Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; Honda, 3733-3735 [2015-01117]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices
Kendall G. Webster
Mr. Webster, 56, has had ITDM since
2000. His endocrinologist examined him
in 2014 and certified that he has had no
severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting
in loss of consciousness, requiring the
assistance of another person, or
resulting in impaired cognitive function
that occurred without warning in the
past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in
the last 5 years. His endocrinologist
certifies that Mr. Webster understands
diabetes management and monitoring,
has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
safely. Mr. Webster meets the
requirements of the vision standard at
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2014
and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy.
He holds an operator’s license from
Oregon.
Christopher J. Wilson
Mr. Wilson, 40, has had ITDM since
2009. His endocrinologist examined him
in 2014 and certified that he has had no
severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting
in loss of consciousness, requiring the
assistance of another person, or
resulting in impaired cognitive function
that occurred without warning in the
past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in
the last 5 years. His endocrinologist
certifies that Mr. Wilson understands
diabetes management and monitoring,
has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
safely. Mr. Wilson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist
examined him in 2014 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds an operator’s license from
Pennsylvania.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Mark P. Zimmerman
Mr. Zimmerman, 58, has had ITDM
since 1999. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2014 and certified that
he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of
consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in
impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12
months and no recurrent (2 or more)
severe hypoglycemic episodes in the
last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies
that Mr. Zimmerman understands
diabetes management and monitoring,
has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
safely. Mr. Zimmerman meets the
requirements of the vision standard at
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Jan 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2014
and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B
CDL from Nevada.
III. Request for Comments
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, FMCSA requests public
comment from all interested persons on
the exemption petitions described in
this notice. We will consider all
comments received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated
in the date section of the notice.
FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users requires the Secretary
to revise its diabetes exemption program
established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR
52441).1 The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with
diabetes mellitus, and be consistent
with the criteria described in section
4018 of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination
of the requirement for 3 years of
experience operating CMVs while being
treated with insulin; and (2)
establishment of a specified minimum
period of insulin use to demonstrate
stable control of diabetes before being
allowed to operate a CMV.
In response to section 4129, FMCSA
made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established
by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year
driving experience and fulfilled the
requirements of section 4129 while
continuing to ensure that operation of
CMVs by drivers with ITDM will
achieve the requisite level of safety
required of all exemptions granted
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e).
Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA
to ensure that drivers of CMVs with
ITDM are not held to a higher standard
than other drivers, with the exception of
limited operating, monitoring and
medical requirements that are deemed
medically necessary.
The FMCSA concluded that all of the
operating, monitoring and medical
requirements set out in the September 3,
2003 notice, except as modified, were in
compliance with section 4129(d).
Therefore, all of the requirements set
out in the September 3, 2003 notice,
except as modified by the notice in the
Federal Register on November 8, 2005
(70 FR 67777), remain in effect.
1 Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a
‘‘final rule.’’ However, the 2003 notice did not issue
a ‘‘final rule’’ but did establish the procedures and
standards for issuing exemptions for drivers with
ITDM.
PO 00000
Frm 00187
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3733
IV. Submitting Comments
You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that
you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone
number in the body of your document
so that FMCSA can contact you if there
are questions regarding your
submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov and in the
search box insert the docket number
FMCSA–2014–0312 and click the search
button. When the new screen appears,
click on the blue ‘‘Comment Now!’’
button on the right hand side of the
page. On the new page, enter
information required including the
specific section of this document to
which each comment applies, and
provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope.
We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment
period and may change this proposed
rule based on your comments. FMCSA
may issue a final rule at any time after
the close of the comment period.
V. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as any
documents mentioned in this preamble,
To submit your comment online, go to
https://www.regulations.gov and in the
search box insert the docket number
FMCSA–2014–0312 and click ‘‘Search.’’
Next, click ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ and
you will find all documents and
comments related to the proposed
rulemaking.
Issued on: January 12, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015–01198 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Petition for Exemption From the
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Honda
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
23JAN1
3734
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices
Grant of petition for exemption.
