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 https://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 https://
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 https://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 https://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