Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 32398-32399 [05-10786]
Download as PDF
32398
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 105 / Thursday, June 2, 2005 / Notices
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Coupled Products’ appeal
of NHTSA’s decision on
inconsequential noncompliance is
granted and the petitioner is exempted
from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a remedy for, the
noncompliance.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8)
Issued on: May 25, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle
Safety.
[FR Doc. 05–10784 Filed 6–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21270; Notice 1]
Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, Receipt of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Mercedes-Benz USA LLC (Mercedes)
has determined that the designated
seating capacity placards for certain
vehicles that it produced in 2004 do not
comply with S4.3(b) of 49 CFR 571.110,
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 110, ‘‘Tire selection and
rims.’’ Mercedes 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), Mercedes 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 Mercedes’
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.
Affected are a total of approximately
1,576 SLK class vehicles produced
between March 24, 2004 and December
15, 2004. S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 110
requires that a ‘‘placard, permanently
affixed to the glove compartment door
or an equally accessible location, shall
display the * * * [d]esignated seating
capacity * * * .’’ The noncompliant
vehicles have placards stating that the
seating capacity is four, when in fact the
seating capacity is two.
Mercedes believes that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety and that no
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:54 Jun 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
corrective action is warranted. Mercedes
states:
* * * most, if not all, consumers will look
at the number of seats in the vehicle and the
number of safety belts to determine its
capacity, rather than looking at the tire
information placard. Because the SLK
Roadster is a two-seater vehicle with no rear
seat, it is immediately obvious that the
seating capacity is two and not four, and that
it is not possible to seat four occupants in the
vehicle.
Because it is impossible for the SLK to
hold four occupants, the seating capacity
labeling error has no impact on the vehicle
capacity weight, recommended cold tire
inflation pressure and recommended size
designation information. All of this
information is correct on the tire information
placard. Moreover, the purpose of providing
seating capacity information is to prevent
vehicle overloading. Because the SLK holds
only two occupants, it is not possible to
overload the vehicle due to reliance on the
tire information placard.
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 a.m. to 5 p.m. 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: July 5, 2005.
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Issued on: May 25, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle
Safety.
[FR Doc. 05–10785 Filed 6–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mercedes further states:
PO 00000
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8)
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 2005–20782; Notice 2]
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.,
Grant 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.’’ Pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), on
behalf of Dr. Ing. h.c.F Porsche AG,
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
(Porsche) has petitioned for a
determination that this noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety and has filed an appropriate
report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573,
‘‘Defect and Noncompliance Reports.’’
Notice of receipt of a petition was
published, with a 30-day comment
period, on April 11, 2005, in the Federal
Register (70 FR 18459). NHTSA
received no comments.
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:
E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM
02JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 105 / Thursday, June 2, 2005 / Notices
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 keycode is recorded in the engine control
module and cannot be electrically bypassed.
requirements of S4.2(b) because it locks out
the engine control module if an attempt is
made to start the vehicle without the correct
key or to bypass the electronic ignition
system. When the engine control module is
locked, the vehicle is not capable of forward
self-mobility because it is incapable of
moving forward under its own power.
Theft protection of vehicles is
addressed under S4.2 of the standard.
Section 4.2(b) can be met by preventing
either steering or forward self-mobility.
Therefore, an equivalent level of theft
protection is provided by ‘‘either
steering or forward self-mobility.’’
NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 114 in
1990 to require that vehicles with an
automatic transmission and a ‘‘park’’
position be shifted to ‘‘park’’ or become
locked in park before the key can be
removed to reduce incidents of vehicle
rollaway. S4.2.2(a) was added in 1991 to
permit key removal when an electrical
failure occurred and the transmission
could not be manually shifted into park,
provided that steering was prevented for
theft protection. The forward selfmobility feature does not prevent
vehicle rollaway by itself. However, the
parking brake used in combination with
the forward self-mobility feature will
prevent rollaway.
NHTSA recently granted two petitions
for the same noncompliance based on
the same rationale (Bentley Motors, Inc.
and Volkswagen of America, Inc., both
at 69 FR 67211, November 16, 2004).
In consideration of the foregoing,
NHTSA has decided that the petitioner
has met its burden of persuasion that
the noncompliance described is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Porsche’s petition is
granted and the petitioner is exempted
from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a remedy for, the
noncompliance.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120;
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8).
Issued on: May 25, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle
Safety.
[FR Doc. 05–10786 Filed 6–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
The agency agrees with Porsche.
NHTSA issued an interpretation letter to
an unnamed person on September 24,
2004, which stated in pertinent part as
follows:
Internal Revenue Service
The engine control module immobilizer
described in your letter satisfies the
AGENCY:
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:59 Jun 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
Tax Counseling for the Elderly (TCE)
Program Availability of Application
Packages
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
32399
Notice.
SUMMARY: This document provides
notice of the availability of Application
Packages for the 2006 Tax Counseling
for the Elderly (TCE) Program.
Application Packages are
available from the IRS at this time. The
deadline for submitting an application
package to the IRS for the 2006 Tax
Counseling for the Elderly (TCE)
Program is August 1, 2005.
DATES:
Application Packages may
be requested by contacting: Internal
Revenue Service, 5000 Ellin Road,
Lanham, MD, 20706, Attention: Program
Manager, Tax Counseling for the Elderly
Program, SE:W:CAR:SPEC:FO:OA,
Building C–4, Room 168. Applications
can also be submitted electronically
through the IRS E-grants System by
logging on to www.egrants.irs.gov.
ADDRESSES:
Mrs.
Lynn Tyler, SE:W:CAR:SPEC:FO:OA,
Building C–4, Room 168, Internal
Revenue Service, 5000 Ellin Road,
Lanham, MD 20706. The non-toll-free
telephone number is (202) 283–0189.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Authority
for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly
(TCE) Program is contained in Section
163 of the Revenue Act of 1978, Public
Law 95–600, (92 Stat. 12810), November
6, 1978. Regulations were published in
the Federal Register at 44 FR 72113 on
December 13, 1979. Section 163 gives
the IRS authority to enter into
cooperative agreements with private or
public non-profit agencies or
organizations to establish a network of
trained volunteers to provide free tax
information and return preparation
assistance to elderly individuals.
Elderly individuals are defined as
individuals age 60 and over at the close
of their taxable year.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Cooperative agreements will be
entered into based upon competition
among eligible agencies and
organizations. Because applications are
being solicited before the FY 2006
budget has been approved, cooperative
agreements will be entered into subject
to appropriation of funds. Once funded,
sponsoring agencies and organizations
will receive a grant from the IRS for
administrative expenses and to
reimburse volunteers for expenses
incurred in training and in providing
tax return assistance. The Tax
Counseling for the Elderly (TCE)
Program is referenced in the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance in Section
21.006.
E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM
02JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 105 (Thursday, June 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32398-32399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10786]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 2005-20782; Notice 2]
Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Grant 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.'' Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d)
and 30120(h), on behalf of Dr. Ing. h.c.F Porsche AG, Porsche Cars
North America, Inc. (Porsche) has petitioned for a determination that
this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and has
filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, ``Defect and
Noncompliance Reports.'' Notice of receipt of a petition was published,
with a 30-day comment period, on April 11, 2005, in the Federal
Register (70 FR 18459). NHTSA received no comments.
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:
[[Page 32399]]
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.
The agency agrees with Porsche. NHTSA issued an interpretation
letter to an unnamed person on September 24, 2004, which stated in
pertinent part as follows:
The engine control module immobilizer described in your letter
satisfies the requirements of S4.2(b) because it locks out the
engine control module if an attempt is made to start the vehicle
without the correct key or to bypass the electronic ignition system.
When the engine control module is locked, the vehicle is not capable
of forward self-mobility because it is incapable of moving forward
under its own power.
Theft protection of vehicles is addressed under S4.2 of the
standard. Section 4.2(b) can be met by preventing either steering or
forward self-mobility. Therefore, an equivalent level of theft
protection is provided by ``either steering or forward self-mobility.''
NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 114 in 1990 to require that vehicles with
an automatic transmission and a ``park'' position be shifted to
``park'' or become locked in park before the key can be removed to
reduce incidents of vehicle rollaway. S4.2.2(a) was added in 1991 to
permit key removal when an electrical failure occurred and the
transmission could not be manually shifted into park, provided that
steering was prevented for theft protection. The forward self-mobility
feature does not prevent vehicle rollaway by itself. However, the
parking brake used in combination with the forward self-mobility
feature will prevent rollaway.
NHTSA recently granted two petitions for the same noncompliance
based on the same rationale (Bentley Motors, Inc. and Volkswagen of
America, Inc., both at 69 FR 67211, November 16, 2004).
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the
petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliance
described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Porsche's petition is granted and the petitioner is exempted from the
obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy for, the
noncompliance.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8).
Issued on: May 25, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-10786 Filed 6-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P