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 

67212 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2004 / Notices 

part 573, ‘‘Defect and Noncompliance 

Reports.’’ Notice of receipt of a petition 

was published, with a 30-day comment 

period, on May 28, 2004, in the Federal 

Register (69 FR 30745). NHTSA 

received no comments. 

Approximately 47,962 model year 

2004 vehicles are affected including 

approximately 37,663 Touareg, 

approximately 2,268 Phaeton and 

approximately 8,031 Audi A8L vehicles. 

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 key is removed 

using the override system provided to 

permit key removal when the 

transmission is not in the ‘‘park’’

position. 

Volkswagen believes the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. 

Volkswagen explained:

In the Volkswagen and Audi car lines for 

which this petition is submitted, the ability 

to remove the key with the override system 

is the priority security and safety feature (to 

the extent that it prevents a stolen vehicle 

from being driven) because the vehicles are 

equipped with an electronic immobilizer 

which prevents starting of the vehicle unless 

the electronically coded key provided for that 

vehicle is used. 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 key cannot be removed in the event of 

vehicle power failure, the owner will not be 

able to lock the vehicle and the car can be 

started and driven by anyone who can get it 

repaired, which is as simple as a jump start.

Volkswagen 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. Volkswagen 

stated that in this case, the electronic 

immobilizer provides anti-theft 

protection and the steering lock is not 

significant. 

The agency agrees with Volkswagen. 

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. Volkswagen 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, Volkswagen’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. 04–25422 Filed 11–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Research and Special Programs 

Administration 

[Docket No. RSPA–04–18607; Notice 2] 

Pipeline Safety: Grant of Waiver; 

Alyeska Pipeline Service Company

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs 

Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice; grant of waiver.

SUMMARY: The Research and Special 

Programs Administration’s (RSPA) 

Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is 

granting Alyeska Pipeline Service 

Company’s (Alyeska) petition for a 

waiver of the pipeline safety regulation 

that requires an operator to reduce the 

pressure of a pipeline to not more than 

50 percent of the maximum operating 

pressure whenever the line pipe is 

moved.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Alyeska petitioned RSPA/OPS for a 

waiver from compliance with the 

requirements of 49 CFR 195.424(a) for 

420 miles of aboveground line pipe in 

the Trans Alaska Pipeline System 

(TAPS). TAPS was designed and 

constructed between 1973 and 1977 to 

transport oil 800 miles from Prudhoe 

Bay, Alaska, to Alyeska’s marine 

terminal at Valdez, Alaska. Over half of 

the TAPS pipeline was constructed 

aboveground. Section 195.424(a) does 

not allow a pipeline operator to move 

any line pipe unless the pressure in the 

pipeline section is reduced to not more 

than 50 percent of the maximum 

operating pressure (MOP). Alyeska 

argues that lowering the pressure on the 

aboveground portion of TAPS is not 

necessary and is disruptive and 

burdensome to its pipeline operations. 

The requested waiver would apply 

whenever routine maintenance 

necessitates that the aboveground line 

pipe be moved laterally, longitudinally 

or vertically, to relieve pipe stresses and 

restore the pipe to its intended position. 

On July 22, 2004, RSPA/OPS published 

a notice in the Federal Register

requesting public comment on Alyeska’s 

waiver request (69 FR 43880). No