Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 12197-12199 [2016-05069]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2016 / Notices
conduct research as a foundation for the
development of motor vehicle standards
and traffic safety programs.
Data from NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis
Reporting System show that an average
of 3 children under the age of 14 died
each day in traffic crashes in 2013 and
an estimated 470 children were injured.
Child restraint systems (CRSs) are
effective at reducing the risk of injury
during motor vehicle crashes. Research
has shown a 28% reduction in risk of
death for children (aged 2–6 years)
compared to seat belts when CRSs are
installed correctly. Studies have
estimated rates of improper installation
of CRSs to be in the range of 70–80
percent.
Many information resources are
available to aid parents and caregivers
with proper child restraint system
selection and installation, including
hands-on instruction. In 1998, NHTSA
implemented a program for training and
certifying child passenger safety
technicians (CPSTs). Presently, Safe
Kids Worldwide hosts Child Car Seat
Inspection Stations nationwide which
provide parents and caregivers an
opportunity to receive one-on-one
instruction regarding proper use and
installation of child restraints from a
certified CPST. Research has shown that
hands-on instruction on CRS
installation is effective in reducing
misuse of seats. Unfortunately, this
resource seems to be underutilized.
Only about one out of ten drivers
interviewed for the National Child
Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS)
reported having their CRS inspected at
an inspection station.
At present, it is unclear what deters
and what encourages use of Child Car
Seat Inspection Stations and CPSTs.
One potential barrier is parent/caregiver
overconfidence leading to overconfident
parents and caregivers not recognizing
the need to visit an inspection station or
CPST. One example of this is the
NCRUSS where misuse was observed in
46% of cases, but where most drivers
reported being confident or very
confident that they chose the correct car
seat/booster seat and installed the car
seat/booster seat correctly. Potential
barriers to use don’t stop with
overconfidence; they could also include
logistical and practical matters, such as
awareness and accessibility.
Identifying and better understanding
the barriers that result in
underutilization of inspection stations
will allow NHTSA and other child
passenger safety stakeholders to develop
effective programs that promote and
encourage use of this important lifesaving resource.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:02 Mar 07, 2016
Jkt 238001
Description of the Likely Respondents
(Including Estimated Number, and
Proposed Frequency of Response to the
Collection of Information)—Under this
proposed data collection, the potential
respondent universe would be people
aged 18 years or older who regularly
transport children between the ages of 0
and 9 in their personal vehicles. NHTSA
will send survey requests to a sufficient
number of households to obtain 1,400
completed interviews. The requests will
be sent via postal mail.
Respondents within a household
would not be randomly selected. Rather,
the screener would ask the member of
the household who most frequently
drives children to complete the survey.
NHTSA considers this to be the person
in the household most likely to seek
CPS information and pursue CPS
training at an inspection station, and
therefore the most appropriate
respondent for this survey. Each
respondent would complete a single
survey; there will be no request for
additional follow-up information or
response.
Throughout the project, the privacy of
all participants would be protected.
Access to the online instrument would
be controlled using an alphanumeric
PIN, with access restricted to using
encrypted connection via Secure
Sockets Layer (SSL) certificates. To
protect the online instruments from
break-in attempts, the public site would
feature automatic access lockdown after
too many unsuccessful login attempts
are performed within a short amount of
time. Similarly, once an interview is
completed, the survey would no longer
be accessible to respondents using their
PINs. These two measures protect
respondent responses from being
compromised.
Personally-identifiable information
such as the postal address of sample
members would be kept separate from
the data collected, and would be stored
in restricted folders on secure password
protected servers that are only
accessible to study staff who have need
to access such information. In addition,
all data collected from respondents will
be reported in aggregate, and identifying
information would not be used in any
reports resulting from this data
collection effort. Rigorous deidentification procedures would be used
during summary and feedback stages to
prevent respondents from being
identified through reconstructive
means.
Estimate of the Total Annual
Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting From the Collection of
Information—NHTSA estimates that the
total respondent burden for this data
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12197
collection would be 942 hours. A
sufficient number of invitation letters
would be distributed for 7,000 potential
respondents to log onto the Web site
and take a 5 minute eligibility screener
(7,000 * 5 minutes = 35,000 minutes/60
= 583 hours). Of those who take the
eligibility screener, NHTSA estimates
that 1,400 would complete the full
survey which would average 15 minutes
in length (1,400 * 15 minutes = 21,000
minutes/60 = 350 hours). The data
collection would also include 9 hours of
burden for 9 people to complete
usability testing at 1 hour each to aid
survey instrument development (9 * 1
hour = 9 hours). The participants would
not incur any reporting cost from the
information collection. The participants
would also not incur any record keeping
burden or record keeping cost from the
information collection.
Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).
Issued in Washington, DC on March 3,
2016.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and
Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2016–05091 Filed 3–7–16; 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; American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.
AGENCY:
This document grants in full
the American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s
(Honda) petition for an exemption of the
Pilot 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 the 49 CFR
part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard (Theft Prevention
Standard).
SUMMARY:
The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2017 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah Mazyck, Office of International
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12198
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2016 / Notices
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
Programs, NHTSA, West Building,
W43–443, 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 November 6, 2015, Honda
requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Pilot
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 part 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 Pilot vehicle
line. Honda stated that its vehicle line
will offer a front-wheel drive and an allwheel drive variation. Honda further
stated that its MY 2017 Pilot vehicle
line will be installed with a
transponder-based, engine immobilizer
antitheft device as standard equipment.
Honda also stated that the Pilot vehicle
line will be equipped with a ‘‘smart
entry with push button start’’ ignition
system (‘‘smart entry’’) and an audible
and visible vehicle security system as
standard equipment on the entire line.
Key components of the antitheft device
will include a passive immobilizer,
‘‘smart entry’’ remote, powertrain
control module (PCM) and an
Immobilizer Entry System (IMOES).
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.
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. Honda stated that its
device does not require the presence of
a ‘‘smart entry’’ remote battery to
function nor does it have any moving
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:02 Mar 07, 2016
Jkt 238001
parts (i.e., the PCM, IMOES, ignition
key, ‘‘smart entry’’ remote and the
electrical components are found within
its own housing units), which it believes
reduces the chance for deterioration and
wear from normal use.
Honda stated that its immobilizer
device is always active without
requiring any action from the vehicle
operator, until the vehicle is started
using a matching ‘‘smart entry’’ remote.
Deactivation occurs when a ‘‘smart
entry’’ remote with matching codes is
placed within operating range. Ignition
of the ‘‘smart entry’’ system is started by
pushing the engine start/stop button
located to the right of the steering wheel
on the vehicle dashboard. Specifically,
Honda stated that the ‘‘smart entry’’
system automatically checks for the
immobilizer code when the ‘‘smart
entry’’ remote is within operating range
(inside the vehicle, close to the doors or
window or in close proximity outside
the vehicle’s exterior) and the vehicle is
started by pushing the engine start/stop
button. The matching code is validated
by the IMOES, allowing the engine to
start. 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. Additionally, the ignition
immobilizer telltale indicator will begin
flashing on the meter panel. Honda
further stated that activation of its
‘‘smart entry’’ system occurs when the
start/stop button is switched to the
‘‘OFF’’ position.
Honda stated that it will install an
audible and visible vehicle security
system as standard equipment on all its
Pilot vehicles to monitor any attempts of
unauthorized entry and to attract
attention to an unauthorized person
attempting to enter its vehicles without
the use of a key or a ‘‘smart entry’’
remote. 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 ‘‘smart entry’’
remote 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 buttons to unlock the
vehicle doors or having the ‘‘smart
entry’’ remote within operating range
when the operator grabs either of the
vehicle’s front door handles.
Honda believes that additional levels
of reliability, durability and security
will be accomplished because its ‘‘smart
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
entry’’ remote will utilize rolling codes
for the lock and unlock functions of its
vehicles. Honda stated that it will also
equip its vehicle line with a hood
release located inside the vehicle,
counterfeit resistant vehicle
identification number (VIN) plates and
secondary VINs as standard equipment.
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 2003
Pilot vehicles and referenced NHTSA’s
theft rate data for MYs 2003–2012
showing a consistent rate of thefts well
below the median of 3.5826 since the
installation of its immobilizer device.
NHTSA notes that the theft rates for
MYs 2011, 2012, and 2013 Pilot vehicle
line are 0.3844, 0.9846 and 1.2111
respectively. Using an average of three
MYs’ theft data (2011–2013), the theft
rate for the Pilot vehicle line is well
below the median at 0.8600.
Additionally, Honda referenced the
Highway Loss Data Institute’s 2004–
2015 Insurance Theft Report showing an
overall reduction in theft rates for the
Honda Pilot vehicles after introduction
of the immobilizer device.
Additionally, Honda stated that the
immobilizer device proposed for the
2017 Pilot is similar to the design
offered on its Honda Civic, Honda
Accord and Honda CR–V vehicles. The
agency granted the petitions for the
Honda Civic vehicle line in full
beginning with MY 2014 (see 61 FR
19363, March 29, 2013), the Honda
Accord vehicle line beginning with MY
2015 (see 79 FR 18409, April 1, 2014),
and the Honda CR–V vehicle line
beginning with MY 2016 (see 80 FR
3733, January 23, 2015). The agency
notes that the average theft rate for the
Honda Civic, Accord and CR–V vehicle
lines using three MYs’ data (MYs 2011
through 2013) are 0.8030, 0.7496 and
0.3119 respectively.
Based on the evidence submitted by
Honda on its antitheft device, the
agency believes that the antitheft device
for the Pilot 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
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2016 / Notices
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 Pilot 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 Pilot 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 § 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 Pilot vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of
49 CFR part 541, beginning with the
2017 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:02 Mar 07, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 antitheft 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.
Issued in Washington, DC under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2016–05069 Filed 3–7–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Proposed Collection of Information:
Application for Recognition as Natural
Guardian of a Minor Not Under Legal
Guardianship and for Disposition of
Minor’s Interest in Registered
Securities
Bureau of the Fiscal Service,
Treasury.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
The Department of the
Treasury, as part of its continuing effort
to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, invites the general public and
other Federal agencies to take this
opportunity to comment on a proposed
and/or continuing information
collection, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). Currently
the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within
the Department of the Treasury is
soliciting comments concerning the
Application for Recognition as Natural
Guardian of a Minor Not Under Legal
Guardianship and for Disposition of
Minor’s Interest in Registered Securities.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12199
Written comments should be
received on or before May 9, 2016 to be
assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments
and requests for further information to
Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bruce A.
Sharp, 200 Third Street A4–A,
Parkersburg, WV 26106–1328, or
bruce.sharp@fiscal.treasury.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Application for Recognition as
Natural Guardian of a Minor Not Under
Legal Guardianship and for Disposition
of Minor’s Interest in Registered
Securities.
OMB Number: 1530–0041 (Previously
approved as 1535–0105 as a collection
conducted by Department of the
Treasury/Bureau of the Public Debt.)
Transfer of OMB Control Number: The
Bureau of Public Debt (BPD) and the
Financial Management Service (FMS)
have consolidated to become the Bureau
of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service).
Information collection requests
previously held separately by BPD and
FMS will now be identified by a 1530
prefix, designating Fiscal Service.
Form Number: FS Form 2481.
Abstract: The information is collected
to apply for recognition as a natural
guardian and request disposition of
securities belonging to a minor in
situations where a natural guardian is
no longer acting or a legal representative
is not appointed.
Current Actions: Extension of a
previously approved collection.
Type of Review: Emergency.
Affected Public: Households and
Individuals.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
1,250.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 10
minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 208.
Request for Comments: Comments
submitted in response to this notice will
be summarized and/or included in the
request for OMB approval. All
comments will become a matter of
public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden of the collection of
information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology; and (e) estimates of capital
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12197-12199]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05069]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; American Honda Motor Co., 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 American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.'s (Honda) petition for an exemption of the Pilot 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 the 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 2017 model year (MY).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International
[[Page 12198]]
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West Building, W43-
443, 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 November 6, 2015, Honda
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Pilot 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 part 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 Pilot vehicle line. Honda stated that its vehicle line
will offer a front-wheel drive and an all-wheel drive variation. Honda
further stated that its MY 2017 Pilot vehicle line will be installed
with a transponder-based, engine immobilizer antitheft device as
standard equipment. Honda also stated that the Pilot vehicle line will
be equipped with a ``smart entry with push button start'' ignition
system (``smart entry'') and an audible and visible vehicle security
system as standard equipment on the entire line. Key components of the
antitheft device will include a passive immobilizer, ``smart entry''
remote, powertrain control module (PCM) and an Immobilizer Entry System
(IMOES).
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.
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. Honda
stated that its device does not require the presence of a ``smart
entry'' remote battery to function nor does it have any moving parts
(i.e., the PCM, IMOES, ignition key, ``smart entry'' remote and the
electrical components are found within its own housing units), which it
believes reduces the chance for deterioration and wear from normal use.
Honda stated that its immobilizer device is always active without
requiring any action from the vehicle operator, until the vehicle is
started using a matching ``smart entry'' remote. Deactivation occurs
when a ``smart entry'' remote with matching codes is placed within
operating range. Ignition of the ``smart entry'' system is started by
pushing the engine start/stop button located to the right of the
steering wheel on the vehicle dashboard. Specifically, Honda stated
that the ``smart entry'' system automatically checks for the
immobilizer code when the ``smart entry'' remote is within operating
range (inside the vehicle, close to the doors or window or in close
proximity outside the vehicle's exterior) and the vehicle is started by
pushing the engine start/stop button. The matching code is validated by
the IMOES, allowing the engine to start. 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. Additionally, the
ignition immobilizer telltale indicator will begin flashing on the
meter panel. Honda further stated that activation of its ``smart
entry'' system occurs when the start/stop button is switched to the
``OFF'' position.
Honda stated that it will install an audible and visible vehicle
security system as standard equipment on all its Pilot vehicles to
monitor any attempts of unauthorized entry and to attract attention to
an unauthorized person attempting to enter its vehicles without the use
of a key or a ``smart entry'' remote. 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 ``smart
entry'' remote 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 buttons to unlock the vehicle doors or having the ``smart entry''
remote within operating range when the operator grabs either of the
vehicle's front door handles.
Honda believes that additional levels of reliability, durability
and security will be accomplished because its ``smart entry'' remote
will utilize rolling codes for the lock and unlock functions of its
vehicles. Honda stated that it will also equip its vehicle line with a
hood release located inside the vehicle, counterfeit resistant vehicle
identification number (VIN) plates and secondary VINs as standard
equipment.
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 2003
Pilot vehicles and referenced NHTSA's theft rate data for MYs 2003-2012
showing a consistent rate of thefts well below the median of 3.5826
since the installation of its immobilizer device. NHTSA notes that the
theft rates for MYs 2011, 2012, and 2013 Pilot vehicle line are 0.3844,
0.9846 and 1.2111 respectively. Using an average of three MYs' theft
data (2011-2013), the theft rate for the Pilot vehicle line is well
below the median at 0.8600. Additionally, Honda referenced the Highway
Loss Data Institute's 2004-2015 Insurance Theft Report showing an
overall reduction in theft rates for the Honda Pilot vehicles after
introduction of the immobilizer device.
Additionally, Honda stated that the immobilizer device proposed for
the 2017 Pilot is similar to the design offered on its Honda Civic,
Honda Accord and Honda CR-V vehicles. The agency granted the petitions
for the Honda Civic vehicle line in full beginning with MY 2014 (see 61
FR 19363, March 29, 2013), the Honda Accord vehicle line beginning with
MY 2015 (see 79 FR 18409, April 1, 2014), and the Honda CR-V vehicle
line beginning with MY 2016 (see 80 FR 3733, January 23, 2015). The
agency notes that the average theft rate for the Honda Civic, Accord
and CR-V vehicle lines using three MYs' data (MYs 2011 through 2013)
are 0.8030, 0.7496 and 0.3119 respectively.
Based on the evidence submitted by Honda on its antitheft device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Pilot 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
[[Page 12199]]
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 Pilot 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 Pilot 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 Pilot vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2017 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 antitheft 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.
Issued in Washington, DC under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2016-05069 Filed 3-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
