Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 47731-47734 [2021-18419]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
In each of the samples, HFT states that
the deviation is well within 25% of the
required values. The plot diagram at
Attachment 7 4 provides a visual
depiction of the relationship between
the two outlier values to the 520 cd
minimum for the Zone 3 test results for
the submersible trailer light kits tested
by Calcoast. The plot diagram at
Attachment 8 gives a visual depiction of
the relationship between the outlier
values and the photometric
requirements for the magnetic trailer
light kits.
4. HFT states that an alternative basis
on which to grant the petition is the
performance exceedances of each of the
other surrounding zones. Zones 1, 2, 4
and 5 all exceeded the minimum
candela value for their respective zone
by wide margins (e.g. from a range of
27%–44% higher than the minimum
candela value for the zone for one
sample and 26%–37% higher than the
minimum candela value for each zone
for the other sample). Thus, HFT claims
the minor discrepancy in one zone is
offset by the substantial (and compliant)
exceedances in the remaining zones.
Taking the performance of the lamp as
a whole, and because drivers view the
output of lamps as a whole rather than
at individual points within the lamp,
the additional light from the other zones
would compensate for the deviation in
Zone 3. HFT states that this rationale is
consistent with the agency’s findings in
other similar petitions which concluded
that enhanced photometric values in
other areas of the same lamp could
effectively minimize a minor deviation
in one portion of the lamp.5
5. Separately, HFT also states that
NHTSA has recognized the inherent
challenges to manufacture all lamps so
that each and every test point within the
lamp meets the minimum criteria. HFT
claims that is the case here. When HFT
commissioned Calcoast to review and
confirm the performance of these
lighting products, it tested a total of 24
sets of lamps produced over a seven
month/year period. Of that universe,
there were just two samples of
submersible trailer light kits that had
slightly reduced photometric values and
three samples of the magnetic trailer
light kit that experienced minimal
exceedances. HFT claims that this
4 HFT’s petition and the attachments can be
found in full at https://www.regulations.gov by
following the online instructions for accessing the
docket. The docket ID number for this petition is
shown in the heading of this notice.
5 See General Motors Corporation; Grant of
Application for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance; 61 FR 1663, January 22, 1996; see
also BMW of North America, LLC, Grant of Petition
for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance; 82
FR 55484, November 21, 2017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 25, 2021
Jkt 253001
indicates that the LED lamps were in
fact designed to comply with FMVSS
No. 108 and that the results of the
monitoring testing indicate an isolated
number of random failures, not a
systemic lapse in production processes.
NHTSA has stated that it will not
consider a lamp to be noncompliant if
its failure to meet a test point is random
and occasional.6 Thus, historically,
there has never been an absolute
requirement that every motor vehicle
lighting device meet every single
photometric test point to comply with
FMVSS No. 108.
6. Finally, HFT has reviewed its
systems and has not received any
reports or complaints about the levels of
brightness for these trailer lighting kits.
The lack of reports or indications that
the subject trailer lights are either too
bright or too dim supports the
conclusion that the condition is
undetectable to road users such as
drivers following a vehicle equipped
with either of the lighting products.
HFT is providing copies of the relevant
Calcoast test reports with this petition at
Attachment 2 for the submersible trailer
light kits and at Attachments 3 and 4 for
the magnetic trailer light kits.
HFT concludes that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety and that
its petition to be exempted from
providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
HFT’s complete petition and all
supporting documents are available by
logging onto the FDMS website at
https://www.regulations.gov and by
following the online search instructions
to locate the docket number as listed in
the title of this notice.
NHTSA notes that the statutory
provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to
file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of a defect or
noncompliance and to remedy the
defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any
decision on this petition only applies to
the subject equipment that HFT no
longer controlled at the time it
determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this
petition does not relieve equipment
distributors and dealers of the
6 See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated
Equipment; 83 FR 51766, October 12, 2018.
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47731
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale,
or introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant equipment under
their control after HFT notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
Delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95
and 501.8.
Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021–18355 Filed 8–25–21; 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 exemption from the
Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard (theft prevention standard) for
its Acura RDX vehicle line beginning in
model year (MY) 2022. The 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 theft
prevention standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this
notice is effective beginning with the
2022 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carlita Ballard, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer
Programs, NHTSA, West Building,
W43–439, NRM–310, 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: Under 49
U.S.C. chapter 331, the Secretary of
Transportation (and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) by delegation) is required to
promulgate a theft prevention standard
to provide for the identification of
certain motor vehicles and their major
replacement parts to impede motor
vehicle theft. NHTSA promulgated
regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft
prevention standard) to require partsSUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
47732
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
marking for specified passenger motor
vehicles and light trucks. Pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 33106, manufacturers that are
subject to the parts-marking
requirements may petition the Secretary
of Transportation for an exemption for
a line of passenger motor vehicles
equipped with an antitheft device as
standard equipment that the Secretary
decides is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements. In accordance
with this statute, NHTSA promulgated
49 CFR part 543, which establishes the
process through which manufacturers
may seek an exemption from the theft
prevention standard.
49 CFR 543.5 provides general
submission requirements for petitions
and states that each manufacturer may
petition NHTSA for an exemption of
one vehicle line per model year. Among
other requirements, manufacturers must
identify whether the exemption is
sought under section 543.6 or section
543.7. Under section 543.6, a
manufacturer may request an exemption
by providing specific information about
the antitheft device, its capabilities, and
the reasons the petitioner believes the
device to be as effective at reducing and
deterring theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. Section
543.7 permits a manufacturer to request
an exemption under a more streamlined
process if the vehicle line is equipped
with an antitheft device (an
‘‘immobilizer’’) as standard equipment
that complies with one of the standards
specified in that section.1
Section 543.8 establishes
requirements for processing petitions for
exemption from the theft prevention
standard. As stated in section 543.8(a),
NHTSA processes any complete
exemption petition. If NHTSA receives
an incomplete petition, NHTSA will
notify the petitioner of the deficiencies.
Once NHTSA receives a complete
1 49 CFR 543.7 specifies that the manufacturer
must include a statement that their entire vehicle
line is equipped with an immobilizer that meets
one of the following standards:
(1) The performance criteria (subsections 8
through 21) of C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection
and Rollaway Prevention (in effect March 30, 2011),
as excerpted in appendix A of [part 543];
(2) National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC–
S338–98, Automobile Theft Deterrent Equipment
and Systems: Electronic Immobilization (May
1998);
(3) United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UN/ECE) Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97),
Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval of
Vehicle Alarm System (VAS) and Motor Vehicles
with Regard to Their Alarm System (AS) in effect
August 8, 2007; or
(4) UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116),
Uniform Technical Prescriptions Concerning the
Protection of Motor Vehicles Against Unauthorized
Use in effect on February 10, 2009.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 25, 2021
Jkt 253001
petition the agency will process it and,
in accordance with section 543.8(b),
will grant the petition 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.
Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to
issue its decision either to grant or to
deny an exemption petition not later
than 120 days after the date on which
a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA
does not make a decision within the
120-day period, the petition shall be
deemed to be approved and the
manufacturer shall be exempt from the
standard for the line covered by the
petition for the subsequent model year.2
Exemptions granted under part 543
apply only to the vehicle line or lines
that are subject to the grant and that are
equipped with the antitheft device on
which the line’s exemption was based,
and are effective for the model year
beginning after the model year in which
NHTSA issues the notice of exemption,
unless the notice of exemption specifies
a later year.
Sections 543.8(f) and (g) apply to the
manner in which NHTSA’s decisions on
petitions are to be made known. Under
section 543.8(f), if the petition is sought
under section 543.6, NHTSA publishes
a notice of its decision to grant or deny
the exemption petition in the Federal
Register and notifies the petitioner in
writing. Under section 543.8(g), if the
petition is sought under section 543.7,
NHTSA notifies the petitioner in writing
of the agency’s decision to grant or deny
the exemption petition.
This grant of petition for exemption
considers American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.’s (Honda) petition for its Acura
RDX vehicle line beginning in MY 2022.
I. Specific Petition Content
Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6
Pursuant to 49 CFR part 543,
Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention, Honda petitioned for an
exemption for its specified vehicle line
from the parts-marking requirements of
the theft prevention standard, beginning
in MY 2022. Honda petitioned under 49
CFR 543.6, Petition: Specific content
requirements, which, as described
above, requires manufacturers to
provide specific information about the
antitheft device installed as standard
equipment on all vehicles in the line for
which an exemption is sought, the
antitheft device’s capabilities, and the
reasons the petitioner believes the
device to be as effective at reducing and
deterring theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements.
