Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2004 / Notices 67209

standards shall be refused admission 

into the United States unless NHTSA 

has decided that the motor vehicle is 

substantially similar to a motor vehicle 

originally manufactured for importation 

into and sale in the United States, 

certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of 

the same model year as the model of the 

motor vehicle to be compared, and is 

capable of being readily altered to 

conform to all applicable Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards. 

Petitions for eligibility decisions may 

be submitted by either manufacturers or 

importers who have registered with 

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR Part 592. As 

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA 

publishes notice in the Federal Register

of each petition that it receives, and 

affords interested persons an 

opportunity to comment on the petition. 

At the close of the comment period, 

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the 

petition and any comments that it has 

received, whether the vehicle is eligible 

for importation. The agency then 

publishes this decision in the Federal 

Register. 

Wallace Environmental Testing 

Laboratories, Inc. (WETL) of Houston, 

TX (Registered Importer 90–005) has 

petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 

nonconforming 2001 Chevrolet Blazer 

multipurpose passenger vehicles are 

eligible for importation into the United 

States. The vehicles which WETL 

believes are substantially similar are 

2001 Chevrolet Blazer multipurpose 

passenger vehicles that were 

manufactured for sale in the United 

States and certified by their 

manufacturer as conforming to all 

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards. 

The petitioner claims that it carefully 

compared non-U.S. certified 2001 

Chevrolet Blazer multipurpose 

passenger vehicles to their U.S.-certified 

counterparts, and found the vehicles to 

be substantially similar with respect to 

compliance with all applicable Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards. 

WETL submitted information with its 

petition intended to demonstrate that 

non-U.S. certified 2001 Chevrolet Blazer 

multipurpose passenger vehicles, as 

originally manufactured, conform to 

many Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards in the same manner as their 

U.S. certified counterparts, or are 

capable of being readily altered to 

conform to those standards. 

Specifically, the petitioner claims that 

non-U.S. certified 2001 Chevrolet Blazer 

multipurpose passenger vehicles are 

identical to their U.S. certified 

counterparts with respect to compliance 

with Standard Nos. 102 Transmission 

Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, 

and Transmission Braking Effect, 103 

Windshield Defrosting and Defogging 

Systems, 104 Windshield Wiping and 

Washing Systems, 105 Hydraulic and 

Electric Brake Systems, 106 Brake 

Hoses, 111 Rearview Mirrors, 113 Hood 

Latch System, 114 Theft Protection, 116 

Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 118 PowerOperated Window, Partition, and Roof 

Panel Systems, 119 New Pneumatic 

Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger 

Cars, 120 Tire Selection and Rims for 

Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger 

Cars, 124 Accelerator Control Systems,

201 Occupant Protection in Interior 

Impact, 202 Head Restraints, 204 

Steering Control Rearward 

Displacement, 205 Glazing Materials,

206 Door Locks and Door Retention 

Components, 207 Seating Systems, 208 

Occupant Crash Protection, 209 Seat 

Belt Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly 

Anchorages, 212 Windshield Mounting,

214 Side Impact Protection, 216 Roof 

Crush Resistance, 219 Windshield Zone 

Intrusion, 301 Fuel System Integrity, and 

302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

Petitioner also contends that the 

vehicles are capable of being readily 

altered to meet the following standards, 

in the manner indicated: 

Standard No. 101 Controls and 

Displays: Substitution of a lens marked 

‘‘Brake’’ for a lens with a noncomplying 

symbol on the brake failure indicator 

lamp. 

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective 

Devices and Associated Equipment:

Installation of U.S.-model headlamp 

assemblies that incorporate front side 

marker lamps. 

Standard No. 225 Child Restraint 

Anchorage Systems: Inspection of all 

vehicles manufactured on or after 9–1–

2000, and installation of U.S.-model 

child seat tether anchorages if the 

vehicle is not already so equipped. 

The petitioner also states that all 

vehicles will be inspected prior to 

importation to assure compliance with 

the Theft Prevention Standard at 49 CFR 

Part 541, and that antitheft devices will 

be installed, if necessary, to comply 

with that standard. 

The petitioner additionally states that 

a vehicle identification plate must be 

affixed to the vehicles near the left 

windshield post to meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 565. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on the petition 

described above. Comments should refer 

to the docket number and be submitted 

to: Docket Management, Room PL–401, 

400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. (Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 

5 p.m.) It is requested but not required 

that 10 copies be submitted. 

All comments received before the 

close of business on the closing date 

indicated above will be considered, and 

will be available for examination in the 

docket at the above address both before 

and after that date. To the extent 

possible, comments filed after the 

closing date will also be considered. 

Notice of final action on the petition 

will be published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to the authority 

indicated below.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and 

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 04–25421 Filed 11–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2004–19548] 

Notice of Receipt of Petition for 

Decision That Nonconforming 1998 

Lexus GS300 Passenger Cars Are 

Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for 

decision that nonconforming 1998 

Lexus GS300 passenger cars are eligible 

for importation. 

SUMMARY: This document announces 

receipt by the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a 

petition for a decision that 1998 Lexus 

GS300 passenger cars that were not 

originally manufactured to comply with 

all applicable Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards are eligible for 

importation into the United States 

because (1) they are substantially 

similar to vehicles that were originally 

manufactured for importation into and 

sale in the United States and that were 

certified by their manufacturer as 

complying with the safety standards, 

and (2) they are capable of being readily 

altered to conform to the standards.

DATES: The closing date for comments 

on the petition is December 16, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to 

the docket number and notice number, 

and be submitted to: Docket 

Management, Room PL–401, 400 

Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 

5 p.m.] Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

67210 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2004 / Notices 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you 

may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle Safety 

Compliance, NHTSA (202–366–3151).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a 

motor vehicle that was not originally 

manufactured to conform to all 

applicable Federal motor vehicle safety 

standards shall be refused admission 

into the United States unless NHTSA 

has decided that the motor vehicle is 

substantially similar to a motor vehicle 

originally manufactured for importation 

into and sale in the United States, 

certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of 

the same model year as the model of the 

motor vehicle to be compared, and is 

capable of being readily altered to 

conform to all applicable Federal motor 

vehicle safety standards. 

Petitions for eligibility decisions may 

be submitted by either manufacturers or 

importers who have registered with 

NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As 

specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA 

publishes notice in the Federal Register

of each petition that it receives, and 

affords interested persons an 

opportunity to comment on the petition. 

At the close of the comment period, 

NHTSA decides, on the basis of the 

petition and any comments that it has 

received, whether the vehicle is eligible 

for importation. The agency then 

publishes this decision in the Federal 

Register. 

Sunshine Car Import (‘‘SCI’’) of Ft. 

Myers, Florida, (Registered Importer 01–

289) has petitioned NHTSA to decide 

whether nonconforming 1998 Lexus 

GS300 passenger cars are eligible for 

importation into the United States. The 

vehicles which SCI believes are 

substantially similar are 1998 Lexus 

GS300 passenger cars that were 

manufactured for importation into, and 

sale in, the United States and certified 

by their manufacturer as conforming to 

all applicable Federal motor vehicle 

safety standards. 

The petitioner claims that it carefully 

compared non-U.S. certified 1998 Lexus 

GS300 passenger cars to their U.S.-

certified counterparts, and found the 

vehicles to be substantially similar with 

respect to compliance with most Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards. 

SCI submitted information with its 

petition intended to demonstrate that 

non-U.S. certified 1998 Lexus GS300 

passenger cars, as originally 

manufactured, conform to many Federal 

motor vehicle safety standards in the 

same manner as their U.S. certified 

counterparts, or are capable of being 

readily altered to conform to those 

standards.

Specifically, the petitioner claims that 

non-U.S. certified 1998 Lexus GS300 

passenger cars are identical to their U.S. 

certified counterparts with respect to 

compliance with Standard Nos. 102 

Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, 

Starter Interlock, and Transmission 

Braking Effect, 103 Windshield 

Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 104 

Windshield Wiping and Washing 

Systems, 105, Hydraulic and Electric 

Brake Systems, 106 Brake Hoses, 109 

New Pneumatic Tires, 113 Hood Latch 

System, 116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 

124 Accelerator Control Systems, 201 

Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, 

202 Head Restraints, 204 Steering 

Control Rearward Displacement, 205 

Glazing Materials, 206 Door Locks and 

Door Retention Components, 207 

Seating Systems, 209 Seat Belt 

Assemblies, 210 Seat Belt Assembly 

Anchorages, 212 Windshield Mounting, 

216 Roof Crush Resistance, 219 

Windshield Zone Intrusion, 301 Fuel 

System Integrity, and 302 Flammability 

of Interior Materials. 

The petitioner also contends that the 

vehicles are capable of being readily 

altered to meet the following standards, 

in the manner indicated: 

Standard No. 101 Controls and 

Displays: (a) Inscription of the word 

‘‘brake’’ on the instrument cluster in 

place of the international ECE warning 

symbol, and (b) replacement or 

conversion of the speedometer to read 

in miles per hours. 

Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective 

Devices and Associated Equipment: 

Inspection of all vehicles and 

replacement of any non-U.S. model 

components required to meet the 

requirements of this standard with U.S.-

model components. 

Standard No. 110 Tire Selection and 

Rims: Installation of a tire information 

placard. 

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: 

Installation of a U.S.-model passenger 

side rearview mirror, or inscription of 

the required warning statement on the 

face of that mirror. 

Standard No. 114 Theft Protection: 

Installation of a supplemental key 

warning buzzer system to meet the 

requirements of this standard. 

Standard No. 118 Power-Operated 

Window, Partition, and Roof Panel 

Systems: Inspection of all vehicles and 

installation, on vehicles that do not 

already meet the requirements of the 

standard, of a supplemental relay 

system to meet the requirements of the 

standard. 

Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash 

Protection: (a) Installation of U.S. 

version software to ensure that the seat 

belt warning system meets the 

requirements of this standard, (b) 

installation of U.S.-model driver’s side 

airbag and front seat belts, and (C) 

inspection of all vehicles and 

replacement of any non-U.S.-model 

components necessary for conformity 

with this standard with U.S.-model 

components. 

Petitioner states that the restraint 

systems used in the vehicles include 

airbags and knee bolsters at the front 

outboard seating positions as well as 

combination lap and shoulder belts at 

the front and rear designated seating 

positions. These seat belt systems are 

self-tensioning and release by means of 

a single red pushbutton. 

Standard No. 214 Side Impact 

Protection: Inspection of all vehicles 

and replacement of any non-U.S.-model 

components necessary for conformity 

with this standard with U.S.-model 

components. 

The petitioner also states that all 

vehicles will be inspected prior to 

importation to assure compliance with 

the Theft Prevention Standard at 49 CFR 

part 541, and that vehicles will be 

modified, if necessary, to comply with 

that standard. 

The petitioner additionally states that 

a vehicle identification plate must be 

affixed to the vehicles near the left 

windshield post to meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR part 565. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on the petition 

described above. Comments should refer 

to the docket number and be submitted 

to: Docket Management, Room PL–401, 

400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 

20590. [Docket hours are from 9 a.m. to 

5 p.m.] It is requested but not required 

that 10 copies be submitted. 

All comments received before the 

close of business on the closing date 

indicated above will be considered, and 

will be available for examination in the 

docket at the above address both before 

and after that date. To the extent 

possible, comments filed after the 

closing date will also be considered. 

Notice of final action on the petition 

will be published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to the authority 

indicated below.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2004 / Notices 67211

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and 

(b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority 

at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Claude H. Harris, 

Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

[FR Doc. 04–25426 Filed 11–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

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 selfmobility 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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2004–17902; Notice 2] 

Volkswagen of America, Inc., Grant of 

Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

Volkswagen of America, Inc. 

(Volkswagen) has determined that 

certain vehicles that were produced by 

Volkswagen AG and AUDI AG 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), Volkswagen has 

petitioned for a determination that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and has filed an 

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR