82 FR 22051 - Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 90 (May 11, 2017)

Page Range		22051-22053
FR Document		2017-09510

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 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.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22051-22053]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices 22051

petition is shown in the heading of this V. Summary of Autoliv’s Petition: noncompliance, as required by 49
notice. Autoliv described the subject U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
DOT’s complete Privacy Act noncompliance and stated its belief that NHTSA notes that the statutory
Statement is available for review in a the noncompliance is inconsequential provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
Federal Register notice published on as it relates to motor vehicle safety. 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477–78). In support of its petition, Autoliv file petitions for a determination of
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: submitted the following reasoning: inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
I. Overview: Autoliv, Inc. (Autoliv), (a) ELR is Voluntarily Equipped with exempt manufacturers only from the
has determined that certain Autoliv seat a Webbing Sensitive Locking duties found in sections 30118 and
Mechanism: The ELR also contains a 30120, respectively, to notify owners,
belt assemblies do not fully comply
voluntary webbing sensitive locking purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
with paragraph S4.3(j)(2)(i) of Federal
mechanism. The webbing sensitive noncompliance and to remedy the
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS)
locking mechanism is designed to lock defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any
No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Autoliv
at approximately 1.4–2.0g with no more decision on this petition only applies to
filed a noncompliance report dated
than 50mm webbing payout. The the subject seat belt assemblies that
December 1, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR
webbing-sensitive locking mechanism Autoliv no longer controlled at the time
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
was designed to meet the requirements it determined that the noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Autoliv also
of other non-US markets. existed. However, any decision on this
petitioned NHTSA on December 23,
(b) Necessary Reliance on Automaker petition does not relieve vehicle
2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d)
In-Vehicle Assessments to Support distributors, equipment distributors and
and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for
Autoliv’s Petition: With regard to the dealers of the prohibitions on the sale,
an exemption from the notification and
effect of the ELR on the retractor locking offer for sale, or introduction or delivery
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
performance of the seatbelt, as the for introduction into interstate
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
equipment manufacturer, Autoliv is not commerce of the noncompliant safety
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
in a position to provide testing and data belt assemblies under their control after
relates to motor vehicle safety.
on in-vehicle performance issues. Autoliv notified them that the subject
This notice of receipt of Autoliv’s
However, Autoliv has consulted on and noncompliance existed.
petition is published under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 and does not represent reviewed the testing performed by both Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
any agency decision or other exercise of BMW and JLR and even participated in delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and
some of the testing. Autoliv believes the 501.8.
judgment concerning the merits of the
petition. tests substantiate the claims set forth in Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
II. Seat Belt Assemblies Involved: both the BMW petition and JLR petition. Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
Approximately 31,682 Autoliv R230.2 Therefore, Autoliv adopts and [FR Doc. 2017–09498 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am]
and R200.2 front seat LH10° seat belt incorporates by reference, the test
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
assemblies manufactured between May results summarized in both the BMW
6, 2016, and October 18, 2016, are and JLR petitions.
potentially involved. Autoliv sold the (c) Owner Contacts to Autoliv: Autoliv DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
subject seat belt assemblies to BMW of has not received any contacts from
North America, LLC and Jaguar Land vehicle owners regarding this issue. National Highway Traffic Safety
Rover North America, LLC for (d) Accidents/Injuries: Autoliv is not Administration
installation in their vehicles (‘‘affected aware of any accidents or injuries that
vehicles’’). have occurred as a result of this issue. Petition for Exemption From the
III. Noncompliance: Autoliv explains (e) Prior NHTSA Rulings re Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
that the noncompliance is that the Manufacturer Petitions: NHTSA Standard; Hyundai America Technical
Emergency Locking Retractor (ELR) in previously granted a petition from Center, Inc.
the subject safety belt assemblies are General Motors (GM) on a very similar AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
equipped with a vehicle-sensitive issue. [69 FR 19897, Docket No. Safety Administration (NHTSA),
locking mechanism which does not lock NHTSA–2002–12366, Apr 14, 2004]. Department of Transportation (DOT).
as designed when subjected to the GM provided test results and analyses ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
requirements of paragraph S4.3(j)(2)(ii) indicating that while there existed a
of FMVSS No. 209. non-functional vehicle sensitive locking SUMMARY: This document grants in full
IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of mechanism within the safety belt the Hyundai America Technical Center,
FMVSS No. 209 states in pertinent part: assembly ELR, the webbing sensitive Inc.’s (HATCI) petition for exemption of
locking mechanism provided the Ioniq vehicle line in accordance
S4.3 Requirements for hardware . . .
(j) Emergency-locking retractor . . .
comparable restraint performance to with the Exemption from the Theft
(2) For seat belt assemblies manufactured that of a fully functional vehicle Prevention Standard. This petition is
on or after February 22, 2007 and for sensitive locking mechanism. granted because the agency has
manufacturers opting for early compliance. (f) Autoliv Production: Autoliv determined that the antitheft device to
An emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1 production has been corrected to fully be placed on the line as standard
or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in conform to FMVSS No. 209 Sections equipment is likely to be as effective in
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

accordance with the procedures specified in 4.3(j)(2)(i) and (ii). reducing and deterring motor vehicle
paragraph S5.2(j)(2) . . . Autoliv concluded by expressing the theft as compliance with the parts-
(ii) Shall lock before the webbing payout belief that the subject noncompliance is marking requirements of the Federal
exceeds the maximum limit of 25 mm when
the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of
inconsequential as it relates to motor Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
0.7 g under the applicable test conditions of vehicle safety, and that its petition to be Standard (Theft Prevention Standard).
S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A) or (B). The retractor is exempted from providing notification of Hyundai also requested confidential
determined to be locked when the webbing the noncompliance, as required by 49 treatment for specific information in its
belt load tension is at least 35 N. U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the petition. While official notification