More specifically, section 543.6(a)(1)
requires petitions to include a statement
that an antitheft device will be installed
as standard equipment on all vehicles in
the line for which the exemption is
sought. Under section 543.6(a)(2), each
petition must list each component in the
antitheft system, and include a diagram
showing the location of each of those
components within the vehicle. As
required by section 543.6(a)(3), each
petition must include an explanation of
the means and process by which the
device is activated and functions,
including any aspect of the device
designed to: (1) Facilitate or encourage
its activation by motorists; (2) attract
attention to the efforts of an
unauthorized person to enter or move a
vehicle by means other than a key; (3)
prevent defeating or circumventing the
device by an unauthorized person
attempting to enter a vehicle by means
other than a key; (4) prevent the
operation of a vehicle which an
unauthorized person has entered using
means other than a key; and (5) ensure
the reliability and durability of the
device.3
In addition to providing information
about the antitheft device and its
functionality, petitioners must also
submit the reasons for their belief that
the antitheft device will be effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft, including any theft data and other
data that are available to the petitioner
and form a basis for that belief,4 and the
reasons for their belief that the agency
should determine that the antitheft
device is likely to be as effective as
compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of part 541 in reducing
and deterring motor vehicle theft. In
support of this belief, the petitioners
should include any statistical data that
are available to the petitioner and form
the basis for the petitioner’s belief that
a line of passenger motor vehicles
equipped with the antitheft device is
likely to have a theft rate equal to or less
than that of passenger motor vehicles of
the same, or a similar line which have
parts marked in compliance with part
541.5
The following sections describe
Honda’s petition information provided
pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption
from Vehicle Theft Prevention. To the
extent that specific information in
Honda’s petition is subject to a properly
filed confidentiality request, that
3 49
CFR 543.6(a)(3).
CFR 543.6(a)(4).
5 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5).
4 49
2 49
PO 00000
U.S.C. 33106(d).
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
information was not disclosed as part of
this notice.6
II. Honda’s Petition for Exemption
In a petition dated January 12, 2021,
as supplemented with additional
information submitted on June 22,
2021,7 Honda requested an exemption
from the parts-marking requirements of
the theft prevention standard for the
Acura RDX vehicle line beginning with
MY 2022.
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 Acura RDX vehicle line. Honda
stated that its MY 2022 Acura RDX
vehicle line will be installed with an
engine immobilizer device as standard
equipment, as required by 543.6(a)(1).
Honda stated that it will offer a ‘‘smart
entry remote’’ (keyless key) system on
its vehicle line. Honda also stated that
the Acura RDX vehicle line will offer
two types of remotes, one with remote
engine start and one without remote
start. Key components of the ‘‘smart
entry remote’’ system will include a
passive immobilizer, ‘‘smart entry’’
remote, powertrain control module
(PCM), and body control module (BCM).
Honda further stated that its vehicle line
will be installed with a vehicle security
alarm system as standard equipment
which will activate a visible and audible
alarm whenever unauthorized access is
attempted.
Pursuant to Section 543.6(a)(3),
Honda explained that its ‘‘smart entry
and start’’ system is part of the normal
operation of the ignition key and
activates automatically when the
ignition switch is in the ‘‘OFF’’ position.
Honda further explained that if a smart
entry remote without a matching code is
within operating range and the engine
start/stop button is pressed, the PCM
will prevent fueling of the engine and
the engine will not start. Honda also
stated that the immobilizer system is
deactivated when a valid smart entry
remote and matching codes are verified,
allowing the engine to continue normal
operations. Honda further stated that the
security indicator flashes continuously
when the immobilizer is activated, and
turns off when it is deactivated.
Honda stated that the audible and
visible vehicle security alarm system
installed on its Acura RDX vehicles will
monitor any attempts of unauthorized
entry and attract attention to an
unauthorized person attempting to enter
6 49
CFR 512.20(a).
discussed above, per 49 CFR 543.8(a),
NHTSA processes the petition once the
manufacturer submits all the information required
by 49 CFR part 543.
7 As
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 25, 2021
Jkt 253001
its vehicles without the use of a ‘‘smart
entry’’ remote or its built-in mechanical
door key. Specifically, Honda stated that
whenever an attempt is made to open
one of its vehicle doors, hood or trunk
without using the ‘‘smart entry’’ remote
or turning a key in the key cylinder to
disarm the vehicle, the vehicle’s horn
will sound and its lights will flash.
Honda stated that its vehicle security
system is activated when all of the doors
are locked and the hood and trunk are
closed and locked. Honda further stated
that its 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 also stated that in addition to
the standard security system on all 2022
MY Acura RDX models, additional
security features include counterfeit
resistant vehicle identification number
(VIN) plates, secondary VINs, a hood
release located inside the vehicle, and
its smart entry remote will utilize
rolling codes for the lock and unlock
functions of its vehicles.
As required in section 543.6(a)(3)(v),
Honda provided information on the
reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and
durability of the device, Honda
provided a list of requirements for the
characteristics and durability testing
along with its results. 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, BCM, ‘‘smart entry’’
remote and the corresponding electrical
components found within its own
housing units), which it believes
reduces the chance for deterioration and
wear from normal use.
Honda believes that installation of the
antitheft immobilizer device as standard
equipment reduces the vehicle theft rate
by making conventional methods of
theft obsolete, i.e., punching out the
steering column or hot-wiring the
ignition. Additionally, Honda stated
that the proposed immobilizer system
was first installed on its MY 2007 Acura
RDX as standard equipment which was
the first year of its introduction. Honda
referenced NHTSA’s theft rate
information for the Acura RDX showing
theft rates for MYs 2007–2014 were
below the theft rate median. Also,
Honda stated that its proposed
immobilizer system is similar to the
design offered on its Lexus RX vehicles
which have been granted an exemption
by the agency. Honda also referenced
NHTSA’s theft rate information for its
Lexus RX showing theft rates for MYs
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
47733
2012–2014 that were below the theft
rate median.
III. Decision To Grant the Petition
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49
CFR 543.8(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 its 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 antitheft
device. NHTSA believes, based on
Honda’s supporting evidence, the
antitheft device described for its vehicle
line is likely to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle
theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of the theft
prevention standard.
The agency concludes that Honda’s
antitheft device will provide the five
types of performance features listed in
section 543.6(a)(3): Promoting
activation; attracting attention to the
efforts of unauthorized persons to enter
or operate a vehicle by means other than
a key; preventing defeat or
circumvention of the device by
unauthorized persons; preventing
operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
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 543.8(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 its requested vehicle line,
the manufacturer must formally notify
the agency. If such a decision is made,
the line must be fully marked as
required by 49 CFR 541.5 and 541.6
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
47734
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 163 / Thursday, August 26, 2021 / Notices
(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. Section
543.8(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, section 543.10(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 the
exemption.’’
The agency wishes to minimize the
administrative burden that section
543.10(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 Honda 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency
hereby grants in full Honda’s petition
for exemption for the Acura RDX
vehicle line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541,
beginning with its MY 2022 vehicles.
Issued under authority delegated in
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2021–18419 Filed 8–25–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[Docket No. PHMSA–2021–0052]
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration Pipeline Safety:
Request for Special Permit; Sabal Trail
Transmission, LLC
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA); DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
PHMSA is publishing this
notice to solicit public comments on a
request for special permit received from
the Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC
(STT). The special permit request is
seeking relief from compliance with
certain requirements in the federal
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 25, 2021
Jkt 253001
pipeline safety regulations. At the
conclusion of the 30-day comment
period, PHMSA will review the
comments received from this notice as
part of its evaluation to grant or deny
the special permit request.
DATES: Submit any comments regarding
this special permit request by
September 27, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Comments should reference
the docket number for this special
permit request and may be submitted in
the following ways:
• E-Gov Website: https://
www.Regulations.gov. This site allows
the public to enter comments on any
Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management System:
U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M–30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Docket Management
System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
Instructions: You should identify the
docket number for the special permit
request you are commenting on at the
beginning of your comments. If you
submit your comments by mail, please
submit two (2) copies. To receive
confirmation that PHMSA has received
your comments, please include a selfaddressed stamped postcard. Internet
users may submit comments at https://
www.Regulations.gov.
Note: There is a privacy statement
published on https://
www.Regulations.gov. Comments,
including any personal information
provided, are posted without changes or
edits to https://www.Regulations.gov.
Confidential Business Information:
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
is commercial or financial information
that is both customarily and actually
treated as private by its owner. Under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
(5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments
responsive to this notice contain
commercial or financial information
that is customarily treated as private,
that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this
notice, it is important that you clearly
designate the submitted comments as
CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) § 190.343, you may
ask PHMSA to give confidential
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
treatment to information you give to the
agency by taking the following steps: (1)
Mark each page of the original
document submission containing CBI as
‘‘Confidential’’; (2) send PHMSA, along
with the original document, a second
copy of the original document with the
CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the
information you are submitting is CBI.
Unless you are notified otherwise,
PHMSA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the
FOIA, and they will not be placed in the
public docket of this notice.
Submissions containing CBI should be
sent to Kay McIver, DOT, PHMSA–
PHP–80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590–0001. Any
commentary PHMSA receives that is not
specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this
matter.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone
at 202–366–0113, or by email at
kay.mciver@dot.gov.
Technical: Mr. Steve Nanney by
telephone at 713–272–2855, or by email
at steve.nanney@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA
received a special permit request from
STT, a joint venture between Spectra
Energy Partners, LP (Enbridge), NextEra
Energy, Inc., and Duke Energy, which is
operated by Enbridge Inc., seeking a
waiver from the requirements of 49 CFR
192.611: Change in class location:
Confirmation or revision of maximum
allowable operating pressure. This
special permit is being requested in lieu
of pipe replacement or pressure
reduction for one (1) special permit
segment totaling 53,486 feet
(approximately 10.130 miles) on the
STT Line 1 Pipeline. The proposed
special permit segment is located in
Sumter County, Florida. The STT Line
1 Pipeline class location in the special
permit segment has changed from a
Class 1 to a Class 3 location. The STT
Line 1 Pipeline special permit segment
is a 36-inch diameter pipeline with an
existing maximum allowable operating
pressure of 1,456 pounds per square
inch gauge. The installation of the
special permit segment occurred in
2017.
The special permit request, proposed
special permit with conditions, and
Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA)
for the above listed STT pipeline
segments are available for review and
public comments in Docket No.
PHMSA–2021–0052. PHMSA invites
interested persons to review and submit
comments on the special permit request
and DEA in the docket. Please include
any comments on potential safety and
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 163 (Thursday, August 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47731-47734]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18419]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 exemption from the Federal Motor Vehicle
Theft Prevention Standard (theft prevention standard) for its Acura RDX
vehicle line beginning in model year (MY) 2022. The 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 theft prevention standard.
DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2022 model year.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy, and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, NRM-310, 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: Under 49 U.S.C. chapter 331, the Secretary
of Transportation (and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) by delegation) is required to promulgate a theft
prevention standard to provide for the identification of certain motor
vehicles and their major replacement parts to impede motor vehicle
theft. NHTSA promulgated regulations at 49 CFR part 541 (theft
prevention standard) to require parts-
[[Page 47732]]
marking for specified passenger motor vehicles and light trucks.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106, manufacturers that are subject to the
parts-marking requirements may petition the Secretary of Transportation
for an exemption for a line of passenger motor vehicles equipped with
an antitheft device as standard equipment that the Secretary decides is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements. In accordance with
this statute, NHTSA promulgated 49 CFR part 543, which establishes the
process through which manufacturers may seek an exemption from the
theft prevention standard.
49 CFR 543.5 provides general submission requirements for petitions
and states that each manufacturer may petition NHTSA for an exemption
of one vehicle line per model year. Among other requirements,
manufacturers must identify whether the exemption is sought under
section 543.6 or section 543.7. Under section 543.6, a manufacturer may
request an exemption by providing specific information about the
antitheft device, its capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner
believes the device to be as effective at reducing and deterring theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements. Section 543.7
permits a manufacturer to request an exemption under a more streamlined
process if the vehicle line is equipped with an antitheft device (an
``immobilizer'') as standard equipment that complies with one of the
standards specified in that section.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 CFR 543.7 specifies that the manufacturer must include a
statement that their entire vehicle line is equipped with an
immobilizer that meets one of the following standards:
(1) The performance criteria (subsections 8 through 21) of
C.R.C, c. 1038.114, Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention (in
effect March 30, 2011), as excerpted in appendix A of [part 543];
(2) National Standard of Canada CAN/ULC-S338-98, Automobile
Theft Deterrent Equipment and Systems: Electronic Immobilization
(May 1998);
(3) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE)
Regulation No. 97 (ECE R97), Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval
of Vehicle Alarm System (VAS) and Motor Vehicles with Regard to
Their Alarm System (AS) in effect August 8, 2007; or
(4) UN/ECE Regulation No. 116 (ECE R116), Uniform Technical
Prescriptions Concerning the Protection of Motor Vehicles Against
Unauthorized Use in effect on February 10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 543.8 establishes requirements for processing petitions for
exemption from the theft prevention standard. As stated in section
543.8(a), NHTSA processes any complete exemption petition. If NHTSA
receives an incomplete petition, NHTSA will notify the petitioner of
the deficiencies. Once NHTSA receives a complete petition the agency
will process it and, in accordance with section 543.8(b), will grant
the petition 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.
Section 543.8(c) requires NHTSA to issue its decision either to
grant or to deny an exemption petition not later than 120 days after
the date on which a complete petition is filed. If NHTSA does not make
a decision within the 120-day period, the petition shall be deemed to
be approved and the manufacturer shall be exempt from the standard for
the line covered by the petition for the subsequent model year.\2\
Exemptions granted under part 543 apply only to the vehicle line or
lines that are subject to the grant and that are equipped with the
antitheft device on which the line's exemption was based, and are
effective for the model year beginning after the model year in which
NHTSA issues the notice of exemption, unless the notice of exemption
specifies a later year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 49 U.S.C. 33106(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sections 543.8(f) and (g) apply to the manner in which NHTSA's
decisions on petitions are to be made known. Under section 543.8(f), if
the petition is sought under section 543.6, NHTSA publishes a notice of
its decision to grant or deny the exemption petition in the Federal
Register and notifies the petitioner in writing. Under section
543.8(g), if the petition is sought under section 543.7, NHTSA notifies
the petitioner in writing of the agency's decision to grant or deny the
exemption petition.
This grant of petition for exemption considers American Honda Motor
Co., Inc.'s (Honda) petition for its Acura RDX vehicle line beginning
in MY 2022.
I. Specific Petition Content Requirements Under 49 CFR 543.6
Pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention, Honda petitioned for an exemption for its specified vehicle
line from the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention
standard, beginning in MY 2022. Honda petitioned under 49 CFR 543.6,
Petition: Specific content requirements, which, as described above,
requires manufacturers to provide specific information about the
antitheft device installed as standard equipment on all vehicles in the
line for which an exemption is sought, the antitheft device's
capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner believes the device to be
as effective at reducing and deterring theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements.
More specifically, section 543.6(a)(1) requires petitions to
include a statement that an antitheft device will be installed as
standard equipment on all vehicles in the line for which the exemption
is sought. Under section 543.6(a)(2), each petition must list each
component in the antitheft system, and include a diagram showing the
location of each of those components within the vehicle. As required by
section 543.6(a)(3), each petition must include an explanation of the
means and process by which the device is activated and functions,
including any aspect of the device designed to: (1) Facilitate or
encourage its activation by motorists; (2) attract attention to the
efforts of an unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means
other than a key; (3) prevent defeating or circumventing the device by
an unauthorized person attempting to enter a vehicle by means other
than a key; (4) prevent the operation of a vehicle which an
unauthorized person has entered using means other than a key; and (5)
ensure the reliability and durability of the device.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to providing information about the antitheft device and
its functionality, petitioners must also submit the reasons for their
belief that the antitheft device will be effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft, including any theft data and other data
that are available to the petitioner and form a basis for that
belief,\4\ and the reasons for their belief that the agency should
determine that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541 in reducing
and deterring motor vehicle theft. In support of this belief, the
petitioners should include any statistical data that are available to
the petitioner and form the basis for the petitioner's belief that a
line of passenger motor vehicles equipped with the antitheft device is
likely to have a theft rate equal to or less than that of passenger
motor vehicles of the same, or a similar line which have parts marked
in compliance with part 541.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(4).
\5\ 49 CFR 543.6(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections describe Honda's petition information
provided pursuant to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention. To the extent that specific information in Honda's petition
is subject to a properly filed confidentiality request, that
[[Page 47733]]
information was not disclosed as part of this notice.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 49 CFR 512.20(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Honda's Petition for Exemption
In a petition dated January 12, 2021, as supplemented with
additional information submitted on June 22, 2021,\7\ Honda requested
an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the theft
prevention standard for the Acura RDX vehicle line beginning with MY
2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As discussed above, per 49 CFR 543.8(a), NHTSA processes the
petition once the manufacturer submits all the information required
by 49 CFR part 543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Acura RDX vehicle line. Honda stated that its
MY 2022 Acura RDX vehicle line will be installed with an engine
immobilizer device as standard equipment, as required by 543.6(a)(1).
Honda stated that it will offer a ``smart entry remote'' (keyless key)
system on its vehicle line. Honda also stated that the Acura RDX
vehicle line will offer two types of remotes, one with remote engine
start and one without remote start. Key components of the ``smart entry
remote'' system will include a passive immobilizer, ``smart entry''
remote, powertrain control module (PCM), and body control module (BCM).
Honda further stated that its vehicle line will be installed with a
vehicle security alarm system as standard equipment which will activate
a visible and audible alarm whenever unauthorized access is attempted.
Pursuant to Section 543.6(a)(3), Honda explained that its ``smart
entry and start'' system is part of the normal operation of the
ignition key and activates automatically when the ignition switch is in
the ``OFF'' position. Honda further explained that if a smart entry
remote without a matching code is within operating range and the engine
start/stop button is pressed, the PCM will prevent fueling of the
engine and the engine will not start. Honda also stated that the
immobilizer system is deactivated when a valid smart entry remote and
matching codes are verified, allowing the engine to continue normal
operations. Honda further stated that the security indicator flashes
continuously when the immobilizer is activated, and turns off when it
is deactivated.
Honda stated that the audible and visible vehicle security alarm
system installed on its Acura RDX vehicles will monitor any attempts of
unauthorized entry and attract attention to an unauthorized person
attempting to enter its vehicles without the use of a ``smart entry''
remote or its built-in mechanical door key. Specifically, Honda stated
that whenever an attempt is made to open one of its vehicle doors, hood
or trunk without using the ``smart entry'' remote or turning a key in
the key cylinder to disarm the vehicle, the vehicle's horn will sound
and its lights will flash. Honda stated that its vehicle security
system is activated when all of the doors are locked and the hood and
trunk are closed and locked. Honda further stated that its 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 also stated that in addition to the standard security system
on all 2022 MY Acura RDX models, additional security features include
counterfeit resistant vehicle identification number (VIN) plates,
secondary VINs, a hood release located inside the vehicle, and its
smart entry remote will utilize rolling codes for the lock and unlock
functions of its vehicles.
As required in section 543.6(a)(3)(v), Honda provided information
on the reliability and durability of its proposed device. To ensure
reliability and durability of the device, Honda provided a list of
requirements for the characteristics and durability testing along with
its results. 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, BCM, ``smart entry'' remote and the
corresponding electrical components found within its own housing
units), which it believes reduces the chance for deterioration and wear
from normal use.
Honda believes that installation of the antitheft immobilizer
device as standard equipment reduces the vehicle theft rate by making
conventional methods of theft obsolete, i.e., punching out the steering
column or hot-wiring the ignition. Additionally, Honda stated that the
proposed immobilizer system was first installed on its MY 2007 Acura
RDX as standard equipment which was the first year of its introduction.
Honda referenced NHTSA's theft rate information for the Acura RDX
showing theft rates for MYs 2007-2014 were below the theft rate median.
Also, Honda stated that its proposed immobilizer system is similar to
the design offered on its Lexus RX vehicles which have been granted an
exemption by the agency. Honda also referenced NHTSA's theft rate
information for its Lexus RX showing theft rates for MYs 2012-2014 that
were below the theft rate median.
III. Decision To Grant the Petition
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.8(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 its 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
antitheft device. NHTSA believes, based on Honda's supporting evidence,
the antitheft device described for its 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.
The agency concludes that Honda's antitheft device will provide the
five types of performance features listed in section 543.6(a)(3):
Promoting activation; attracting attention to the efforts of
unauthorized persons to enter or operate a vehicle by means other than
a key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants;
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
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 543.8(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 its requested vehicle
line, the manufacturer must formally notify the agency. If such a
decision is made, the line must be fully marked as required by 49 CFR
541.5 and 541.6
[[Page 47734]]
(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. Section 543.8(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, section 543.10(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 the exemption.''
The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that
section 543.10(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
Honda 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.
For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Honda's
petition for exemption for the Acura RDX vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with its MY 2022
vehicles.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2021-18419 Filed 8-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
