[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 105 (Thursday, June 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32398-32399]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10786]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA 2005-20782; Notice 2]


Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision 
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Dr. Ing. h.c.F Porsche AG has determined that certain vehicles that 
it manufactured for model years 2003, 2004 and 2005 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), on behalf of Dr. Ing. h.c.F Porsche AG, Porsche Cars 
North America, Inc. (Porsche) 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 April 11, 2005, in the Federal 
Register (70 FR 18459). NHTSA received no comments.
    Approximately 28,949 model year 2003, 2004, and 2005 Porsche 
Cayenne, Cayenne S and Cayenne Turbo 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.
    Porsche believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor 
vehicle safety and that no corrective action is warranted. Porsche 
states the following in its petition:


[[Page 32399]]


    The ignition key/transmission interlock requirements of S4.2 
were promulgated in Docket 1-21 (Notice 9 published in May 30, 
1990). In that notice there was no provision for an emergency 
operation system to permit ignition key removal when the 
transmission is not in ``Park'' position. In response to several 
automobile manufacturer petitions for reconsideration, the agency 
published Notice 10 (March 26, 1991) to supplement S4.2 by the 
addition of S4.2.1 and S4.2.2 that did permit an emergency operation 
system to be located behind an opaque cover that could only be 
removed via the use of a tool. The use of the emergency operation 
system allows the removal of the ignition key when the transmission 
is not in ``Park.'' The emergency operation system would also permit 
moving the shift lever out of ``Park'' position after removal of the 
ignition key. The use of the emergency operation system was 
dependent upon the steering system being locked whenever the 
ignition key is removed.
    Some manufacturers again filed petitions for reconsideration to 
the Notice 10 amendment which the agency responded [to] in Notice 11 
(January 17, 1992). Notice 11 amended S4.2.2(a) to permit ignition 
key removal even if the transmission were not in ``Park'' if there 
is an electrical failure of the vehicle without activation of the 
emergency operating system. When the vehicle's electrical system was 
behaving normally, removal of the ignition key in transmission 
positions other than ``Park'' would only be permissible via the 
emergency operation system. Ignition key removal in transmission 
shift positions other than ``Park'' required, as before, that the 
steering system would lock.
    The requirement that the steering be locked when the ignition 
key is removed was debated in both Notice 10 and 11 ``to ensure that 
Standard No. 114's theft protection aspects are not jeopardized.'' 
Nothing in the record indicates that this requirement was based on a 
need to prevent personal or property damage.

    Porsche states that it believes the noncompliance is 
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the steering lock 
function when the vehicle is without electrical power and the ignition 
key is removed has no safety implication because the vehicle is 
immobilized. Porsche explains:

    In the Cayenne models at issue here the removal of the ignition 
key using the emergency operation system is a vehicle security 
function to prevent the vehicle from being driven by simply jump-
starting the vehicle, due to the fact that the vehicle is equipped 
with an immobilizer that prevents starting of the vehicle without 
the electronically coded ignition key. The key-code is recorded in 
the engine control module and cannot be electrically bypassed.

    The agency agrees with Porsche. 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.
    NHTSA recently granted two petitions for the same noncompliance 
based on the same rationale (Bentley Motors, Inc. and Volkswagen of 
America, Inc., both at 69 FR 67211, November 16, 2004).
    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, 
Porsche'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: May 25, 2005.
Ronald L. Medford,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 05-10786 Filed 6-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P