[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 67211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25423]


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

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