antitheft Device; 

Porsche 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of a petition to modify an 

exemption of a previously approved 

antitheft device. 

SUMMARY: On December 22, 1995, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) granted in 

full, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.’s 

(Porsche) petition for an exemption in 

accordance with § 543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR 

part 543, Exemption from the Theft 

Prevention Standard for the Porsche 

Boxster vehicle line, beginning with 

model year (MY) 1997. On February 1, 

2012, Porsche submitted a petition to 

modify its previously approved 

exemption for the Porsche Boxster 

vehicle line and notified the agency that 

all new successor models within the 

Boxster line will be installed with the 

proposed antitheft device beginning 

with MY 2013. NHTSA is granting 

Porsche’s petition to modify the 

exemption in full, because it has 

determined that the modified device is 

also 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 the 

2013 MY. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Deborah Mazyck, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Standards, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., West Building, W43–443, 

Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck’s 

telephone number is (202) 366–4139. 

Her fax number is (202) 493–2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 22, 1995, NHTSA published 

in the Federal Register a notice granting 

in full, a petition from Porsche for an 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Notices 22385 

exemption from the parts-marking 

requirements of the Theft Prevention 

Standard (49 CFR part 541) for a vehicle 

line whose nameplate and model year 

were confidential, but subsequently 

provided as the Porsche Boxster vehicle 

line. The Boxster vehicle line has been 

exempted from the Theft Prevention 

Standard beginning with its MY 1997 

vehicles (See 60 FR 66575). On February 

1, 2012, Porsche submitted a petition to 

modify the previously approved 

exemption for the Boxster vehicle line. 

This notice grants in full Porsche’s 

petition to modify the exemption for the 

Boxster vehicle line. Porsche’s 

submission is a complete petition, as 

required by 49 CFR 543.9(d), in that it 

meets the general requirements 

contained in 49 CFR 543.5 and the 

specific content requirements of 49 CFR 

543.6. Porsche’s petition provided a 

detailed description and diagram of the 

identity, design and location of the 

components of the antitheft device 

proposed for installation beginning with 

the 2013 model year. 

The current antitheft device (MYs 

1997–2012) installed on the Porsche 

Boxster vehicle line is a passive, 

microprocessor-based device which 

includes a starter interrupt function, 

transponder key and a central-locking 

system. Porsche also offers a remotecontrolled audible and visible alarm 

system as optional equipment to its 

current device. 

Porsche stated that its current 

antitheft device is activated by removing 

the key from the vehicle’s ignition 

switch/steering lock. By removing the 

key, the ignition switch returns the 

system to its normal ‘‘OFF’’ state where 

starting the engine and operation of the 

vehicle is prohibited. Porsche stated 

that the key contains a radio signal 

transponder which signals the control 

unit to allow the engine to start when 

the correct key is inserted into the 

ignition switch. 

Porsche further stated that the 

optional alarm system on the vehicle 

line monitors the doors, hood, rear 

decklid, glove compartment or radio 

contact switch and if any of the areas 

are breached, the horn will sound and 

the lights will flash. 

In Porsche’s petition to modify its 

exemption for MY 2013, it stated that 

the Boxster vehicle line will be 

modified to include the antitheft device 

and strategies used for the Panamera 

vehicle line. The Panamera vehicle line 

has been granted a parts-marking 

exemption since MY 2010 (See 74 FR 

18037, April 20, 2009). However, 

Porsche was granted a modification to 

its previously approved exemption for 

the Panamera vehicle line beginning 

with its MY 2012 vehicles (See 75 FR 

22174, April 27, 2010). Specifically, in 

its MY 2012 modification, Porsche 

proposed to remove the steering column 

lock on the Panamera line, because it 

considered the feature to be a redundant 

function that is also offered by the 

electronic parking brake which is 

installed as standard equipment on the 

line. The electronically activated 

parking brake will also be included as 

standard equipment on the MY 2013 

Boxster line. Porsche also made special 

mention that the agency recently 

granted its MY 2012 request to modify 

the previously approved exemption for 

the 911 vehicle line for also having 

adopted the Panamera antitheft device 

and strategies (See 76 FR 69321, 

November 8, 2011). 

For MY 2013, Porsche will install its 

passive, transponder-based electronic, 

engine-immobilizer antitheft device as 

standard equipment on its Porsche 

Boxster vehicle line. Porsche stated that 

the antitheft system consists of two 

major subsystems: a microprocessorbased immobilizer device that prevents 

the engine management system from 

functioning when the system is engaged, 

and a central locking and alarm system. 

Key components of the modified 

antitheft device will include an 

electronic ignition switch, transponder 

key, remote control unit, transponder, 

alarm/central locking control unit, key 

or keyless entry system, an engine 

control unit, electronic parking brake 

and an off-board antitheft strategy. 

Porsche stated that the immobilizer 

device is automatically activated when 

the driver removes the key from the 

ignition switch assembly or the optional 

special keyless entry keycard exits the 

vehicle with the driver. The key 

contains a radio signal transponder 

which signals the control unit to allow 

the engine to be started. Porsche stated 

that as an option, a keyless entry device 

can be provided for the Boxster vehicle 

line. Porsche stated that the antitheft 

device will remain the same, but the 

ignition key is substituted with a special 

key that contains a radio signal 

transmitter similar to that in the 

standard ignition key. The immobilizer 

system is automatically activated after 

the engine is turned off with the 

optional keyless entry device. Porsche 

stated that only by inserting the correct 

key into the ignition switch or by having 

the special keyless entry device within 

the compartment of the car, will the 

correct signal be sent to the control unit 

allowing start and operation of the 

engine. When the key is removed from 

the ignition or the keyless entry key is 

removed from the vehicle, the device 

will return to its normal ‘‘OFF’’ state 

disallowing engine start and operation. 

The central locking system works in 

conjunction with the audible and visible 

alarm system. Porsche will continue to 

offer a central locking system as 

standard equipment on the Boxster 

vehicle line. The previously approved 

device offered the alarm system as 

optional equipment. Porsche stated that 

the 2013 modification for the Boxster 

vehicle line will include the audible 

and visible alarm system as standard 

equipment. Porsche stated that the 

alarm system will continue to monitor 

the opening of the doors, rear luggage 

compartment and front deck lid. 

Porsche stated that the proposed 

central locking and alarm systems can 

be armed by using the ignition key, the 

remote control, or a door switch (with 

the keyless entry option). Porsche stated 

that when the key or remote control is 

used to lock the doors, the alarm is 

armed. With the keyless entry system, 

either the door switch or the remote 

control is used instead of a manual key. 

The proposed alarm system will also 

monitor interior movement within the 

vehicle through an ultrasonic sensor. If 

any violation of these areas is detected, 

the horn will sound and the lights will 

flash. 

In Porsche’s petition to modify its 

exemption, it stated that for 2013, the 

Boxster will be modified to 

accommodate the introduction of the 

electronically activated parking brake. 

Porsche stated that if the control unit 

does not receive the correct signal from 

the key or keyless entry system, the 

parking brake will remain activated and 

the vehicle cannot be towed away. 

Porsche stated that another additional 

theft prevention feature to the Boxster 

vehicle line will be the implementation 

of a new off-board antitheft strategy, 

making it impossible to use stolen 

electronic control units to repair other 

Porsche vehicles. Porsche stated that the 

goal of the off-board theft protection 

strategy is to reduce the marketability of 

stolen electronic components. Porsche 

believes its off-board antitheft strategy is 

similar in concept to parts marking, and 

will further reduce the demand for 

stolen Porsche vehicle components. 

Specifically, Porsche explained that 

during the production process of the 

vehicle, initialization and registration of 

various antitheft related electronic 

components are recorded in a central 

database. Changes to these components 

are only possible with authorized online access to the central database. 

Porsche stated that if the components 

have to be repaired or replaced while 

authorized access to the central database 

is unavailable or the central database 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
22386 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 72 / Friday, April 13, 2012 / Notices 

1Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc., is a 

corporation registered under the laws of the state 

of Michigan. 

2Hyundai’s petition, which was filed under 49 

CFR part 556, requests an agency decision to 

exempt Hyundai as a motor vehicles manufacturer 

from the notification and recall responsibilities of 

49 CFR part 573 for the 14,728 affected vehicles. 

However, a decision on this petition will not relieve 

vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions 

on the sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery 

for introduction into interstate commerce of the 

noncompliant motor vehicles under their control 

after Hyundai notified them that the subject 

noncompliance existed. 

indicates the components are 

unauthorized, further operation and use 

of the vehicle is restricted or even 

impossible. 

In order to ensure the reliability and 

durability of the device, Porsche 

conducted tests based on its own 

specified standards. Porsche provided a 

detailed list of tests conducted and 

believes that its device is reliable and 

durable since the device complied with 

its specified requirements for each test. 

The test conducted included extreme 

temperature tests, voltage spike tests, 

reverse polarity tests, electromagnetic 

interference tests, vibration tests and 

endurance tests. Porsche stated that its 

antitheft device also features a built-in 

self-diagnostic that constantly checks 

for system failures. If a failure is 

detected, the operator receives a signal 

via an alarm indicator. 

In its MY 2013 modification, Porsche 

stated that it believes its new Boxster 

antitheft device will prove to be even 

more effective in reducing and deterring 

theft than its antitheft devices have 

proven in the past. Porsche also 

compared its device with other devices 

without alarms that NHTSA has 

determined to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft. Porsche stated that similar 

systems without alarms, i.e., GM PASS– 

Key, Mercedes Benz 202 vehicle line, 

Porsche Boxster (Cayman) as well as 

earlier 911 vehicle line devices, were 

determined to be as effective as partsmarking. Porsche also referenced the 

agency’s theft rate data for the Boxster 

vehicle line which indicates that its 

theft rates (MY/CY 2002–2009) are still 

below the median theft rate of 3.5826. 

The average theft rates for the Boxster 

vehicle line (Boxster convertible and 

Cayman coupe) using the most current 

3 MY’s theft rate data are 0.3789 and 

0.7217, respectively. 

The agency has evaluated Porsche’s 

MY 2013 petition to modify the 

exemption for the Boxster vehicle line 

from the parts-marking requirements of 

49 CFR part 541, and has decided to 

grant it. The agency believes that the 

proposed device will continue to 

provide the five types of performance 

listed in § 543.6(a)(3): (1) Promoting 

activation, (2) attracting attention to the 

efforts of unauthorized persons to enter 

or operate a vehicle by means other than 

a key, (3) preventing defeat or 

circumvention of the device by 

unauthorized persons, (4) preventing 

operation of the vehicle by 

unauthorized entrants and (5) ensuring 

the reliability and durability of the 

device. 

If Porsche decides not to use the 

exemption for this line, it should 

formally notify the agency. If such a 

decision is made, the 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 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 10, 2012. 

Christopher J. Bonanti, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8892 Filed 4–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0041; Notice 1] 

Hyundai Motor Company, Receipt of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Receipt of petition. 

SUMMARY: Hyundai America Technical 

Center, Inc., on behalf of Hyundai Motor 

Company (collectively referred to as 

‘‘Hyundai’’) 1 has determined that 

certain model year 2011 and 2012 

Hyundai Sonata Hybrid passenger cars, 

do not fully comply with paragraph 

S4.1.5.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection. Hyundai 

has filed an appropriate report dated 

March 8, 2012, pursuant to 49 CFR part 

573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 

CFR part 556), Hyundai submitted a 

petition for an exemption from the 

notification and remedy requirements of 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that 

this noncompliance is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety. 

This notice of receipt of Hyundai’s 

petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120 and does not represent 

any agency decision or other exercise of 

judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

Vehicles involved: Affected are 

approximately 14,728 model year 2011 

and 2012 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid 

vehicles produced beginning on 

December 2, 2010 and shipped to 

dealers through March 7, 2012 that are 

equipped with a center rear seat belt 

incorporating a release mechanism that 

detaches both the lap and shoulder 

portion at the lower anchorage point. 

NHTSA notes that the statutory 

provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to 

file petitions for a determination of 

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to 

exempt manufacturers only from the 

duties found in sections 30118 and 

30120, respectively, to notify owners, 

purchasers, and dealers of a defect or 

noncompliance and to remedy the 

defect or noncompliance. Therefore, 

these provisions only apply to the 

subject 14,728 2 vehicles that Hyundai 

no longer controlled at the time it 

determined that the noncompliance 

existed. 

Noncompliance: Hyundai explains 

that the noncompliance is that the 

affected vehicles do not comply with 

Paragraph S4.1.5.5.2 because they are 

equipped with a non-folding rear seat 

back and a center rear seat belt 

incorporating a release mechanism that 

detaches both the lap and shoulder 

portion at the lower anchorage point to 

allow improved assembly line 

procedures. 

Rule text: Paragraph S4.1.5.5 of 

FMVSS No. 208 requires in pertinent 

part: 

S4.1.5.5 Passenger cars manufactured on 

or after September 1, 2007. 

S4.1.5.5.1 Except as provided in 

S4.1.5.5.2, each passenger car shall have a 

Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to 

Standard No. 209 and to S7.1 and S7.2 of this 

standard at each rear designated seating 

position, except that side-facing designated 

seating positions shall have a Type 1 or Type 

2 seat belt assembly that conforms to 

Standard No. 209 and to S7.1 and S7.2 of this 

standard. 

S4.1.5.5.2 Any inboard designated seating 

position on a seat for which the entire seat 

back can be folded (including the head 

restraints and any other part of the vehicle 

attached to the seat back) such that no part 

of the seat back extends above a horizontal 

plane located 250 mm above the highest SRP 

located on the seat may meet the 

requirements of S4.1.5.5.1 by use of a belt 

incorporating a release mechanism that 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES