[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 3153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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