Nissan North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 70026-70027 [05-22919]

Download as PDF 70026 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices Intended Use: ‘‘Sail charter and instruction.’’ Geographic Region: Offshore, Great Lakes, and East Coast of the United States. Including States of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. Dated: November 10, 2005. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. 05–22905 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–81–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket Number 2005 22990] Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel ZAZU. AGENCY: SUMMARY: As authorized by Public Law 105–383 and Public Law 107–295, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket 2005–22990 at https://dms.dot.gov. Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with Public Law 105–383 and MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter’s interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:21 Nov 17, 2005 Jkt 208001 criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR part 388. DATES: Submit comments on or before December 19, 2005. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD 2005 22990. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL–401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at https:// dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at https://dms.dot.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR–830 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202–366–5979. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel ZAZU is: Intended Use: ‘‘Occasional Charter to no more than 12 passengers (6 usual maximum).’’ Geographic Region: U.S. East Coast waters primarily Florida (both east and gulf coast), New England, and also the Mississippi River and Great Lakes. Including the states of: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Washington, DC, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin. Dated: November 10, 2005. By order of the Maritime Administrator. Joel C. Richard, Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. 05–22912 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–81–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket No. NHTSA–2005–22969; Notice 1] Nissan North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) has determined that certain vehicles PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 that it produced in 2005 do not comply with S4.2.2 of 49 CFR 571.114, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114, ‘‘Theft protection.’’ Nissan 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), Nissan 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 Nissan’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. Affected are a total of approximately 3400 Nissan Maximas produced between March 29, 2005 and May 26, 2005. S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 114 requires that, (a) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, provided that steering is prevented upon the key’s removal, each vehicle specified therein may permit key removal when electrical failure of this system (including battery discharge) occurs or may have a device which, when activated, permits key removal. The means for activating any such device shall be covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device. The covering surface shall be removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool. (b) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from ‘‘park’’ after the removal of the key. The device shall either be operable: (1) By the key, as defined in S3; or (2) By another means, provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed from the ignition, and provided that the means for activating the device is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device. The covering surface shall be removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool. The subject vehicles are equipped with an override device but the steering wheel may not lock under some circumstances when the key is removed. Nissan believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Nissan states that the vehicles are equipped with an engine control module immobilizer system which prevents forward movement of the vehicle if the key is not present. Nissan points out that NHTSA recently granted inconsequential noncompliance petitions for similar noncompliances by Bentley (69 FR E:\FR\FM\18NON1.SGM 18NON1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 222 / Friday, November 18, 2005 / Notices 67211, 11/16/04), Volkswagen (69 FR 67211, 11/16/04), and Porsche (70 FR 32398, 6/2/05). Nissan also points out that NHTSA recently published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (70 FR 48362, 8/17/05), and that under this proposal, the system in the subject Maximas would be allowed. Nissan further states, The requirement that the steering be locked when the ignition key is removed through use of an ‘‘override device’’ was added to S4.2.2 ‘‘to ensure that Standard No 114’s theft protection aspects are not jeopardized.’’ See 57 FR 2039, 2040 (January 17, 1992). In the Maxima vehicles at issue here, when the key is removed through use of the ‘‘override device,’’ which will occur rarely if at all, the immobilizer will prevent the vehicle from being jump-started without the electronically coded ignition key, because 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 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: December 19, 2005. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:21 Nov 17, 2005 Jkt 208001 Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8. Issued on: November 15, 2005. Daniel C. Smith, Associate Administrator for Enforcement. [FR Doc. 05–22919 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–59–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 34722] Beth A. Blansett, William D. Blansett, and Modoc Railway and Land Company LLC—Continuance in Control Exemption Beth A. Blansett and William D. Blansett (Blansetts), nonconcarrier individuals, have filed a verified notice of exemption to continue in control of Modoc Railway and Land Company LLC (MR&L) 1 and Modoc Northern Railroad Company (MNRR),2 upon their becoming Class III rail carriers. The Blansetts currently control Utah Central Railway Company (UCRC), a Class III rail carrier.3 MR&L also is invoking the class exemption to control MNRR, when both become rail carriers. The transaction was expected to be consummated on or shortly after November 1, 2005. This transaction is related to two concurrently filed notices of exemption: (1) STB Finance Docket No. 34769, Modoc Railway and Land Company LLC—Acquisition Exemption—Union Pacific Railroad Company, wherein MR&L seeks to acquire by lease, with an option to purchase, approximately 107.15 miles of rail lines from Union Pacific Railroad Company, consisting of the line known as the Modoc Subdivision extending between milepost 552.0 near Texum, OR, and milepost 445.6 at the end of the track near McArthur, CA, and the Lakeview Branch extending between milepost 456.89 and milepost 458.60 at Alturas, CA; and (2) STB Finance Docket No. 34768, Modoc Northern Railroad Company—Operation Exemption— Union Pacific Railroad Company, wherein MNRR seeks to operate the rail lines being acquired by lease by MR&L. 1 Beth A. and William D. Blansett each own onethird interests in MR&L. Cristina C. Blansett, a minor, owns the remaining one-third interest in MR&L. 2 Beth A. and William D. Blansett each own 50 percent interests in MNRR. 3 Beth A. and William D. Blansett own 953 shares in UCRC. Also, Stephen M. Richards owns 200 shares, William C. Blansett owns 505 shares and Carl E. Baker owns 48 shares. PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 70027 The Blansetts state that: (1) The rail lines being operated by UCRC do not connect with the rail lines being acquired by lease by MR&L and operated by MNRR; (2) the continuance in control is not a part of a series of anticipated transactions that would connect the rail lines being acquired by MR&L with any railroad in their corporate family; and (3) the transaction does not involve a Class I railroad. Therefore, the transaction is exempt from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11323. See 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(2). Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III rail carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here, because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers. If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction. An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34722, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423– 0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Dennis C. Farley, Lear & Lear, L.L.P., 229 South Main, Suite 2200, Wells Fargo Center, Salt Lake City, UT 84111. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at https:// www.stb.dot.gov. Decided: November 9, 2005. By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings. Vernon A. Williams, Secretary. [FR Doc. 05–22768 Filed 11–17–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915–01–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Surface Transportation Board [STB Finance Docket No. 34768] Modoc Northern Railroad Company— Operation Exemption—Union Pacific Railroad Company Modoc Northern Railroad Company (MNRR), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 E:\FR\FM\18NON1.SGM 18NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 222 (Friday, November 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70026-70027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22919]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2005-22969; Notice 1]


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

    Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan) has determined that certain 
vehicles that it produced in 2005 do not comply with S4.2.2 of 49 CFR 
571.114, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114, ``Theft 
protection.'' Nissan 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), Nissan 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 Nissan'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.
    Affected are a total of approximately 3400 Nissan Maximas produced 
between March 29, 2005 and May 26, 2005. S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 114 
requires that,

    (a) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, provided that steering is prevented 
upon the key's removal, each vehicle specified therein may permit 
key removal when electrical failure of this system (including 
battery discharge) occurs or may have a device which, when 
activated, permits key removal. The means for activating any such 
device shall be covered by a non-transparent surface which, when 
installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device. The 
covering surface shall be removable only by use of a screwdriver or 
other tool.
    (b) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may 
have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission 
shift lever from ``park'' after the removal of the key. The device 
shall either be operable:
    (1) By the key, as defined in S3; or
    (2) By another means, provided that steering is prevented when 
the key is removed from the ignition, and provided that the means 
for activating the device is covered by a non-transparent surface 
which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the 
device. The covering surface shall be removable only by use of a 
screwdriver or other tool.

    The subject vehicles are equipped with an override device but the 
steering wheel may not lock under some circumstances when the key is 
removed.
    Nissan believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Nissan 
states that the vehicles are equipped with an engine control module 
immobilizer system which prevents forward movement of the vehicle if 
the key is not present.
    Nissan points out that NHTSA recently granted inconsequential 
noncompliance petitions for similar noncompliances by Bentley (69 FR

[[Page 70027]]

67211, 11/16/04), Volkswagen (69 FR 67211, 11/16/04), and Porsche (70 
FR 32398, 6/2/05). Nissan also points out that NHTSA recently published 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (70 FR 48362, 8/17/05), and that under 
this proposal, the system in the subject Maximas would be allowed.

    Nissan further states,
    The requirement that the steering be locked when the ignition 
key is removed through use of an ``override device'' was added to 
S4.2.2 ``to ensure that Standard No 114's theft protection aspects 
are not jeopardized.'' See 57 FR 2039, 2040 (January 17, 1992). In 
the Maxima vehicles at issue here, when the key is removed through 
use of the ``override device,'' which will occur rarely if at all, 
the immobilizer will prevent the vehicle from being jump-started 
without the electronically coded ignition key, because 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 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: December 19, 2005.

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

    Issued on: November 15, 2005.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 05-22919 Filed 11-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.