[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 105 (Tuesday, June 1, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30990-30991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-12361]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2004-17939; Notice 1]


Bentley Motors, Inc., Receipt 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.'' Bentley 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), Bentley 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 Bentley'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 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 that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Bentley 
states the following in its petition:

    The ignition key/transmission interlock requirements of S4.2 
were enacted in Docket 1-21, Notice 9 published May 30, 1990. In 
that amendment, there was no provision for a device to permit key 
removal if the transmission was not in the PARK position. In 
response to petitions for reconsideration and comments to the 
original NPRM by Toyota, Nissan, Subaru and the Rover Group, NHTSA 
published Docket 1-21, Notice 10 on March 26, 1991 to revise S4.2 by 
adding S4.2.1 and S4.2.2 which permit a device to enable ignition 
key removal if located behind a non-transparent cover that must be 
removed with the use of a tool. The activation of the override could 
permit ignition key removal even though the transmission is not in 
PARK or it could permit moving the transmission out of the PARK 
position after removal of the ignition key. The condition required 
for the operation of the device in each case is that the steering 
would be prevented when the ignition key is removed from the 
ignition switch.
    Toyota and Honda filed petitions for reconsideration to the 
March 1991 Final Rule amendment and these were responded to in 
Docket 1-21, Notice 11 on January 17, 1992. In Notice 11, NHTSA 
amended S4.2.2(a) to clarify that ignition key removal is permitted 
even though the transmission is not in PARK without the activation 
of the device in the event of vehicle electrical failure. However, 
removal of the ignition key with the transmission not in PARK under 
conditions when the vehicle has normal electric power would only be 
permitted with the use of the device. The condition for permitting 
ignition key removal under any situation when the transmission was 
not in PARK was that the steering would be prevented when the 
ignition key is removed from the ignition switch.
    The provision that the steering must be locked when the ignition 
key is removed from the ignition switch was discussed in both Notice 
10 (56 FR 12467, March 20,

[[Page 30991]]

1991) and in Notice 11 (57 FR 2040, January 17, 1992) and the stated 
intent was ``to ensure that Standard No. 114's theft protection 
aspects are not jeopardized.'' There is no indication that the 
requirement for the steering to be prevented was based on any need 
to prevent personal injury or property damage.

    Bentley states that it believes the noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the presence or absence 
of a steering lock when the vehicle is without electrical power and the 
ignition key is removed from the electronic steering column/ignition 
switch has no safety implication because in any such circumstance the 
vehicle is immobilized. Bentley explains:

    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.

    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 
website at http://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 
http://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 1, 2004.

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

    Issued on: May 25, 2004.
Kenneth N. Weinstein,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 04-12361 Filed 5-28-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P