This document grants in full
the American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s
(Honda) petition for an exemption of the
Honda CR–V 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 partsmarking requirements of 49 CFR part
541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard (Theft Prevention
Standard).
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2016 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Carlita Ballard, Office of 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 November 3, 2014, Honda
requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the CR–V
vehicle line beginning with MY 2016.
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, Honda
provided a detailed description and
diagram of the identity, design, and
location of the components of the
antitheft device for the CR–V vehicle
line. Honda stated that its CR–V vehicle
line will include a 2WD and a 4WD
variation. Honda stated that its MY 2016
vehicle line will be installed with a
passive, transponder-based, electronicengine immobilizer antitheft device as
standard equipment. Key components of
the antitheft device will include a
passive immobilizer, transponder
ignition key, ‘‘smart entry’’ remote,
Powertrain Control Module (PCM) and
an Immobilizer Entry System (IMOES).
Honda also stated that it will offer two
types of ignition systems on its CR–V
vehicle line. Specifically, Honda stated
that the CR–V vehicle line will be
offered with a ‘‘keyed ignition’’ system
or a ‘‘smart entry with push button
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Jan 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
start’’ ignition system (‘‘smart entry’’).
The ‘‘keyed ignition’’ system will be
installed on its 2WD LX and 4WD LX
models and the ‘‘smart entry’’ system
will be installed on its 2WD EX/EXL/
Touring models, and its 4WD EX/EXL/
Touring models.
Honda’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.
Honda stated that activation of its
‘‘keyed ignition’’ system occurs when
the engine is switched to the ‘‘OFF’’
position. Honda further stated that its
immobilization device is always active
until the vehicle is started using a
matching ignition key and will be
activated again each time the engine is
switched off. Deactivation of the
immobilizer device occurs when a valid
key and matching immobilization code
is verified, allowing the engine to start
and continue normal operations.
Specifically, the immobilization system
automatically checks for a matching
code each time starting of the vehicle is
attempted. A matching code must be
validated by both the PCM and IMOES
in order for the engine to start. Honda
stated that if an incorrect key is used to
try and start the vehicle, the PCM will
prevent fueling of the engine but allow
the vehicle to start and run a few
seconds before it automatically switches
off and the immobilizer telltale
indicator begins to flash.
According to Honda, the ‘‘smart
entry’’ system operates identically to its
‘‘keyed ignition’’ system except that
ignition for its ‘‘smart entry’’ system
vehicle is started by pushing the Engine
Start/Stop button located to the right of
the steering wheel on the vehicle
dashboard. Honda stated that activation
of its ‘‘smart entry’’ system occurs when
the Start/Stop button is switched to the
‘‘OFF’’ position. Honda stated that the
‘‘smart entry’’ system operates once the
remote is within operating range, the
start/stop button is pushed and
matching codes are verified by both the
PCM and the IMOES, allowing the
engine to start. Deactivation of the
device occurs when a ‘‘smart entry’’
remote with matching codes is placed
within the operating range and verified,
allowing the engine to continue normal
operations. Honda further states that if
a ‘‘smart entry’’ remote without a
matching code is placed inside the
operating range and the Engine Start/
Stop button is pushed, the PCM will
prevent fueling and starting of the
engine.
In order to attract attention to an
unauthorized person attempting to enter
PO 00000
Frm 00188
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
its vehicles without the use of a
transponder ignition key or a ‘‘smart
entry’’ remote, Honda stated that it will
install a vehicle security system as
standard equipment on all CR–V
vehicles to monitor attempts of
unauthorized entry. Specifically, Honda
stated that whenever an attempt is made
to open one of its vehicle doors, hood
or trunk without turning a key in the
key cylinder, or using the key fob to
disarm the vehicle, the vehicle’s horn
will sound and its lights will flash. The
vehicle security system is activated
when all of the doors are locked and the
hood and trunk are closed and locked.
Honda’s vehicle security system is
deactivated by using the key fob to
unlock the vehicle doors or by
unlocking the driver’s door with the
physical ignition key. Honda stated that
deactivation of the vehicle’s security
system feature in its ‘‘smart entry’’
vehicles occurs when the ‘‘smart entry’’
remote is within operating range and the
operator grabs either of the vehicle’s
front door handles.
Honda also stated that its CR–V
vehicle line will be installed with other
features that have been designed to
prevent unauthorized entry of its
vehicles without the use of a key (i.e.,
specially-styled ignition key and key
cylinders). Honda stated that its key
cylinders will be designed to be
resistant to tampering and its key fob
remote will utilize rolling codes for the
lock and unlock functions of its
vehicles. Honda will also equip its
vehicle line with a hood release,
counterfeit resistant VIN plates and
secondary VINs as standard equipment.
Honda further stated that as an
additional security measure, key
duplication will be strictly controlled by
its authorized dealers.
In addressing the specific content
requirements of § 543.6, Honda
provided information on the reliability
and durability of its proposed device.
To ensure reliability and durability of
the device, Honda conducted tests based
on its own specified standards. Honda
provided a detailed list of the tests it
used to validate the integrity, durability
and reliability of the device and believes
that it follows a rigorous development
process to ensure that its antitheft
device will be reliable and robust for the
life of the vehicle and does not require
the presence of a key fob battery to
function. Additionally, Honda stated
that its antitheft device has no moving
parts (i.e., the PCM, IMOES, ignition
key, smart entry remote and the
electrical components are found within
its own housing units) which reduces
the chance for deterioration or wear
resulting from normal use.
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
23JAN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices
In support of its belief that its
antitheft device will be as or more
effective in reducing and deterring
vehicle theft than the parts-marking
requirement, Honda referenced data
showing several instances of the
effectiveness of its proposed
immobilizer device. Honda first
installed an immobilizer device as
standard equipment on its MY 2002 CR–
V vehicles and referenced NHTSA’s
theft rate data showing a decrease in
thefts since the installation of its
immobilizer device. NHTSA’s theft rates
for MYs 2010, 2011, and 2012 are
0.3195, 0.2742 and 0.2953 respectively.
Using an average of 3 MYs theft data
(2010–2012), the theft rate for the CR–
V vehicle line is well below the median
at 0.2963.
Honda also referenced a September
2005 Highway Loss Data Institute report
showing an overall reduction in theft
rates for the Honda CR–V vehicles after
introduction of the immobilizer device.
Honda stated that the data show that
there was an immediate decrease in
MY/calendar year 2002 thefts with its
immobilizer-installed vehicles but also
showed sustained lower theft rates in
following years.
Based on the evidence submitted by
Honda on its antitheft device, the
agency believes that the antitheft device
for the CR–V 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.
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 Honda has provided adequate
reasons for its belief that the antitheft
device for the Honda CR–V 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. This conclusion is based on
the information Honda provided about
its device.
Based on the supporting evidence
submitted by Honda on its device, the
agency believes that the antitheft device
for the CR–V 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Jan 22, 2015
Jkt 235001
will provide the five types of
performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3):
Promoting activation; attract 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 Honda’s petition
for exemption for the CR–V vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of
49 CFR part 541, beginning with the
2016 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 model year. 49 CFR
part 543.7(f) contains publication
requirements incident to the disposition
of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced
listing, including the release of future
product nameplates, the beginning
model year for which the petition is
granted and a general description of the
antitheft device is necessary in order to
notify law enforcement agencies of new
vehicle lines exempted from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
If Honda decides not to use the
exemption for this line, it must formally
notify the agency. If such a decision is
made, the line must be fully marked
according to the requirements under 49
CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of
major component parts and replacement
parts).
NHTSA notes that if Honda wishes in
the future to modify the device on
which this exemption is based, the
company may have to submit a petition
to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d)
states that a Part 543 exemption applies
only to vehicles that belong to a line
exempted under this part and equipped
with the anti-theft device on which the
line’s exemption is based. Further, Part
543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission
of petitions ‘‘to modify an exemption to
permit the use of an antitheft device
similar to but differing from the one
specified in that exemption.’’
The agency wishes to minimize the
administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted
vehicle manufacturers and itself. The
agency did not intend in drafting Part
543 to require the submission of a
modification petition for every change
to the components or design of an
antitheft device. The significance of
many such changes could be de
minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests
that if the manufacturer contemplates
making any changes, the effects of
PO 00000
Frm 00189
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3735
which might be characterized as de
minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a
petition to modify.
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR
part 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015–01117 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0093; Notice 2]
Grote Industries, LLC, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition.
AGENCY:
Grote Industries, LLC (Grote),
has determined that certain Grote bulk
nylon air brake tubing manufactured
during the period December 2013 to
March 2014 does not fully comply with
paragraph S11.2 of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
106; Brake Hoses. Grote has filed an
appropriate report dated June 13, 2014,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports.
ADDRESSES: For further information on
this decision contact Luis Figueroa,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), telephone
(202) 366–5298, facsimile (202) 366–
5930.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Grote’s Petition: Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the
rule implementing those provisions at
49 CFR part 556, Grote 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.
Notice of receipt of Grote’s petition
was published, with a 30-Day public
comment period, on September 15, 2014
in the Federal Register (79 FR 55066).
One comment was received but was
removed from the docket because its
content was not relevant to the petition.
To view the petition and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: https://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23JAN1.SGM
23JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3733-3735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01117]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; Honda
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
[[Page 3734]]
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document grants in full the American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.'s (Honda) petition for an exemption of the Honda CR-V 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 (Theft Prevention Standard).
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2016 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
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 November 3, 2014, Honda
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the CR-V vehicle line beginning with MY 2016.
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,
Honda provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity,
design, and location of the components of the antitheft device for the
CR-V vehicle line. Honda stated that its CR-V vehicle line will include
a 2WD and a 4WD variation. Honda stated that its MY 2016 vehicle line
will be installed with a passive, transponder-based, electronic-engine
immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment. Key components of
the antitheft device will include a passive immobilizer, transponder
ignition key, ``smart entry'' remote, Powertrain Control Module (PCM)
and an Immobilizer Entry System (IMOES). Honda also stated that it will
offer two types of ignition systems on its CR-V vehicle line.
Specifically, Honda stated that the CR-V vehicle line will be offered
with a ``keyed ignition'' system or a ``smart entry with push button
start'' ignition system (``smart entry''). The ``keyed ignition''
system will be installed on its 2WD LX and 4WD LX models and the
``smart entry'' system will be installed on its 2WD EX/EXL/Touring
models, and its 4WD EX/EXL/Touring models.
Honda'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.
Honda stated that activation of its ``keyed ignition'' system
occurs when the engine is switched to the ``OFF'' position. Honda
further stated that its immobilization device is always active until
the vehicle is started using a matching ignition key and will be
activated again each time the engine is switched off. Deactivation of
the immobilizer device occurs when a valid key and matching
immobilization code is verified, allowing the engine to start and
continue normal operations. Specifically, the immobilization system
automatically checks for a matching code each time starting of the
vehicle is attempted. A matching code must be validated by both the PCM
and IMOES in order for the engine to start. Honda stated that if an
incorrect key is used to try and start the vehicle, the PCM will
prevent fueling of the engine but allow the vehicle to start and run a
few seconds before it automatically switches off and the immobilizer
telltale indicator begins to flash.
According to Honda, the ``smart entry'' system operates identically
to its ``keyed ignition'' system except that ignition for its ``smart
entry'' system vehicle is started by pushing the Engine Start/Stop
button located to the right of the steering wheel on the vehicle
dashboard. Honda stated that activation of its ``smart entry'' system
occurs when the Start/Stop button is switched to the ``OFF'' position.
Honda stated that the ``smart entry'' system operates once the remote
is within operating range, the start/stop button is pushed and matching
codes are verified by both the PCM and the IMOES, allowing the engine
to start. Deactivation of the device occurs when a ``smart entry''
remote with matching codes is placed within the operating range and
verified, allowing the engine to continue normal operations. Honda
further states that if a ``smart entry'' remote without a matching code
is placed inside the operating range and the Engine Start/Stop button
is pushed, the PCM will prevent fueling and starting of the engine.
In order to attract attention to an unauthorized person attempting
to enter its vehicles without the use of a transponder ignition key or
a ``smart entry'' remote, Honda stated that it will install a vehicle
security system as standard equipment on all CR-V vehicles to monitor
attempts of unauthorized entry. Specifically, Honda stated that
whenever an attempt is made to open one of its vehicle doors, hood or
trunk without turning a key in the key cylinder, or using the key fob
to disarm the vehicle, the vehicle's horn will sound and its lights
will flash. The vehicle security system is activated when all of the
doors are locked and the hood and trunk are closed and locked. Honda's
vehicle security system is deactivated by using the key fob to unlock
the vehicle doors or by unlocking the driver's door with the physical
ignition key. Honda stated that deactivation of the vehicle's security
system feature in its ``smart entry'' vehicles occurs when the ``smart
entry'' remote is within operating range and the operator grabs either
of the vehicle's front door handles.
Honda also stated that its CR-V vehicle line will be installed with
other features that have been designed to prevent unauthorized entry of
its vehicles without the use of a key (i.e., specially-styled ignition
key and key cylinders). Honda stated that its key cylinders will be
designed to be resistant to tampering and its key fob remote will
utilize rolling codes for the lock and unlock functions of its
vehicles. Honda will also equip its vehicle line with a hood release,
counterfeit resistant VIN plates and secondary VINs as standard
equipment. Honda further stated that as an additional security measure,
key duplication will be strictly controlled by its authorized dealers.
In addressing the specific content requirements of Sec. 543.6,
Honda provided information on the reliability and durability of its
proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device,
Honda conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Honda
provided a detailed list of the tests it used to validate the
integrity, durability and reliability of the device and believes that
it follows a rigorous development process to ensure that its antitheft
device will be reliable and robust for the life of the vehicle and does
not require the presence of a key fob battery to function.
Additionally, Honda stated that its antitheft device has no moving
parts (i.e., the PCM, IMOES, ignition key, smart entry remote and the
electrical components are found within its own housing units) which
reduces the chance for deterioration or wear resulting from normal use.
[[Page 3735]]
In support of its belief that its antitheft device will be as or
more effective in reducing and deterring vehicle theft than the parts-
marking requirement, Honda referenced data showing several instances of
the effectiveness of its proposed immobilizer device. Honda first
installed an immobilizer device as standard equipment on its MY 2002
CR-V vehicles and referenced NHTSA's theft rate data showing a decrease
in thefts since the installation of its immobilizer device. NHTSA's
theft rates for MYs 2010, 2011, and 2012 are 0.3195, 0.2742 and 0.2953
respectively. Using an average of 3 MYs theft data (2010-2012), the
theft rate for the CR-V vehicle line is well below the median at
0.2963.
Honda also referenced a September 2005 Highway Loss Data Institute
report showing an overall reduction in theft rates for the Honda CR-V
vehicles after introduction of the immobilizer device. Honda stated
that the data show that there was an immediate decrease in MY/calendar
year 2002 thefts with its immobilizer-installed vehicles but also
showed sustained lower theft rates in following years.
Based on the evidence submitted by Honda on its antitheft device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the CR-V 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.
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
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 Honda has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Honda CR-V 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.
This conclusion is based on the information Honda provided about its
device.
Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Honda on its device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the CR-V 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; attract 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 Honda's
petition for exemption for the CR-V vehicle line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2016 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 model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains
publication requirements incident to the disposition of all Part 543
petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product
nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted
and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order
to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from
the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
If Honda decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
NHTSA notes that if Honda wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543
exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under
this part and equipped with the anti-theft device on which the line's
exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.
Under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-01117 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
