Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 3733 

1Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a 

‘‘final rule.’’ However, the 2003 notice did not issue 

a ‘‘final rule’’ but did establish the procedures and 

standards for issuing exemptions for drivers with 

ITDM. 

Kendall G. Webster 

Mr. Webster, 56, has had ITDM since 

2000. His endocrinologist examined him 

in 2014 and certified that he has had no 

severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting 

in loss of consciousness, requiring the 

assistance of another person, or 

resulting in impaired cognitive function 

that occurred without warning in the 

past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or 

more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in 

the last 5 years. His endocrinologist 

certifies that Mr. Webster understands 

diabetes management and monitoring, 

has stable control of his diabetes using 

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV 

safely. Mr. Webster meets the 

requirements of the vision standard at 

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His 

ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 

and certified that he has stable 

nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. 

He holds an operator’s license from 

Oregon. 

Christopher J. Wilson 

Mr. Wilson, 40, has had ITDM since 

2009. His endocrinologist examined him 

in 2014 and certified that he has had no 

severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting 

in loss of consciousness, requiring the 

assistance of another person, or 

resulting in impaired cognitive function 

that occurred without warning in the 

past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or 

more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in 

the last 5 years. His endocrinologist 

certifies that Mr. Wilson understands 

diabetes management and monitoring, 

has stable control of his diabetes using 

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV 

safely. Mr. Wilson meets the 

requirements of the vision standard at 

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist 

examined him in 2014 and certified that 

he does not have diabetic retinopathy. 

He holds an operator’s license from 

Pennsylvania. 

Mark P. Zimmerman 

Mr. Zimmerman, 58, has had ITDM 

since 1999. His endocrinologist 

examined him in 2014 and certified that 

he has had no severe hypoglycemic 

reactions resulting in loss of 

consciousness, requiring the assistance 

of another person, or resulting in 

impaired cognitive function that 

occurred without warning in the past 12 

months and no recurrent (2 or more) 

severe hypoglycemic episodes in the 

last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies 

that Mr. Zimmerman understands 

diabetes management and monitoring, 

has stable control of his diabetes using 

insulin, and is able to drive a CMV 

safely. Mr. Zimmerman meets the 

requirements of the vision standard at 

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His 

ophthalmologist examined him in 2014 

and certified that he does not have 

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B 

CDL from Nevada. 

III. Request for Comments 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) 

and 31315, FMCSA requests public 

comment from all interested persons on 

the exemption petitions described in 

this notice. We will consider all 

comments received before the close of 

business on the closing date indicated 

in the date section of the notice. 

FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible and 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users requires the Secretary 

to revise its diabetes exemption program 

established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 

52441).1 The revision must provide for 

individual assessment of drivers with 

diabetes mellitus, and be consistent 

with the criteria described in section 

4018 of the Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). 

Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination 

of the requirement for 3 years of 

experience operating CMVs while being 

treated with insulin; and (2) 

establishment of a specified minimum 

period of insulin use to demonstrate 

stable control of diabetes before being 

allowed to operate a CMV. 

In response to section 4129, FMCSA 

made immediate revisions to the 

diabetes exemption program established 

by the September 3, 2003 notice. 

FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year 

driving experience and fulfilled the 

requirements of section 4129 while 

continuing to ensure that operation of 

CMVs by drivers with ITDM will 

achieve the requisite level of safety 

required of all exemptions granted 

under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e). 

Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA 

to ensure that drivers of CMVs with 

ITDM are not held to a higher standard 

than other drivers, with the exception of 

limited operating, monitoring and 

medical requirements that are deemed 

medically necessary. 

The FMCSA concluded that all of the 

operating, monitoring and medical 

requirements set out in the September 3, 

2003 notice, except as modified, were in 

compliance with section 4129(d). 

Therefore, all of the requirements set 

out in the September 3, 2003 notice, 

except as modified by the notice in the 

Federal Register on November 8, 2005 

(70 FR 67777), remain in effect. 

IV. Submitting Comments 

You may submit your comments and 

material online or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. FMCSA recommends that 

you include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that FMCSA can contact you if there 

are questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and in the 

search box insert the docket number 

FMCSA–2014–0312 and click the search 

button. When the new screen appears, 

click on the blue ‘‘Comment Now!’’ 

button on the right hand side of the 

page. On the new page, enter 

information required including the 

specific section of this document to 

which each comment applies, and 

provide a reason for each suggestion or 

recommendation. If you submit your 

comments by mail or hand delivery, 

submit them in an unbound format, no 

larger than 81⁄2 by 11 inches, suitable for 

copying and electronic filing. If you 

submit comments by mail and would 

like to know that they reached the 

facility, please enclose a stamped, selfaddressed postcard or envelope. 

