[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30006-30011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13867]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 1-21, Notice 13]
RIN 2127-AE99
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Theft Protection
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule makes a temporary change in the requirement of
Standard No. 114, Theft Prevention, that vehicles with automatic
transmissions be equipped with a transmission lock that prevents key
removal unless the transmission is locked in park or becomes locked in
park as a direct result of removing the key. The purpose of this
requirement is to prevent rollaway crashes caused by unattended
children pulling the transmission lever out of park. Due to apparent
confusion concerning the scope of the requirement and the effect of
that confusion on transmission designs, the requirement will be changed
until September 1, 1996. Until that time, the transmission lock will
only be required to prevent key removal when the transmission is fully
engaged in a detent position other than park (e.g., reverse, neutral,
drive). After that date, the requirements will revert to their previous
form, prohibiting key removal in all positions other than park.
This rule also corrects, by technical amendment, an error in the
language of the provision that permits transmission lock override
devices to facilitate towing disabled vehicles. The existing language
inadvertently requires steering lock-up even for vehicles whose
override devices are operated by the vehicle key. Requiring steering
column lock-up on automatic transmission locks with a key operated
override device would not provide added protection against theft since
the key that would operate the device would also unlock the steering.
The technical amendment excludes these vehicles from the steering lock-
up requirement.
DATES: This rule is effective July 7, 1995. Petitions for
reconsideration of this rule must be received no later than July 7,
1995.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number and notice number and be submitted in writing to: Administrator,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5220, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington DC, 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jere Medlin, Office of Vehicle
Safety Standards, NRM-15, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366-5276.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Mazda Petition
Background
On May 30, 1990, NHTSA amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, to protect against injuries to
children caused by the rollaway of unattended automatic transmission
vehicles in which children were able to shift the transmission. 55 FR
21868. The amendment required automatic transmission vehicles with a
``park'' position to have a key-locking system that prevents removal of
the key unless the transmission is locked in ``park'' or becomes locked
in ``park'' as the direct result of removing the key. The amendment was
intended to ensure that the automatic transmissions of unattended
parked vehicles cannot be shifted by a child. The amendment became
effective on September 1, 1992.
On June 21, 1990, NHTSA denied a petition for rulemaking from Mr.
W. A. Barr. Mr. Barr had requested that the agency amend the standard
to require manufacturers to design transmissions that assure that the
parking pawl (a ``tooth'' that fits into a transmission gear to prevent
it from turning) engages when the driver puts the shift lever in park.
He believed that transmission designs of Ford and other manufacturers
generate a ``back pressure'' on the shift lever that pushes the lever
out of park and toward reverse. To counter that force, the driver has
to pull the shift lever ``sideways'' into a slot to assure that the
lever does not spontaneously move out of park and into reverse. Mr.
Barr considered these designs defective because they place the
responsibility for assuring that the shift lever is ``locked'' in park
on the driver. He referred to the situation in which the driver does
not properly place the shift lever in park as ``mispositioning.''
In its denial of Mr. Barr's petition, NHTSA stated ``[w]ithout data
suggesting current Federal motor vehicle safety standards are allowing
or not addressing an unreasonable safety risk, the agency will not
commence [rulemaking].'' The agency also stated ``the agency's review
of available data on incidents of inadvertent vehicle movement
indicated that the potential for this problem is relatively small.'' In
[[Page 30007]] justifying the denial, the agency made no mention of the
previous month's amendment. That amendment addressed his concern to a
limited extent, i.e., it prevented key removal when the transmission is
not locked in park for whatever reason, including mispositioning.
In a November 20, 1992 letter to Ford, NHTSA declined to adopt a
request by that company to interpret Standard No. 114 as prohibiting
key removal only when the transmission shift lever is in one of the
available gear positioning detents other than park, i.e., reverse,
neutral, drive, first, or second, and thus not when the lever is at
points between those detents. The agency stated that
Key removal must be prevented in all circumstances save those
specified in S4.2.1. Neither the transmission nor the transmission
shift lever is locked in ``park'' when the lever is between the gear
selector positioning detents.
