Nissan North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 3153 [E6-524]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 12 / Thursday, January 19, 2006 / Notices
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: February 21,
2006.
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.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120:
delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and
501.8.)
Issued on: January 12, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6–522 Filed 1–18–06; 8:45 am]
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,
Volkswagen, and Porsche. 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,
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 2005–22969; Notice 2]
Nissan North America, Inc., Grant of
Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
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.’’ Pursuant to
49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Nissan
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 November 18, 2005, in the
Federal Register (70 FR 70026). NHTSA
received no comments.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:38 Jan 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
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.
NHTSA agrees with Nissan that the
noncompliance is inconsequential to
safety. The agency 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3153
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
of the vehicle or both.’’ Therefore, an
equivalent level of theft protection is
provided by preventing 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.
In addition, as Nissan states in its
petition, NHTSA recently granted
inconsequential noncompliance
petitions for similar noncompliances by
Bentley (69 FR 67211, 11/16/04),
Volkswagen (69 FR 67211, 11/16/04),
and Porsche (70 FR 32398, 6/2/05).
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, Nissan’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: January 12, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6–524 Filed 1–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Docket No. AB–600 (Sub-No. 1X)]
Yakima Interurban Lines Association—
Abandonment Exemption—in Yakima
County, WA
Yakima Interurban Lines Association
(YILA) has filed a notice of exemption
under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F—Exempt
Abandonments to abandon a line of
railroad known as the Naches Branch,
from milepost 2.97 (near Yakima) to
milepost 14.26 (near Naches), a distance
E:\FR\FM\19JAN1.SGM
19JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 3153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-524]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 2005-22969; Notice 2]
Nissan North America, Inc., Grant 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.'' Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Nissan 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 November 18, 2005, in the Federal Register (70 FR
70026). NHTSA received no comments.
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,
Volkswagen, and Porsche. 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.
NHTSA agrees with Nissan that the noncompliance is inconsequential
to safety. The agency 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 of the vehicle or both.'' Therefore, an
equivalent level of theft protection is provided by preventing 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.
In addition, as Nissan states in its petition, NHTSA recently
granted inconsequential noncompliance petitions for similar
noncompliances by Bentley (69 FR 67211, 11/16/04), Volkswagen (69 FR
67211, 11/16/04), and Porsche (70 FR 32398, 6/2/05).
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,
Nissan'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: January 12, 2006.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6-524 Filed 1-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