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 May 10, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM 11MYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 90 / Thursday, May 11, 2017 / Notices 22053

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the from the one specified in that marking requirements of the Theft
reliability and durability of the device. exemption. Prevention Standard for the Lexus NX
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 The agency wishes to minimize the vehicle line beginning with MY 2018.
CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a administrative burden that § 543.9(c)(2) The petition requested an exemption
petition for exemption from the parts- could place on exempted vehicle from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR
marking requirements of part 541, either manufacturers and itself. The agency part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
in whole or in part, if it determines that, did not intend part 543 to require the Prevention Standard, based on the
based upon supporting evidence, the submission of a modification petition installation of an antitheft device as
standard equipment antitheft device is for every change to the components or standard equipment for the entire
likely to be as effective in reducing and design of an antitheft device. The vehicle line.
deterring motor vehicle theft as significance of many such changes Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a
compliance with the parts-marking could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA manufacturer may petition NHTSA to
requirements of part 541. The agency suggests that if the manufacturer grant an exemption for one vehicle line
finds that Hyundai has provided contemplates making any changes the per model year. In its petition, Toyota
adequate reasons for its belief that the effects of which might be characterized provided a detailed description and
antitheft device for the Hyundai Ioniq as de minimis, it should consult the diagram of the identity, design, and
vehicle line is likely to be as effective agency before preparing and submitting location of the components of the
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle a petition to modify. antitheft device for the Lexus NX
theft as compliance with the parts- vehicle line. Toyota stated that its MY
Authority: 49 CFR 1.95.
marking requirements of the Theft 2018 Lexus NX vehicle line and NX
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541). Raymond R. Posten, hybrid vehicle (HV) model will be
This conclusion is based on the Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. installed with a ‘‘smart entry and start’’
information Hyundai provided about its [FR Doc. 2017–09510 Filed 5–10–17; 8:45 am] system and an engine immobilizer
device. BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
device as standard equipment. Toyota
For the foregoing reasons, the agency further explained that the ‘‘smart entry
hereby grants in full Hyundai’s petition and start’’ system on its Lexus NX
for an exemption for the Ioniq vehicle DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION vehicle line will have slightly different
line from the parts-marking components than those on its NX HV
requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The National Highway Traffic Safety model. Key components of the ‘‘smart
Administration entry and start’’ system on the Lexus NX
agency notes that 49 CFR part 541,
vehicle line will include an engine
Appendix A–1, identifies those lines Petition for Exemption From the immobilizer, a certification electronic
that are exempted from the Theft Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention control unit (ECU), engine switch,
Prevention Standard for a given model Standard; Toyota Motor North steering lock ECU, security indicator,
year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains America, Inc. door control receiver, electrical key, an
publication requirements with respect
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic electronic control module (ECM) and an
to the disposition of all part 543
Safety Administration, Department of ID code box. The key components
petitions. Advanced listing, including
Transportation (DOT). installed on its NX HV model will also
the release of future product
include a power switch and a power
nameplates, the beginning model year ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
source HV–ECU. Toyota stated that it
for which the petition is granted and a will also install an audible and visual
general description of the antitheft SUMMARY: This document grants in full
the Toyota Motor North America, Inc.’s alarm system on its Lexus NX vehicle
device is necessary in order to notify line as standard equipment and that
law enforcement agencies of new (Toyota) petition for an exemption of
the Lexus NX vehicle line in accordance there will be position switches installed
vehicle lines exempted from the parts- on the vehicle to protect the hood and
marking requirements of the Theft with the Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard. This petition is doors from unauthorized tampering/
Prevention Standard. opening. Toyota further explained
If Hyundai decides not to use the granted because the agency has
determined that the antitheft device to locking of the doors can be
exemption for this vehicle line, it must accomplished through use of a
formally notify the agency. If such a be placed on the line as standard
equipment is likely to be as effective in conventional key, wireless switch
decision is made, the vehicle line must incorporated within the key fob or its
be fully marked as required by 49 CFR reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the parts- smart entry system, and that
541.5 and § 541.6 (marking of major unauthorized tampering with the hood
component parts and replacement marking requirements of the Federal
Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention or door without using one of these
parts). methods will cause the position
NHTSA notes that if Hyundai wishes Standard (Theft Prevention Standard).
switches to trigger its alarm system.
in the future to modify the device on DATES: The exemption granted by this
Toyota’s submission is considered a
which this exemption is based, the notice is effective beginning with the complete petition as required by 49 CFR
company may have to submit a petition 2018 model year (MY). 543.7 in that it meets the general
to modify the exemption. Section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. requirements contained in § 543.5 and
543.7(d) states that a part 543 exemption Deborah Mazyck, International Policy, the specific content requirements of
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

applies only to vehicles that belong to Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, § 543.6.
a line exempted under this part and NHTSA, W43–439, 1200 New Jersey In addressing the specific content
equipped with the antitheft device on Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. requirements of § 543.6, Toyota
which the line’s exemption is based. Mazyck’s phone number is (202) 366– provided information on the reliability
Further, § 543.9(c)(2) provides for the 4139. Her fax number is (202) 493–2990. and durability of its proposed device.
submission of petitions to modify an SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a To ensure reliability and durability of
exemption to permit the use of an petition dated December 7, 2016, Toyota the device, Toyota conducted tests
antitheft device similar to but differing requested an exemption from the parts- based on its own specified standards.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 May 10, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\11MYN1.SGM 11MYN1

Document Created: 2017-05-11 00:14:39
Document Modified: 2017-05-11 00:14:39

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Grant of petition for exemption.
Dates		The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with the 2017 model year (MY).
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.
FR Citation		82 FR 22051

82 FR 22051 - Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 90 (May 11, 2017)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration