[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