Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 18459 [05-7198]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 68 / Monday, April 11, 2005 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2005–20782; Notice 1] Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Dr. Ing. h.c.F Porsche AG has determined that certain vehicles that it manufactured for model years 2003, 2004 and 2005 do not comply with S4.2.2(a) of 49 CFR 571.114, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114, ‘‘Theft protection.’’ On behalf of Dr. Ing. h.c.F Porsche AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche) has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’ Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Porsche has petitioned 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. This notice of receipt of Porsche’s petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition. Approximately 28,949 model year 2003, 2004, and 2005 Porsche Cayenne, Cayenne S and Cayenne Turbo vehicles are affected. S4.2.2(a) of FMVSS No. 114 requires that * * * provided that steering is prevented upon the key’s removal, each vehicle * * * [which has an automatic transmission with a ‘‘park’’ position] may permit key removal when electrical failure of this [key-locking] system * * * occurs or may have a device which, when activated, permits key removal. In the affected vehicles, the steering does not lock when the ignition key is removed from the ignition switch using the optionally provided device that permits key removal in the event of electrical system failure or when the transmission is not in the ‘‘park’’ position. Porsche believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Porsche states the following in its petition: The ignition key/transmission interlock requirements of S4.2 were promulgated in Docket 1–21 (Notice 9 published in May 30, 1990). In that notice there was no provision for an emergency operation system to permit ignition key removal when the transmission is not in ‘‘Park’’ position. In response to several automobile manufacturer petitions for reconsideration, the agency published Notice VerDate jul<14>2003 17:45 Apr 08, 2005 Jkt 205001 10 (March 26, 1991) to supplement S4.2 by the addition of S4.2.1 and S4.2.2 that did permit an emergency operation system to be located behind an opaque cover that could only be removed via the use of a tool. The use of the emergency operation system allows the removal of the ignition key when the transmission is not in ‘‘Park.’’ The emergency operation system would also permit moving the shift lever out of ‘‘Park’’ position after removal of the ignition key. The use of the emergency operation system was dependent upon the steering system being locked whenever the ignition key is removed. Some manufacturers again filed petitions for reconsideration to the Notice 10 amendment which the agency responded [to] in Notice 11 (January 17, 1992). Notice 11 amended S4.2.2(a) to permit ignition key removal even if the transmission were not in ‘‘Park’’ if there is an electrical failure of the vehicle without activation of the emergency operating system. When the vehicle’s electrical system was behaving normally, removal of the ignition key in transmission positions other than ‘‘Park’’ would only be permissible via the emergency operation system. Ignition key removal in transmission shift positions other than ‘‘Park’’ required, as before, that the steering system would lock. The requirement that the steering be locked when the ignition key is removed was debated in both Notice 10 and 11 ‘‘to ensure that Standard No. 114’s theft protection aspects are not jeopardized.’’ Nothing in the record indicates that this requirement was based on a need to prevent personal or property damage. Porsche states that it believes the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the steering lock function when the vehicle is without electrical power and the ignition key is removed has no safety implication because the vehicle is immobilized. Porsche explains: In the Cayenne models at issue here the removal of the ignition key using the emergency operation system is a vehicle security function to prevent the vehicle from being driven by simply jump-starting the vehicle, due to the fact that the vehicle is equipped with an immobilizer that prevents starting of the vehicle without the electronically coded ignition key. The keycode is recorded in the engine control module and cannot be electrically bypassed. Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on the petition described above. Comments must refer to the docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by any of the following methods. Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590–0001. Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18459 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It is requested, but not required, that two copies of the comments be provided. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ‘‘Help’’ to obtain instructions for filing the document electronically. Comments may be faxed to 1–202–493–2251, or may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below. Comment closing date: (30 days after Publication Date). Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8) Issued on: April 5, 2005. Ronald L. Medford, Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety. [FR Doc. 05–7198 Filed 4–8–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration [Docket No. PHMSA–05–20920] Pipeline Safety: Meeting on Pipeline Repairs and Permitting Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of meeting AGENCY: SUMMARY: On May 6, 2005, OPS will hold a meeting to discuss pipeline repairs and permitting. This meeting provides the pipeline industry an opportunity to share its experience with making pipeline repairs and obtaining permits. The May 6, 2005, meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Reston Hotel, 1800 Presidents Street, Reston, VA 20190. The telephone number to call for reservations at the Hyatt Regency Reston Hotel is (703) 925–8225. The ADDRESSES: E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 68 (Monday, April 11, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 18459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-7198]



[[Page 18459]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-20782; Notice 1]


Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for 
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Dr. Ing. h.c.F Porsche AG has determined that certain vehicles that 
it manufactured for model years 2003, 2004 and 2005 do not comply with 
S4.2.2(a) of 49 CFR 571.114, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 114, ``Theft protection.'' On behalf of Dr. Ing. h.c.F 
Porsche AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche) has filed an 
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, ``Defect and 
Noncompliance Reports.''
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Porsche has petitioned 
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.
    This notice of receipt of Porsche's petition is published under 49 
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or 
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Approximately 28,949 model year 2003, 2004, and 2005 Porsche 
Cayenne, Cayenne S and Cayenne Turbo vehicles are affected. S4.2.2(a) 
of FMVSS No. 114 requires that

* * * provided that steering is prevented upon the key's removal, 
each vehicle * * * [which has an automatic transmission with a 
``park'' position] may permit key removal when electrical failure of 
this [key-locking] system * * * occurs or may have a device which, 
when activated, permits key removal.

In the affected vehicles, the steering does not lock when the ignition 
key is removed from the ignition switch using the optionally provided 
device that permits key removal in the event of electrical system 
failure or when the transmission is not in the ``park'' position.
    Porsche believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Porsche 
states the following in its petition:

    The ignition key/transmission interlock requirements of S4.2 
were promulgated in Docket 1-21 (Notice 9 published in May 30, 
1990). In that notice there was no provision for an emergency 
operation system to permit ignition key removal when the 
transmission is not in ``Park'' position. In response to several 
automobile manufacturer petitions for reconsideration, the agency 
published Notice 10 (March 26, 1991) to supplement S4.2 by the 
addition of S4.2.1 and S4.2.2 that did permit an emergency operation 
system to be located behind an opaque cover that could only be 
removed via the use of a tool. The use of the emergency operation 
system allows the removal of the ignition key when the transmission 
is not in ``Park.'' The emergency operation system would also permit 
moving the shift lever out of ``Park'' position after removal of the 
ignition key. The use of the emergency operation system was 
dependent upon the steering system being locked whenever the 
ignition key is removed.
    Some manufacturers again filed petitions for reconsideration to 
the Notice 10 amendment which the agency responded [to] in Notice 11 
(January 17, 1992). Notice 11 amended S4.2.2(a) to permit ignition 
key removal even if the transmission were not in ``Park'' if there 
is an electrical failure of the vehicle without activation of the 
emergency operating system. When the vehicle's electrical system was 
behaving normally, removal of the ignition key in transmission 
positions other than ``Park'' would only be permissible via the 
emergency operation system. Ignition key removal in transmission 
shift positions other than ``Park'' required, as before, that the 
steering system would lock.
    The requirement that the steering be locked when the ignition 
key is removed was debated in both Notice 10 and 11 ``to ensure that 
Standard No. 114's theft protection aspects are not jeopardized.'' 
Nothing in the record indicates that this requirement was based on a 
need to prevent personal or property damage.

    Porsche states that it believes the noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the steering lock 
function when the vehicle is without electrical power and the ignition 
key is removed has no safety implication because the vehicle is 
immobilized. Porsche explains:

    In the Cayenne models at issue here the removal of the ignition 
key using the emergency operation system is a vehicle security 
function to prevent the vehicle from being driven by simply jump-
starting the vehicle, due to the fact that the vehicle is equipped 
with an immobilizer that prevents starting of the vehicle without 
the electronically coded ignition key. The key-code is recorded in 
the engine control module and cannot be electrically bypassed.

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and 
arguments on the petition described above. Comments must refer to the 
docket and notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be 
submitted by any of the following methods. Mail: Docket Management 
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif Building, Room PL-
401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590-0001. Hand 
Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC. It is requested, but not required, 
that two copies of the comments be provided. The Docket Section is open 
on weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except Federal holidays. Comments may be 
submitted electronically by logging onto the Docket Management System 
Web site at http://dms.dot.gov. Click on ``Help'' to obtain 
instructions for filing the document electronically. Comments may be 
faxed to 1-202-493-2251, or may be submitted to the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 
instructions for submitting comments.
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received 
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will 
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials 
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be 
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or 
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal 
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: (30 days after Publication Date).

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on: April 5, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-7198 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P