Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard; American Honda Motor Co., Inc. |
|---|
|
Raymond R. Posten
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
8 March 2016
[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