Document ID: NHTSA-2010-0019-0001
Agency: nhtsa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Petition for Exemption from the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard: Hyundia-Kia America Technical Center, Inc.
Posted Date: 2010-02-08T05:00Z

[Federal Register: February 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 25)]
[Notices]               
[Page 6253-6254]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08fe10-111]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

 
Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor 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 Hyundai-Kia Motors 
Corporation (HATCI) petition for exemption of the Hyundai VI vehicle 
line in accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft 
Prevention Standard. 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 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 
Standard.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with 
the 2011 Model Year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, International 
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-439, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is 
(202) 366-0846. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated September 11, 2009, 
Hyundai requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of 
the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the Hyundai VI 
vehicle line, beginning with MY 2011. The petition requested an 
exemption from parts-marking requirements pursuant to 49 CFR 543, 
Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, based on the 
installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment for the 
entire vehicle line.
    Under Section Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to 
grant exemptions for one of its vehicle lines per model year. Hyundai 
petitioned the agency to grant an exemption for its VI vehicle line 
beginning with MY 2011. 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 new vehicle line. Hyundai 
will install its passive Smart-key Immobilizer device and alarm system 
(audible and visual) on the VI vehicle line as standard equipment. 
According to Hyundai, the Smart-key immobilizer device allows the 
driver/operator to access and operate the vehicle by using a valid FOB 
key and that no other actions by mechanical key or a remote control 
unit are necessary. Hyundai further states that the immobilizer is 
automatically activated when the electronic key code of the FOB key is 
removed from the smart-key immobilizer control unit. The audible and 
visual alarm system is automatically activated when the electronic key 
code of the FOB key is removed from the smart-key immobilizer control 
unit, all vehicle doors and the hood are closed, and all the doors are 
locked. If the device is armed and unauthorized entry is attempted, the 
vehicle's horn will sound and the hazard lamps will flash.
    Hyundai stated that its Smart-key immobilizer device also features 
passive vehicle access, trunk access and door locking. Specifically, 
Hyundai stated that if a valid FOB key is in the range defined by this 
device, the device will automatically detect and authenticate the FOB 
via wireless communication between the FOB key and the Smart-key 
immobilizer unit. If communication is authenticated, the device will 
allow passive accessibility to the doors and/or trunk, and/or passive 
locking of all the doors.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Hyundai 
provided information on the reliability and durability of the device. 
Hyundai conducted component tests and on-vehicle tests for the Smart-
key immobilizer system and the alarm system in accordance with the EEC, 
UNECE, Korea standard and Hyundai in-house standard. Specifically, 
Hyundai provided approval numbers for all tests performed
    In support of its belief that its antitheft device will be as 
effective as compliance with the parts marking requirements in reducing 
and deterring vehicle theft, Hyundai referenced and provided an April 
2006 report by JP Research, Inc., which concluded that antitheft 
devices were consistently much more effective in reducing thefts when 
compared to parts marking. The JP Research report showed that of the 24 
vehicle lines studied, those with antitheft devices installed were 70% 
more effective than parts marking in deterring theft. Hyundai also 
provided theft data on other manufacturer's vehicle lines (Lincoln Town 
Car, Chrysler Town and Country, Mazda MX-5 Miata and Mazda 3) that have 
been exempted from the theft prevention standard. Hyundai stated

[[Page 6254]]

that it believes that this data supports the conclusion of the JP 
Research report that the installation of antitheft devices is at least 
as effective as complying with the parts marking requirements in 
reducing and deterring theft. Theft rates for the Lincoln Town Car, 
Chrysler Town and Country, Mazda MX-5 Miata and Mazda 3 all are below 
the median theft rate of 3.5826. Hyundai also compared the theft rates 
for its Azera model which has been installed with an antitheft device 
as standard equipment since (MY 2006) and was granted an exemption from 
the theft prevention standard in MY 2008 to the overall theft rate 
reported by NHTSA for model years (MYs') 2006 and 2007. The theft rate 
for the MY 2006 Hyundai Azera was 0.7758 which was comparatively lower 
than the overall theft rate of 2.08 for MY 2006. The theft rate for the 
MY 2007 Azera was 1.8003, also comparatively lower than the overall 
theft rate of 1.86 for MY 2007. Conclusively, Hyundai stated that it 
believes the data indicate that installation of antitheft devices are 
effective in reducing thefts.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Hyundai on the 
device, the agency believes that the antitheft device for the VI 
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). 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.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants 
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part 
541, either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon 
supporting 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 Hyundai has provided adequate reasons for its belief that 
the antitheft device for the Hyundai VI 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 Hyundai 
provided about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full 
Hyundai's petition for an exemption for the MY 2011 VI 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 543.7(f) contains publication requirements with respect 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 vehicle line, 
it must formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the 
vehicle line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR 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, Sec.  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 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: February 2, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-2595 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P