We will consider all comments and 

material received during the comment 

period and may change this proposed 

rule based on your comments. FMCSA 

may issue a final rule at any time after 

the close of the comment period. 

V. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as any 

documents mentioned in this preamble, 

To submit your comment online, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and in the 

search box insert the docket number 

FMCSA–2014–0312 and click ‘‘Search.’’ 

Next, click ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ and 

you will find all documents and 

comments related to the proposed 

rulemaking. 

Issued on: January 12, 2015. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01198 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Petition for Exemption From the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention 

Standard; Honda 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
3734 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption. 

SUMMARY: This document grants in full 

the American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s 

(Honda) petition for an exemption of the 

Honda CR–V vehicle line in accordance 

with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. This 

petition is granted because the agency 

has determined that the antitheft device 

to be placed on the line as standard 

equipment is likely to be as effective in 

reducing and deterring motor vehicle 

theft as compliance with the partsmarking requirements of 49 CFR part 

541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard (Theft Prevention 

Standard). 

DATES: The exemption granted by this 

notice is effective beginning with the 

2016 model year (MY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carlita Ballard, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, West Building, 

W43–439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard’s 

phone number is (202) 366–5222. Her 

fax number is (202) 493–2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a 

petition dated November 3, 2014, Honda 

requested an exemption from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard for the CR–V 

vehicle line beginning with MY 2016. 

The petition requested an exemption 

from parts-marking pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard, based on the 

installation of an antitheft device as 

standard equipment for the entire 

vehicle line. 

Under 49 CFR 543.5(a), a 

manufacturer may petition NHTSA to 

grant an exemption for one vehicle line 

per model year. In its petition, Honda 

provided a detailed description and 

diagram of the identity, design, and 

location of the components of the 

antitheft device for the CR–V vehicle 

line. Honda stated that its CR–V vehicle 

line will include a 2WD and a 4WD 

variation. Honda stated that its MY 2016 

vehicle line will be installed with a 

passive, transponder-based, electronicengine immobilizer antitheft device as 

standard equipment. Key components of 

the antitheft device will include a 

passive immobilizer, transponder 

ignition key, ‘‘smart entry’’ remote, 

Powertrain Control Module (PCM) and 

an Immobilizer Entry System (IMOES). 

Honda also stated that it will offer two 

types of ignition systems on its CR–V 

vehicle line. Specifically, Honda stated 

that the CR–V vehicle line will be 

offered with a ‘‘keyed ignition’’ system 

or a ‘‘smart entry with push button 

start’’ ignition system (‘‘smart entry’’). 

The ‘‘keyed ignition’’ system will be 

installed on its 2WD LX and 4WD LX 

models and the ‘‘smart entry’’ system 

will be installed on its 2WD EX/EXL/

Touring models, and its 4WD EX/EXL/ 

Touring models. 

Honda’s submission is considered a 

complete petition as required by 49 CFR 

543.7, in that it meets the general 

requirements contained in § 543.5 and 

the specific content requirements of 

§ 543.6. 

Honda stated that activation of its 

‘‘keyed ignition’’ system occurs when 

the engine is switched to the ‘‘OFF’’ 

position. Honda further stated that its 

immobilization device is always active 

until the vehicle is started using a 

matching ignition key and will be 

activated again each time the engine is 

switched off. Deactivation of the 

immobilizer device occurs when a valid 

key and matching immobilization code 

is verified, allowing the engine to start 

and continue normal operations. 

Specifically, the immobilization system 

automatically checks for a matching 

code each time starting of the vehicle is 

attempted. A matching code must be 

validated by both the PCM and IMOES 

in order for the engine to start. Honda 

stated that if an incorrect key is used to 

try and start the vehicle, the PCM will 

prevent fueling of the engine but allow 

the vehicle to start and run a few 

seconds before it automatically switches 

off and the immobilizer telltale 

indicator begins to flash. 

According to Honda, the ‘‘smart 

entry’’ system operates identically to its 

‘‘keyed ignition’’ system except that 

ignition for its ‘‘smart entry’’ system 

vehicle is started by pushing the Engine 

Start/Stop button located to the right of 

the steering wheel on the vehicle 

dashboard. Honda stated that activation 

of its ‘‘smart entry’’ system occurs when 

the Start/Stop button is switched to the 

‘‘OFF’’ position. Honda stated that the 

‘‘smart entry’’ system operates once the 

remote is within operating range, the 

start/stop button is pushed and 

matching codes are verified by both the 

PCM and the IMOES, allowing the 

engine to start. Deactivation of the 

device occurs when a ‘‘smart entry’’ 

remote with matching codes is placed 

within the operating range and verified, 

allowing the engine to continue normal 

operations. Honda further states that if 

a ‘‘smart entry’’ remote without a 

matching code is placed inside the 

operating range and the Engine Start/

Stop button is pushed, the PCM will 

prevent fueling and starting of the 

engine. 

In order to attract attention to an 

unauthorized person attempting to enter 

its vehicles without the use of a 

transponder ignition key or a ‘‘smart 

entry’’ remote, Honda stated that it will 

install a vehicle security system as 

standard equipment on all CR–V 

vehicles to monitor attempts of 

unauthorized entry. Specifically, Honda 

stated that whenever an attempt is made 

to open one of its vehicle doors, hood 

or trunk without turning a key in the 

key cylinder, or using the key fob to 

disarm the vehicle, the vehicle’s horn 

will sound and its lights will flash. The 

vehicle security system is activated 

when all of the doors are locked and the 

hood and trunk are closed and locked. 

Honda’s vehicle security system is 

deactivated by using the key fob to 

unlock the vehicle doors or by 

unlocking the driver’s door with the 

physical ignition key. Honda stated that 

deactivation of the vehicle’s security 

system feature in its ‘‘smart entry’’ 

vehicles occurs when the ‘‘smart entry’’ 

remote is within operating range and the 

operator grabs either of the vehicle’s 

front door handles. 

Honda also stated that its CR–V 

vehicle line will be installed with other 

features that have been designed to 

prevent unauthorized entry of its 

vehicles without the use of a key (i.e., 

specially-styled ignition key and key 

cylinders). Honda stated that its key 

cylinders will be designed to be 

resistant to tampering and its key fob 

remote will utilize rolling codes for the 

lock and unlock functions of its 

vehicles. Honda will also equip its 

vehicle line with a hood release, 

counterfeit resistant VIN plates and 

secondary VINs as standard equipment. 

Honda further stated that as an 

additional security measure, key 

duplication will be strictly controlled by 

its authorized dealers. 

In addressing the specific content 

requirements of § 543.6, Honda 

provided information on the reliability 

and durability of its proposed device. 

To ensure reliability and durability of 

the device, Honda conducted tests based 

on its own specified standards. Honda 

provided a detailed list of the tests it 

used to validate the integrity, durability 

and reliability of the device and believes 

that it follows a rigorous development 

process to ensure that its antitheft 

device will be reliable and robust for the 

life of the vehicle and does not require 

the presence of a key fob battery to 

function. Additionally, Honda stated 

that its antitheft device has no moving 

parts (i.e., the PCM, IMOES, ignition 

key, smart entry remote and the 

electrical components are found within 

its own housing units) which reduces 

the chance for deterioration or wear 

resulting from normal use. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 15 / Friday, January 23, 2015 / Notices 3735 

In support of its belief that its 

antitheft device will be as or more 

effective in reducing and deterring 

vehicle theft than the parts-marking 

requirement, Honda referenced data 

showing several instances of the 

effectiveness of its proposed 

immobilizer device. Honda first 

installed an immobilizer device as 

standard equipment on its MY 2002 CR– 

V vehicles and referenced NHTSA’s 

theft rate data showing a decrease in 

thefts since the installation of its 

immobilizer device. NHTSA’s theft rates 

for MYs 2010, 2011, and 2012 are 

0.3195, 0.2742 and 0.2953 respectively. 

Using an average of 3 MYs theft data 

(2010–2012), the theft rate for the CR– 

V vehicle line is well below the median 

at 0.2963. 

Honda also referenced a September 

2005 Highway Loss Data Institute report 

showing an overall reduction in theft 

rates for the Honda CR–V vehicles after 

introduction of the immobilizer device. 

Honda stated that the data show that 

there was an immediate decrease in 

MY/calendar year 2002 thefts with its 

immobilizer-installed vehicles but also 

showed sustained lower theft rates in 

following years. 

