[Federal Register: November 16, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 67211]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16no04-124]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA 2004-17939; Notice 2]
Bentley Motors, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
Bentley Motors, Inc. (Bentley) has determined that certain vehicles
that it manufactured in 2004 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), Bentley 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 June 1, 2004, in the Federal Register (69 FR 30990).
NHTSA received no comments.
Approximately 464 model year 2004 Bentley Continental GT 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.
Bentley believes the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Bentley
explained:
In the Bentley Continental GT, for which this petition is submitted,
the ability to remove the ignition key using the key removal device
is a primary security and safety feature (to the extent that it
prevents the vehicle from being driven) because the vehicle is
equipped with an electronic immobilizer which prevents starting of
the engine unless the electronically coded ignition key provided for
that vehicle is used in the electronic steering column/ignition
switch. The ``code'' to start the engine and activate the fuel and
ignition system is embedded in the engine control module and
therefore cannot be bypassed or defeated. If the ignition key cannot
be removed in the event of vehicle power failure, the driver will
not be able to lock the vehicle and the car may be capable of being
started and driven by anyone who can repair it (which may be as
simple as use of an external electrical supply/battery), because the
electronically coded ignition key remains in the steering column/
ignition switch.
Bentley explained that when there is no vehicle power failure and
the override device is used to remove the key when the transmission is
not in ``park,'' there is no risk to motor vehicle safety because this
would occur only in a repair shop or under supervised conditions when
the vehicle must be moved but it is desired to remove the key for
security reasons. Bentley stated that in this case, the electronic
immobilizer provides anti-theft protection and the steering lock is not
significant.
The agency agrees with Bentley. The owner's manuals for these
vehicles state as follows:
There is a chip in the [ignition] key. It automatically deactivates
the immobilizer when the key is inserted into the ignition lock. The
electronic immobilizer is automatically activated when you take the
key out of the ignition lock.
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. The owner's
manuals for these vehicles include the following information:
The parking brake can be used to prevent the vehicle from moving
unintentionally. Always apply the parking brake when you leave your
vehicle and when you park.
If an electrical failure occurs when the transmission is not in
park, the driver may be able to remove the ignition key using the
information in the owner's manual, but will more likely contact the
manufacturer's hotline or dealer for assistance. Bentley is instructing
its hotline staff and advising its dealers via a service bulletin to
ask the caller to ensure that the parking brake is firmly applied
before attempting to remove the key.
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,
Bentley'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: November 10, 2004.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 04-25423 Filed 11-15-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P