After issuing the interpretation letter, NHTSA conducted compliance
testing for Standard No. 114 and discovered apparent noncompliance with
the transmission-locking requirement in vehicles of several
manufacturers. NHTSA sent letters of notification of apparent
noncompliance to Ford, Honda, GM, Suzuki, Hyundai, and Mazda. In its
letter to Mazda, the agency enclosed a copy of the November 1992
interpretation letter it had sent to Ford.
On February 2, 1993, Mazda submitted a petition for rulemaking
requesting that the agency amend the provision added by the May 1990
final rule by revising the compliance test procedure so that it would
provide for testing for the possibility of key removal only when the
transmission lever was in any of the detent positions. Mazda said that
the procedure was needed to clarify the requirement to make the
compliance test procedure ``objective.''
In its petition, Mazda characterized the agency's November 1992
interpretation as permitting ``intentional mispositioning'' of the
transmission shift lever during compliance testing. Mazda argued that
the rulemaking record did not indicate that the agency ever
contemplated guarding against what that company terms ``intentional
mispositioning'' of the transmission shift lever. Mazda argued that
during its design and development of the vehicles which were the
subject of the agency's testing, it never understood ``intentional
mispositioning'' to be a reasonable and legitimate compliance test
condition under Standard No. 114. Mazda also argued that, by not
specifying what that company termed as an objective test procedure for
determining compliance, the standard fails to satisfy the requirement
of 49 U.S.C. 30111(a) that standards ``be stated in objective terms.''
On March 14, 1994, in response to Mazda's petition, NHTSA issued a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to amend Standard No.
114 to prevent key removal only when the shift lever is fully placed in
any designated shift position other than park. In issuing the notice,
NHTSA rejected Mazda's ``lack of objective test procedure'' argument
because the requirements were clear on their face, but found reason to
reexamine the rule on other grounds.
In the NPRM, the agency tentatively concluded that the safety
implications of the proposal were nonexistent or minuscule. For those
noncomplying vehicles that required a deliberate effort to defeat the
transmission shift lock, there would be no safety consequences from the
adoption of the proposal, since there was no reason to believe that
drivers would make such a deliberate effort. For those noncomplying
vehicles that would allow the driver to inadvertently move the shift
lever into what appeared to be the park position and remove the key
when the lever is not actually in park--referred to as a ``misshift''--
the agency tentatively concluded that the safety impacts would be
``minuscule.'' This is because two rare events (the driver
inadvertently moving the shift lever to a position just short of park
and a child subsequently playing with the shift lever) would have to
coincide for a rollaway accident to occur.
The NPRM proposed a compliance test procedure that would define
whether the vehicle was ``fully placed'' in the various shift positions
and whether it was ``locked in `park'.'' For the shift lever to be
regarded as ``fully placed'' in one of the detent positions, the NPRM
provided that position would have to be displayed on the transmission
gear selection indicator and the vehicle would have to respond in a
certain way to confirm that the transmission was actually in the
indicated detent position. ``Fully placed in park'' was defined as
being when the vehicle does not roll away (``rollaway'' being defined
as moving more than 100 mm) on a 10 percent grade after the parking
brake is released. ``Fully placed in neutral'' was defined as being
when activation of the accelerator pedal does not cause the car to
move. ``Fully placed in a forward or reverse drive position'' was
defined as being when the vehicle can be driven under its own power.
Summary of Comments to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Industry commenters supported the proposed change to the
transmission locking requirements, without explaining their reasons for
doing so. Mazda stated only that the proposed requirements were
sufficiently objective. Chrysler agreed that the less stringent
transmission lock requirements in the NPRM provide greater flexibility
for the manufacturers, but found it ``difficult to imagine mechanical
systems'' designed to prevent key removal only at detent positions.
However, Chrysler did ``not object'' to the rulemaking.
The industry commenters all shared two objections to the proposed
rule. The first resulted from the NPRM's substitution of the word
``or'' for ``and'' in S4.2.1(a). The existing requirement in that
paragraph states ``. . . shall prevent removal of the key unless the
transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in `park'. . .''
(emphasis added). Ford, GM, and Chrysler objected to the NPRM's change
in the conjunctive language of S4.2.1(a)(1) from ``or'' to ``and''
because it requires lockup of both the transmission and the shift
lever, rather than only one or the other. Ford believed that this
change was inadvertent because NPRM's preamble did not reflect a desire
to require manufacturers to change current designs. Instead, it
indicated an intent to provide manufacturers with greater flexibility.
Ford stated that locking both the transmission and the shift lever
would require design changes. GM stated that the added requirement was
unnecessary and implied that it was impractical, because shifting into
park may initially only position the parking pawl on the top of a tooth
of the planetary carrier, and that further vehicle movement may be
necessary to permit pawl engagement in a slot between the teeth.
Chrysler believed locking either the transmission or the shift lever is
adequate to protect against injuries.
Ford, GM, and Chrysler also urged the agency to increase the amount
of vehicle movement (100 mm) that is permitted in the compliance
procedure before the vehicle is considered to have experienced
``rollaway.'' Ford stated that a small percentage of ``light truck type
vehicles with large tires'' may travel slightly more than 100 mm, and
suggested increasing the distance to 150 mm. Chrysler also suggested
150 mm as an appropriate distance.
GM objected even more strongly to the 100 mm rollaway definition.
GM commented that the compliance test [[Page 30008]] procedure for
rollaway is unnecessarily stringent and impracticable. Because of the
many different combinations of axle ratios, transmission and suspension
designs, and tire sizes that have to be accommodated, GM suggests
deleting the distance limit altogether. Rather than selecting an
``arbitrary'' distance, GM stated ``park'' should be defined as being
when the vehicle becomes stationary within five seconds of releasing
the parking brake. GM recommended that, if NHTSA insists on using a
distance, the distance be increased from 100 mm to at least 400 mm. GM
stated that this is necessary to account for extreme situations, such
as vehicles with tires greater than 30 inches in diameter, which GM
calculates may require up to 40 degrees of rotation to fully engage the
parking pawl and eliminate gear lash. Without explaining why, GM also
stated that a 10 percent grade was unnecessarily steep and suggested a
2-3 percent grade instead.
A number of lawyers and a consumer safety advocacy group commented
that changing the standard as proposed in the NPRM would be detrimental
to motor vehicle safety. Many of them offered examples of specific
crashes that they believed would be permitted under the relaxed
standard. Some of these crashes may be attributable to misshifting.
Mr. Robert Palmer, a Missouri attorney, stated that he handled a
``string of cases'' in the 1980's in which he said Ford's defective
transmission locks allowed the driver to ``place the vehicle in what he
thought was `Park' and then the vehicle would move into `Reverse'.''
These are misshift situations. He appeared to believe that NHTSA is
rescinding the transmission lock requirement altogether, and objected
because it is saving ``countless'' lives.
Mr. Victor Fleming, an Arkansas lawyer, wrote about another
misshift accident. He believed that the standard fails to address the
issue of ``unsuspecting adults'' causing rollaway accidents. He also
appeared to believe that NHTSA is rescinding the transmission lock
requirement.
Mr. Kenneth Obenski, president of a firm that investigates
accidents for insurers and litigants, stated that 0.5 percent of the
accidents that his firm has investigated involved vehicles parked but
inadequately secured by drivers. Some of these accidents may be caused
by misshifts.
Mr. John Stilson, a consulting safety and automotive engineer, is
engaged as an expert on behalf of a woman injured after her Mazda
rolled over her. The accident apparently involved a misshift situation,
although it is unclear whether the vehicle was equipped with a
transmission lock.
Mr. Ralph Hoar, of Ralph Hoar and Associates, asserted that NHTSA
files reveal ``numerous recalls by many manufacturers for shift
indicator misalignment or problems with the shift mechanism that would
mislead the operator into believing that they had selected the intended
gear.'' He concluded that, if vehicle operators are being misled about
the transmission position, it follows that the transmission may be
between gears. An operator who can remove the key in such a situation
would be falsely led to believe that the vehicle is secured. He states
that this history of recalls and complaints indicates it is not in the
interest of safety to allow misshifts.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety's (Advocates) main argument
was that the agency has no idea of the magnitude of the safety benefits
that it is eliminating in this rulemaking. Advocates stated that NHTSA
has not produced any data to support the NPRM's conclusion that the
chance of misshifting is small, or that the chance of misshifting
coupled with horseplay on the part of children is remote. Advocates
quoted the 1990 final rule as asserting that the existing requirement
provides ``absolute assurance'' of transmission lock after key removal.
Advocates asserted that ``[t]he agency is obligated to determine the
extent of the probable exposure, and the degree of risk, to which
children will be newly exposed prior to amending the rule * * *''
Advocates noted that the 1990 Final Regulatory Evaluation (FRE)
acknowledged a ``special obligation'' to reduce crashes involving
children, and expressed the opinion that this may make it worth
maintaining the existing rule and requiring the involuntary redesign of
some vehicle transmissions.
A related argument of Advocates was that the magnitude of the
safety problem is likely much larger than NHTSA's estimates because the
number of noncompliant vehicles exceeds NHTSA's figures. Advocates
stated that the 1990 FRE predicated its estimate of 50-100 child
injuries prevented per year on the assumption that only 4 percent, or
470,000, of the 1987 vehicles were not in compliance. Advocates stated
that 40 percent more, or 668,000 vehicles in 1993 permit misshifts.
Advocates argued that this increased exposure will be repeated annually
and even increased if more manufacturers decide to start producing
transmission locks that permit misshifting. Advocates estimated that
the NPRM, if adopted, might result in an additional 50-100 child
injuries annually.
Advocates also faulted NHTSA for not providing any information on
the number of different kinds of transmissions that would have to be
redesigned, or the costs of doing so. It stated that if transmission
redesign were enormously burdensome, manufacturers would not have
improved from approximately 69 percent compliance in mid-1990 to the
1993 level of well over 90 percent compliance in just two years.
Advocates concluded that NHTSA has provided no economic argument to
support the NPRM.
Finally, Advocates asserted that NHTSA conducted this rulemaking
merely to bring the manufacturers into compliance and to avoid the
costs of redesigning defective transmissions. It suggested that NHTSA
address noncompliances using existing procedures and not allow
misinterpretations of its standards to cause it to ``roll back'' safety
protection. Advocates stated that the current standard is clear, as
outlined in NHTSA's interpretation letter to Ford, and that the NPRM
represents an improper use of rulemaking authority.
Agency Analysis of Issues and Adoption of Final Rule
After carefully considering the public comments, NHTSA has decided
to temporarily, instead of permanently, reduce the stringency of the
transmission locking requirement. Simply replacing the existing
requirement with the proposed one is not appropriate. Vehicles
manufactured before September 1, 1996 will be subject to a requirement
along the lines of the proposal. Vehicles manufactured on or after that
date will be subject to the slightly more stringent requirement
originally adopted by the agency in May 1990. The rationale for this
decision is set forth in greater detail below.
The agency concludes that a change in the locking requirement is
necessary because of the consequences of confusion in the industry
about the original requirement. The confusion was apparently engendered
in part by an event that occurred shortly after the issuance of the May
1990 final rule, i.e., the agency's June 1990 denial of a petition for
rulemaking by Mr. W.A. Barr concerning misshifting of transmissions.
The industry apparently read these nearly contemporaneous decisions
together to indicate that the agency had not intended to address any
aspect of the misshift problem in the May 1990 rulemaking on Standard
No. 114. [[Page 30009]]
While the agency issued an interpretation in November 1992
clarifying the reach of the May 1990 final rule, that interpretation
did not eliminate the practical consequences of the industry's
confusion, since the manufacturers could not immediately comply with
it. The agency's efforts to address those consequences led it to grant
Mazda's petition for rulemaking and to take the more fundamental step
of reexamining the rationale for the agency's adoption of the
requirement. That reexamination led to the agency's issuing the March
1994 NPRM proposing a more limited requirement to address rollaway
incidents, on the ground that the misshift aspect of the rollaway
problem might be too small to address at all. Final adoption of the
proposal would have eliminated the practical consequences of the
confusion.
The agency is changing the transmission locking requirement on only
a temporary basis because a relatively short-term change is sufficient
to eliminate consequences of confusion within the industry over the
extent of the original requirement. Nearly all manufacturers have told
NHTSA in response to noncompliance investigation letters that they are
now in compliance with the more stringent requirements. Considering the
relatively minor nature and expense of the necessary design changes,
the agency concludes that the relatively few remaining vehicles that do
not satisfy the more stringent requirement can be modified to do so by
September 1, 1996.
An additional consideration leading the agency to make the change a
temporary one is that while it believes the difference in safety
benefits between the existing requirement and the less stringent
temporary one is small, eliminating even the small possibility of
misshift-induced rollaway is justified because the likely beneficiaries
are children, which the agency has historically taken special care to
protect.
NHTSA observes that the rollaway accidents at issue that could
arise from misshifting are a part of the problem the agency was
intending to address in the earlier rulemaking, i.e., crashes resulting
from the rollaway of parked vehicles with automatic transmissions as a
result of children moving the shift mechanism out of the ``park''
position. Apart from the issue of dealing with the legacy of the
industry's confusion, there is no reason to single out this part of the
problem for special treatment. Indeed, this part of the problem is
addressed by the same basic countermeasure as the rest of the problem,
i.e., a transmission shift lever lock.
NHTSA believes that the brief duration of less stringent
transmission lock requirement will minimize the possibility of any
adverse safety impacts from this rulemaking. As already noted, nearly
all manufacturers are now in compliance with the more stringent
requirements. The duration of the more limited requirement is so short
that it would not be worthwhile for vehicle manufacturers to redesign
transmissions to allow misshifting for only a year. The agency believes
that manufacturers will respond to this notice by quickly redesigning
any remaining transmissions that do not comply with the future
requirements.
NHTSA believes that its decision to adopt the less stringent
requirement on a temporary, short-term basis renders moot all or most
of the commenters' concerns about a possible loss of safety benefits.
As indicated above, some commenters argued that the agency lacked any
basis for saying that the safety risks associated with misshifts was
such a small part of the rollaway problem. They further argued that
NHTSA had underestimated the noncompliant portion of the vehicle
population being produced annually. They also suggested that the
noncompliant vehicle population might increase. The agency notes that
those concerns were expressed in response to the proposed permanent
change in the requirement.
NHTSA notes further that its analysis of the original May 1990
final rule indicated that installation of the required technology in
its estimate of the number of the cars and light trucks not voluntarily
equipped by the standard's effective date would prevent an estimated 50
to 100 child-injuring rollaway accidents annually. While the agency
cannot provide a precise estimate of the extent to which these benefits
could have been reduced by permanently adopting the proposed more
limited requirement, NHTSA believes that it would have been small. This
is because any such reduced child injury prevention benefits would
occur only in the rare combination of events described above, and only
for the few vehicles still in noncompliance with the existing
requirement. Regarding Advocates' comment that the agency does not have
enough information on the costs and benefits of this rule, NHTSA notes
that it has provided estimates within the limits of available data.
In response to Advocates' charge that the agency underestimated the
noncompliant portion of the fleet, thereby also underestimating the
benefits in 1990 (and the costs of this rule), the agency notes that
its analysis would not have changed markedly had it used Advocates'
higher estimate. Most of the benefits projected in the 1990 rule are
already being achieved since they are associated with the addition of a
transmission lock. Transmission locks have been added to all cars
equipped with automatic transmissions. Thus, benefits are being
obtained even from those vehicles that do not satisfy the more
stringent requirements. Moreover, as stated above, any potential
degradation of safety is marginal because their current transmission
locks allow misshifting events only under very rare circumstances.
In summary, the agency believes that twin goals of addressing the
legacy of the industry's confusion and securing the benefits of the
existing requirement can be most reasonably achieved by allowing
vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1996 to meet the more limited
requirements proposed in the March 1994 NPRM and requiring vehicles
manufactured on or after that date to meet the slightly more stringent
requirement originally adopted by the agency in May 1990.
NHTSA believes that there are essentially no costs associated with
this final rule. The only relevant costs are those associated with the
May 1990 final rule which will be temporarily suspended and then
reinstated on September 1, 1996. The basic cost is related to the
addition of a transmission shift lever lock. Such a lock is needed to
meet either the more limited, temporary requirement or the more
stringent, permanent requirement. For vehicles which currently meet
only the more limited requirement, some minor design changes will be
needed in the lock to meet the more stringent requirement when it again
becomes effective. By providing over one year of leadtime before the
broader requirement must be met, those residual costs of the May 1990
final rule will be minimized.
The agency agrees with the industry commenters that the change of
the conjunctive ``or'' to ``and'' in S4.2.1(a) was not necessary and
that locking either the transmission shift lever or the transmission
itself, will have the same practical effect. Therefore, the regulatory
text has been corrected to make it clear that locking of either the
transmission or the shift lever is sufficient, provided this action
prevents vehicle rollaway.
NHTSA also agrees that the NPRM's ``rollaway'' definition of more
than 100 mm of vehicle movement is unnecessarily restrictive. However,
it cannot agree to allow an unspecified amount of movement, or up to
400 mm [[Page 30010]] of movement, as GM suggests. GM's 400 mm figure
is a worst-case estimate of how far certain trucks might roll. This
larger amount of movement would be more likely to create the
possibility of trapping children and adults under the car than would
lesser amounts of movement. It is unclear to this agency why GM
products cannot satisfy the 150 mm criterion suggested by Ford and
Chrysler. Therefore, to account for some amount of ``play'' in U-
joints, the amount of gear lash in transmissions, transfer cases, and
differentials, plus the fact that a vehicle may have to roll slightly
to completely engage the parking pawl, NHTSA has increased the amount
of permissible roll to 150 mm.
NHTSA does not agree with GM's comment that the 10 percent grade
specification in the test procedure is unnecessarily steep, and has
retained the specification in the final rule. The agency notes that the
grade level differential associated with the transmission grade holding
ability in S7.7 of the parking brake test in Standard No. 105,
Hydraulic Brake Systems, is 10 percent. That test requires the vehicle
to hold on a 20 percent grade with the parking brake and on a 30
percent grade with the automatic transmission in ``park'' and with the
parking brake on. NHTSA notes that the vehicle-on-grade test specified
in this rule is not intended to verify the performance of the holding
capability already required of vehicles in Standard No. 105, but to
verify that the transmission is operating in a vehicle holding mode.
The GM Petition
In response to comments about the need to move disabled vehicles,
the agency amended Standard No. 114 on March 26, 1991 to permit a key-
operated override device which would allow the transmission to be moved
from park after key removal. The final rule did not require steering
lock-up to occur as a result of using the override device. In response
to petitions for reconsideration, on January 17, 1992, the agency again
amended the rule to permit override devices operated by means other
than the key. In allowing keyless override devices, the preamble stated
that the agency would require that steering lock-up occur as a result
of using keyless override devices. The lock-up would act as a theft
deterrent. The preamble concluded ``the agency emphasizes that the
amendment permits a keyless emergency override only if theft protection
is ensured by a steering lock'' (58 FR 12467). However, while the
preamble discussed steering lockup only for keyless override devices,
the regulatory language of S4.2.2 required steering lockup for any
override device, including those operated by a key.
On March 22, 1994, NHTSA received a petition for rulemaking from
Mr. Gerald Gannon of GM's legal staff, suggesting that the words
``provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed'' were
misplaced in the regulatory text. He correctly assumed that NHTSA did
not intend to require steering lockup for override devices operated by
a key. Indeed, moving these words as GM suggests produces the intended
result.
There is adequate cause to amend the rule, pursuant to the GM
petition, using only a technical amendment. The preamble of the 1990
rule, which addresses steering locks for keyless override devices only,
supports the suggestion that an error was made in the regulatory text
of the January 1992 final rule. The focus of that preamble indicates
that key-operated override devices were not intended to be covered by
the restriction. Moreover, it is illogical from an anti-theft
perspective to require steering lockup in a vehicle when the
transmission lock override device itself is operated by the key that
would unlock the steering anyway. Thus, with evidence in the record
that the word placement was in error and with the existing requirement
being illogical, a technical amendment is appropriate. Notice and
comment procedures are not necessary.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This action has been determined to be not
``significant'' under either. As explained above, the amendments would
impose no new requirements but would temporarily provide additional
flexibility to manufacturers, with respect to transmission shift lock
designs, with no measurable impact on safety or costs. No manufacturer
of vehicles that satisfy the preexisting requirements is likely to
redesign its transmissions in response to this rule.
The cost of making the minor changes to the few transmission locks
that are still being produced not in compliance with the existing rule
is likely to be a small but undeterminable fraction of the cost of
adding transmission locks. NHTSA notes that these costs are
attributable to and were already counted in the 1990 rule. As stated
earlier, the portion of the fleet that currently does not satisfy the
more stringent requirements is likely to be much smaller than the
668,000 vehicles that the NPRM estimated, based on manufacturer
responses to NHTSA's investigation. NHTSA cannot quantify how much
smaller the portion is now because it has not conducted any recent
compliance testing. Due to the probable minimal cost of compliance per
vehicle and the small number of vehicles affected, NHTSA believes that
the remaining costs of the 1990 rule are insignificant.
Since this final rule does not increase costs or provide any cost
savings, a full regulatory evaluation is not warranted.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the effects of this regulatory action
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The vehicle manufacturers affected by the requirements
typically do not qualify as small businesses. Further, since no price
changes should be associated with this rule, small businesses, small
organizations and small governmental entities will not be affected in
their capacity as purchasers of new vehicles.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
The agency has analyzed this rule in accordance with the principles
and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has determined
that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule does not impose any retroactive burdens. Under 49 U.S.C.
30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a
state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the
same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. Sec. 30161 sets forth a procedure for
judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles.
[[Page 30011]] In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571
is amended as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30162; delegation of authority
at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.114 is amended by revising S1, S4.2.1, and S4.2.2,
and adding new paragraphs S5 through S5.3, to read as follows:
Sec. 571.114 Standard No. 114; Theft protection.
S1 Purpose and Scope. This standard specifies requirements
primarily for theft protection to reduce the incidence of crashes
resulting from unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle. It also
specifies requirements to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting
from the rollaway of parked vehicles with automatic transmissions as a
result of children moving the shift mechanism out of the ``park''
position.
* * * * *
S4.2.1(a)(1) Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-
locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which is manufactured
prior to September 1, 1996, and which has an automatic transmission
with a ``park'' position shall, when tested under the test procedures
in S5(a), prevent removal of the key:
(i) Whenever the shift lever or other shifting mechanism is fully
placed in any designated shift position other than ``park,'' unless the
transmission or transmission shift mechanism become locked in ``park''
as the direct result of removing the key; and
(ii) Whenever the shift lever or other shifting mechanism is fully
placed in the park position, unless the transmission or transmission
shift mechanism are locked in park or become locked in ``park'' as the
direct result of removing the key.
(2) Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking system
required by S4.2 in each vehicle which is manufactured on or after
September 1, 1996, and which has an automatic transmission with a
``park'' position shall, when tested under the procedures in S5(b),
prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission
shift lever is locked in ``park'' or becomes locked in ``park'' as the
direct result of removing the key.
(3) Each vehicle shall not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent
grade when the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in
``park.''
S4.2.2(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.
* * * * *
S5. Compliance Test Procedure for vehicles with automatic
transmissions.
S5.1 Test Conditions.
(a) The vehicle shall be tested at curb weight plus 91 kg
(including the driver).
(b) Except where specified otherwise, the test surface shall be
level.
S5.2 Test procedure for vehicles manufactured before September 1,
1996.
(a) Drive the vehicle forward and stop with the service brakes.
Apply the parking brake (if present). Try to remove the ignition key
from each possible key position.
(b) Repeat the procedure in S5.2(a) with the transmission shift
mechanism in each forward drive shift detent position.
(c) Drive the vehicle backward and stop with the service brakes.
Apply the parking brake. Try to remove the ignition key from each
possible key position.
(d) Move the transmission shift mechanism to the ``neutral'' detent
position. Try to remove the ignition key from each possible key
position.
(e) Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade and stop it
with the service brakes. Apply the parking brake. Move the shift
mechanism to the ``park'' position. Apply the service brakes. Release
the parking brake. Release the service brakes. Remove the key. Verify
that the transmission shift mechanism or transmission is locked in
``park.'' Verify that vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm
after release of the service brakes.
S5.3 Test procedure for vehicles manufactured on or after
September 1, 1996.
(a) Move the transmission shift mechanism to any position where it
will remain without assistance, including a position between the detent
positions, except for the ``park'' position. Try to remove the key from
each possible key position in each such shift position.
(b) Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade and stop it
with the service brakes. Apply the parking brake (if present). Move the
shift mechanism to the ``park'' position. Apply the service brakes.
Release the parking brake. Release the service brakes. Remove the key.
Verify that the transmission shift mechanism or transmission is locked
in ``park.'' Verify that vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150
mm after release of the service brakes.
Issued on June 1, 1995.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-13867 Filed 6-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
