Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc., 22051-22053 [2017-09510]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
petition is shown in the heading of this
notice.
DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477–78).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview: Autoliv, Inc. (Autoliv),
has determined that certain Autoliv seat
belt assemblies do not fully comply
with paragraph S4.3(j)(2)(i) of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Autoliv
filed a noncompliance report dated
December 1, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Autoliv also
petitioned NHTSA on December 23,
2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d)
and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for
an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of Autoliv’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.
II. Seat Belt Assemblies Involved:
Approximately 31,682 Autoliv R230.2
and R200.2 front seat LH10° seat belt
assemblies manufactured between May
6, 2016, and October 18, 2016, are
potentially involved. Autoliv sold the
subject seat belt assemblies to BMW of
North America, LLC and Jaguar Land
Rover North America, LLC for
installation in their vehicles (‘‘affected
vehicles’’).
III. Noncompliance: Autoliv explains
that the noncompliance is that the
Emergency Locking Retractor (ELR) in
the subject safety belt assemblies are
equipped with a vehicle-sensitive
locking mechanism which does not lock
as designed when subjected to the
requirements of paragraph S4.3(j)(2)(ii)
of FMVSS No. 209.
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of
FMVSS No. 209 states in pertinent part:
S4.3 Requirements for hardware . . .
(j) Emergency-locking retractor . . .
(2) For seat belt assemblies manufactured
on or after February 22, 2007 and for
manufacturers opting for early compliance.
An emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1
or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in
accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph S5.2(j)(2) . . .
(ii) Shall lock before the webbing payout
exceeds the maximum limit of 25 mm when
the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of
0.7 g under the applicable test conditions of
S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A) or (B). The retractor is
determined to be locked when the webbing
belt load tension is at least 35 N.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
V. Summary of Autoliv’s Petition:
Autoliv described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that
the noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
In support of its petition, Autoliv
submitted the following reasoning:
(a) ELR is Voluntarily Equipped with
a Webbing Sensitive Locking
Mechanism: The ELR also contains a
voluntary webbing sensitive locking
mechanism. The webbing sensitive
locking mechanism is designed to lock
at approximately 1.4–2.0g with no more
than 50mm webbing payout. The
webbing-sensitive locking mechanism
was designed to meet the requirements
of other non-US markets.
(b) Necessary Reliance on Automaker
In-Vehicle Assessments to Support
Autoliv’s Petition: With regard to the
effect of the ELR on the retractor locking
performance of the seatbelt, as the
equipment manufacturer, Autoliv is not
in a position to provide testing and data
on in-vehicle performance issues.
However, Autoliv has consulted on and
reviewed the testing performed by both
BMW and JLR and even participated in
some of the testing. Autoliv believes the
tests substantiate the claims set forth in
both the BMW petition and JLR petition.
Therefore, Autoliv adopts and
incorporates by reference, the test
results summarized in both the BMW
and JLR petitions.
(c) Owner Contacts to Autoliv: Autoliv
has not received any contacts from
vehicle owners regarding this issue.
(d) Accidents/Injuries: Autoliv is not
aware of any accidents or injuries that
have occurred as a result of this issue.
(e) Prior NHTSA Rulings re
Manufacturer Petitions: NHTSA
previously granted a petition from
General Motors (GM) on a very similar
issue. [69 FR 19897, Docket No.
NHTSA–2002–12366, Apr 14, 2004].
GM provided test results and analyses
indicating that while there existed a
non-functional vehicle sensitive locking
mechanism within the safety belt
assembly ELR, the webbing sensitive
locking mechanism provided
comparable restraint performance to
that of a fully functional vehicle
sensitive locking mechanism.
(f) Autoliv Production: Autoliv
production has been corrected to fully
conform to FMVSS No. 209 Sections
4.3(j)(2)(i) and (ii).
Autoliv concluded by expressing the
belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of
the noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22051
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
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, any
decision on this petition only applies to
the subject seat belt assemblies that
Autoliv no longer controlled at the time
it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this
petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors, equipment distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
offer for sale, or introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant safety
belt assemblies under their control after
Autoliv notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
501.8.
Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017–09498 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Hyundai America Technical
Center, Inc.
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
This document grants in full
the Hyundai America Technical Center,
Inc.’s (HATCI) petition for exemption of
the Ioniq vehicle line in accordance
with the Exemption from the 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 partsmarking requirements of the Federal
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (Theft Prevention Standard).
Hyundai also requested confidential
treatment for specific information in its
petition. While official notification
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
22052
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices
granting or denying its request for
confidential treatment will be address
by separate letter, no confidential
information provided for purposes of
this document has been disclosed.
The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2017 model year (MY).
DATES:
Ms.
Carlita Ballard, International Policy,
Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs,
NHTSA, West Building, W43–439, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Ms. Ballard’s phone number
is (202) 366–5222. Her fax number is
(202) 493–2990.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
In a
petition dated September 8, 2016,
Hyundai requested an exemption from
the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard for its Ioniq
vehicle line beginning with MY 2017.
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 the entire
vehicle line.
Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a
manufacturer may petition NHTSA to
grant an exemption for one vehicle line
per model year. In its petition, Hyundai
provided a detailed description and
diagram of the identity, design, and
location of the components of the
antitheft device for its Ioniq vehicle
line. Hyundai stated that the MY 2017
Ioniq will include electric vehicle (EV),
hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), and plug
in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)
models in its vehicle line. Hyundai also
stated that it will offer two types of
antitheft immobilizer systems on its
Ioniq vehicle line. Hyundai further
stated that the Ioniq will be installed
with an immobilizer device as standard
equipment on the entire vehicle line.
Specifically, Hyundai stated that the
vehicle line will be equipped with
either a smart-key type of immobilizer
system with alarm or a transponder
(non-smart key) type of immobilizer
system with alarm as standard
equipment. Key components of the
smart-key immobilizer system are an
engine control unit/engine management
system (EMS), vehicle control unit
(VCU), smart-key unit (SMK), FOB
smart-key, and a low frequency antenna
(LF). Key components of the
transponder immobilizer system are an
engine control unit/engine management
system (EMS), FOB folding key,
immobilizer control unit, and an
antenna coil. Hyundai further stated
that it will offer an audible and visual
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
alarm as standard equipment on the
vehicle line.
Hyundai’s submission is considered a
complete petition as required by 49 CFR
543.7, in that it meets the general
requirements contained in § 543.5 and
the specific content requirements of
§ 543.6.
In addressing the specific content
requirements of § 543.6, Hyundai
provided information on the reliability
and durability of the device. Hyundai
conducted and completed component
tests for both antitheft immobilizer
systems in accordance with the UNECE
R–116.00, UNECE R–10.04, Korean
standards 41.5.1, 41.5.2, 41.5.3, and
Hyundai in-house standards TDP
Electronic 02–02–14 and 02–03–25.
Hyundai stated that all testing met its
standard requirements. Hyundai stated
that its smart-key immobilizer system is
a push button system that starts or stops
the engine through an encrypted
authentication and authorization
process of communication between the
FOB smart-key and the SMK. Hyundai
stated that the SMK manages all
functions related to the communication
between the start/stop button, the FOB
key and the VCU or EMS. The SMK
communicates with the FOB smart-key
by generating an encrypted request as a
modulated low frequency signal that the
LF antenna outputs to the FOB smartkey. Hyundai stated that when the two
encoded keys coincide with each other,
the vehicle can be started, stopped and
operated in accessory mode. Activation
of the smart-key immobilizer system
occurs when the start/stop button is
pushed to the ‘‘OFF’’ status and when
the electronic key code of the FOB key
is removed from the smart-key
immobilizer control unit or from the
vehicle.
According to Hyundai, the smart-key
immobilizer system allows the driver/
operator to access and operate the
vehicle by using a valid FOB key. No
other actions by a mechanical key or a
remote control unit are required.
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. The
audible and visual alarm system is also
automatically activated when 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
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
attempted, the vehicle’s horn will sound
and the hazard lamps will flash.
Hyundai stated that its transponder
key immobilizer system is a FOB key
immobilizer system that starts or stops
the engine through an encrypted
authorization process between the FOB
key, the immobilizer, and the EMS.
Hyundai stated that the system enables
the start and stop of the vehicle by
insertion of a key into the ignition.
Activation of the device occurs when
the ignition switch is turned to the
‘‘OFF’’ position. Deactivation occurs
when the ignition key is turned to the
‘‘ON’’ position. The transponder in the
FOB key transmits an ID code to the
immobilizer unit via the immobilizer
coil; the EMS then transmits a question
code to the immobilizer unit using a
serial line. The immobilizer unit then
transmits the answer code it received
from the FOB key to the EMS. If the key
is validated, the EMS enables the engine
to start or prevents the engine from
starting if the key is not validated.
In support of its petition, Hyundai
referenced a JP Research Report on the
effectiveness of parts-marking, which
looked at the relative effectiveness of
parts-marking and antitheft devices. The
study concluded that for the 24 model
lines used in its analysis, antitheft
devices were 70% more effective than
parts-marking in deterring theft. Based
on the report, Hyundai also referenced
the theft rates of other manufacturers’
vehicle lines, i.e., the Lincoln Town Car,
Mazda MX–5 Miata, Mercedes-Benz
E210, and the Mazda 3, that were
exempted from the theft prevention
standard. Hyundai stated that it believes
the report showed that the installation
of antitheft devices is at least as
effective as complying with partsmarking requirements in reducing and
deterring vehicle thefts. The theft rates
for these lines using an average of three
model years’ data (2011–2013) are
1.0557, 0.2148, 0.9883, and 1.3535
respectively.
Based on the evidence submitted by
Hyundai, the agency believes that the
antitheft device for the Ioniq 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). 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 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
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices
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 partsmarking 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 Ioniq
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 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 Ioniq 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 partsmarking 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. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:52 May 10, 2017
Jkt 241001
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 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 CFR 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017–09510 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Toyota Motor North
America, Inc.
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
This document grants in full
the Toyota Motor North America, Inc.’s
(Toyota) petition for an exemption of
the Lexus NX vehicle line in accordance
with the 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 partsmarking requirements of the Federal
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (Theft Prevention Standard).
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2018 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah Mazyck, International Policy,
Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs,
NHTSA, W43–439, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms.
Mazyck’s phone number is (202) 366–
4139. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a
petition dated December 7, 2016, Toyota
requested an exemption from the partsSUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22053
marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Lexus NX
vehicle line beginning with MY 2018.
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 the entire
vehicle line.
Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a
manufacturer may petition NHTSA to
grant an exemption for one vehicle line
per model year. In its petition, Toyota
provided a detailed description and
diagram of the identity, design, and
location of the components of the
antitheft device for the Lexus NX
vehicle line. Toyota stated that its MY
2018 Lexus NX vehicle line and NX
hybrid vehicle (HV) model will be
installed with a ‘‘smart entry and start’’
system and an engine immobilizer
device as standard equipment. Toyota
further explained that the ‘‘smart entry
and start’’ system on its Lexus NX
vehicle line will have slightly different
components than those on its NX HV
model. Key components of the ‘‘smart
entry and start’’ system on the Lexus NX
vehicle line will include an engine
immobilizer, a certification electronic
control unit (ECU), engine switch,
steering lock ECU, security indicator,
door control receiver, electrical key, an
electronic control module (ECM) and an
ID code box. The key components
installed on its NX HV model will also
include a power switch and a power
source HV–ECU. Toyota stated that it
will also install an audible and visual
alarm system on its Lexus NX vehicle
line as standard equipment and that
there will be position switches installed
on the vehicle to protect the hood and
doors from unauthorized tampering/
opening. Toyota further explained
locking of the doors can be
accomplished through use of a
conventional key, wireless switch
incorporated within the key fob or its
smart entry system, and that
unauthorized tampering with the hood
or door without using one of these
methods will cause the position
switches to trigger its alarm system.
Toyota’s submission is considered a
complete petition as required by 49 CFR
543.7 in that it meets the general
requirements contained in § 543.5 and
the specific content requirements of
§ 543.6.
In addressing the specific content
requirements of § 543.6, Toyota
provided information on the reliability
and durability of its proposed device.
To ensure reliability and durability of
the device, Toyota conducted tests
based on its own specified standards.
E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM
11MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22051-22053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09510]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; Hyundai 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 America Technical
Center, Inc.'s (HATCI) petition for exemption of the Ioniq vehicle line
in accordance with the Exemption from the 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 the Federal Motor
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (Theft Prevention Standard). Hyundai
also requested confidential treatment for specific information in its
petition. While official notification
[[Page 22052]]
granting or denying its request for confidential treatment will be
address by separate letter, no confidential information provided for
purposes of this document has been disclosed.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2017 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West Building, W43-
439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's
phone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated September 8, 2016,
Hyundai requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of
the Theft Prevention Standard for its Ioniq vehicle line beginning with
MY 2017. 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 the entire vehicle line.
Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition,
Hyundai provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity,
design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for its
Ioniq vehicle line. Hyundai stated that the MY 2017 Ioniq will include
electric vehicle (EV), hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), and plug in
hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) models in its vehicle line. Hyundai also
stated that it will offer two types of antitheft immobilizer systems on
its Ioniq vehicle line. Hyundai further stated that the Ioniq will be
installed with an immobilizer device as standard equipment on the
entire vehicle line. Specifically, Hyundai stated that the vehicle line
will be equipped with either a smart-key type of immobilizer system
with alarm or a transponder (non-smart key) type of immobilizer system
with alarm as standard equipment. Key components of the smart-key
immobilizer system are an engine control unit/engine management system
(EMS), vehicle control unit (VCU), smart-key unit (SMK), FOB smart-key,
and a low frequency antenna (LF). Key components of the transponder
immobilizer system are an engine control unit/engine management system
(EMS), FOB folding key, immobilizer control unit, and an antenna coil.
Hyundai further stated that it will offer an audible and visual alarm
as standard equipment on the vehicle line.
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.
In addressing the specific content requirements of Sec. 543.6,
Hyundai provided information on the reliability and durability of the
device. Hyundai conducted and completed component tests for both
antitheft immobilizer systems in accordance with the UNECE R-116.00,
UNECE R-10.04, Korean standards 41.5.1, 41.5.2, 41.5.3, and Hyundai in-
house standards TDP Electronic 02-02-14 and 02-03-25. Hyundai stated
that all testing met its standard requirements. Hyundai stated that its
smart-key immobilizer system is a push button system that starts or
stops the engine through an encrypted authentication and authorization
process of communication between the FOB smart-key and the SMK. Hyundai
stated that the SMK manages all functions related to the communication
between the start/stop button, the FOB key and the VCU or EMS. The SMK
communicates with the FOB smart-key by generating an encrypted request
as a modulated low frequency signal that the LF antenna outputs to the
FOB smart-key. Hyundai stated that when the two encoded keys coincide
with each other, the vehicle can be started, stopped and operated in
accessory mode. Activation of the smart-key immobilizer system occurs
when the start/stop button is pushed to the ``OFF'' status and when the
electronic key code of the FOB key is removed from the smart-key
immobilizer control unit or from the vehicle.
According to Hyundai, the smart-key immobilizer system allows the
driver/operator to access and operate the vehicle by using a valid FOB
key. No other actions by a mechanical key or a remote control unit are
required. 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. The audible and visual alarm
system is also automatically activated when 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 transponder key immobilizer system is a FOB
key immobilizer system that starts or stops the engine through an
encrypted authorization process between the FOB key, the immobilizer,
and the EMS. Hyundai stated that the system enables the start and stop
of the vehicle by insertion of a key into the ignition. Activation of
the device occurs when the ignition switch is turned to the ``OFF''
position. Deactivation occurs when the ignition key is turned to the
``ON'' position. The transponder in the FOB key transmits an ID code to
the immobilizer unit via the immobilizer coil; the EMS then transmits a
question code to the immobilizer unit using a serial line. The
immobilizer unit then transmits the answer code it received from the
FOB key to the EMS. If the key is validated, the EMS enables the engine
to start or prevents the engine from starting if the key is not
validated.
In support of its petition, Hyundai referenced a JP Research Report
on the effectiveness of parts-marking, which looked at the relative
effectiveness of parts-marking and antitheft devices. The study
concluded that for the 24 model lines used in its analysis, antitheft
devices were 70% more effective than parts-marking in deterring theft.
Based on the report, Hyundai also referenced the theft rates of other
manufacturers' vehicle lines, i.e., the Lincoln Town Car, Mazda MX-5
Miata, Mercedes-Benz E210, and the Mazda 3, that were exempted from the
theft prevention standard. Hyundai stated that it believes the report
showed that the installation of antitheft devices is at least as
effective as complying with parts-marking requirements in reducing and
deterring vehicle thefts. The theft rates for these lines using an
average of three model years' data (2011-2013) are 1.0557, 0.2148,
0.9883, and 1.3535 respectively.
Based on the evidence submitted by Hyundai, the agency believes
that the antitheft device for the Ioniq 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 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
[[Page 22053]]
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 Ioniq 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 Ioniq 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 Sec.
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. 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 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 Sec.
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 CFR 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-09510 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