Based on the evidence submitted by 

Honda on its antitheft device, the 

agency believes that the antitheft device 

for the CR–V vehicle line is likely to be 

as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

Theft Prevention Standard. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 

CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants a 

petition for exemption from the partsmarking requirements of Part 541 either 

in whole or in part, if it determines that, 

based upon substantial evidence, the 

standard equipment antitheft device is 

likely to be as effective in reducing and 

deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of Part 541. The agency 

finds that Honda has provided adequate 

reasons for its belief that the antitheft 

device for the Honda CR–V vehicle line 

is likely to be as effective in reducing 

and deterring motor vehicle theft as 

compliance with the parts-marking 

requirements of the Theft Prevention 

Standard. This conclusion is based on 

the information Honda provided about 

its device. 

Based on the supporting evidence 

submitted by Honda on its device, the 

agency believes that the antitheft device 

for the CR–V vehicle line is likely to be 

as effective in reducing and deterring 

motor vehicle theft as compliance with 

the parts-marking requirements of the 

Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541). 

The agency concludes that the device 

will provide the five types of 

performance listed in § 543.6(a)(3): 

Promoting activation; attract attention to 

the efforts of an unauthorized person to 

enter or move a vehicle by means other 

than a key; preventing defeat or 

circumvention of the device by 

unauthorized persons; preventing 

operation of the vehicle by 

unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the 

reliability and durability of the device. 

For the foregoing reasons, the agency 

hereby grants in full Honda’s petition 

for exemption for the CR–V vehicle line 

from the parts-marking requirements of 

49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 

2016 model year vehicles. The agency 

notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix 

A–1, identifies those lines that are 

exempted from the Theft Prevention 

Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 

part 543.7(f) contains publication 

requirements incident to the disposition 

of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced 

listing, including the release of future 

product nameplates, the beginning 

model year for which the petition is 

granted and a general description of the 

antitheft device is necessary in order to 

notify law enforcement agencies of new 

vehicle lines exempted from the partsmarking requirements of the Theft 

Prevention Standard. 

If Honda decides not to use the 

exemption for this line, it must formally 

notify the agency. If such a decision is 

made, the line must be fully marked 

according to the requirements under 49 

CFR parts 541.5 and 541.6 (marking of 

major component parts and replacement 

parts). 

NHTSA notes that if Honda wishes in 

the future to modify the device on 

which this exemption is based, the 

company may have to submit a petition 

to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) 

states that a Part 543 exemption applies 

only to vehicles that belong to a line 

exempted under this part and equipped 

with the anti-theft device on which the 

line’s exemption is based. Further, Part 

543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission 

of petitions ‘‘to modify an exemption to 

permit the use of an antitheft device 

similar to but differing from the one 

specified in that exemption.’’ 

The agency wishes to minimize the 

administrative burden that Part 

543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted 

vehicle manufacturers and itself. The 

agency did not intend in drafting Part 

543 to require the submission of a 

modification petition for every change 

to the components or design of an 

antitheft device. The significance of 

many such changes could be de 

minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests 

that if the manufacturer contemplates 

making any changes, the effects of 

which might be characterized as de 

minimis, it should consult the agency 

before preparing and submitting a 

petition to modify. 

Under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

part 1.95. 

Raymond R. Posten, 

Associate Administrator for Rulemaking. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01117 Filed 1–22–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0093; Notice 2] 

Grote Industries, LLC, Grant of Petition 

for Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Grant of petition. 

SUMMARY: Grote Industries, LLC (Grote), 

has determined that certain Grote bulk 

nylon air brake tubing manufactured 

during the period December 2013 to 

March 2014 does not fully comply with 

paragraph S11.2 of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

106; Brake Hoses. Grote has filed an 

appropriate report dated June 13, 2014, 

pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and 

Noncompliance Responsibility and 

Reports. 

ADDRESSES: For further information on 

this decision contact Luis Figueroa, 

Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA), telephone 

(202) 366–5298, facsimile (202) 366– 

5930. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Grote’s Petition: Pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the 

rule implementing those provisions at 

49 CFR part 556, Grote submitted a 

petition for an exemption from the 

notification and remedy requirements of 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that 

this noncompliance is inconsequential 

to motor vehicle safety. 

Notice of receipt of Grote’s petition 

was published, with a 30-Day public 

comment period, on September 15, 2014 

in the Federal Register (79 FR 55066). 

One comment was received but was 

removed from the docket because its 

content was not relevant to the petition. 

To view the petition and all supporting 

documents log onto the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) Web site 

at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then 

follow the online search instructions to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES