[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5487]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 14, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 1-21, Notice 12]
RIN 2127-AE99

 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Theft Protection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: Standard No. 114 currently requires automatic transmission 
vehicles with a ``park'' position on their transmission 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. In other words, under the first 
alternative, a vehicle must be designed so that the key cannot be 
removed when the transmission shift lever or other shifting mechanism 
is in any position other than ``park.'' NHTSA is proposing to amend 
this provision to prevent key removal only when the shift lever or 
other shifting mechanism is fully placed in any designated shift 
position other than ``park.'' This rulemaking action results from a 
petition submitted by Mazda. The agency believes that the proposed 
amendment would provide greater flexibility to manufacturers, and not 
have any measurable impact on safety.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 1994. The 
proposed amendments would become effective 30 days after publication of 
a final rule in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above 
and be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Docket 
hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Jere Medlin, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590. Mr. Medlin's telephone number is (202) 366-5307.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 30, 1990, NHTSA amended Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, to protect against 
injuries to children caused by vehicle rollaway in vehicles with 
automatic transmissions, where children were able to shift the 
transmission of a parked vehicle. 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 became effective on September 
1, 1992.
    In adopting the amendment, the agency explained that a study 
focusing on child-injuring rollaway accidents in Orange County, 
California demonstrated that injuries caused by rolling vehicles posed 
a significant safety problem. That study uncovered nine cases of 
children releasing the brake or moving the transmission shift lever, or 
both, causing a parked vehicle to roll and injure the child operating 
the controls or children near the vehicle. Even though two of the cases 
could be discounted for the purposes of the rulemaking in question 
because the vehicle's engine was running and there was insufficient 
information to draw conclusions about some other situations, the study 
did establish that the type of accident at issue was occurring.
    NHTSA explained that although the then-current Standard No. 114 did 
not prohibit systems which permit the transmission lever to be shifted 
when the vehicle is parked and the ignition is locked, some 
manufacturers had voluntarily used a transmission shift lever lock that 
precludes this possibility. The agency stated that these transmission 
shift lever lock designs typically have two critical elements. First, 
the transmission shift lever lock requires the transmission shift lever 
to be in ``park'' before a person can remove the key. Second, the 
device also prevents shifting the transmission lever from ``park'' to 
another position once the key is removed.
    NHTSA estimated that installation of the required technology in the 
cars and light trucks not voluntarily equipped by the rule's effective 
date would prevent an estimated 50 to 100 child-injuring rollaway 
accidents annually. The agency stated that these injuries could be 
prevented at a relatively low cost.
    On February 2, 1993, Mazda submitted a petition for rulemaking 
requesting that the agency amend the provision added by the May 1990 
final rule. That company claimed that an amendment was needed to 
clarify the requirement to make the compliance test procedure 
``objective.''
    Mazda stated that, in a December 12, 1992 letter, NHTSA had 
notified it of an apparent noncompliance with Standard No. 114. By way 
of explanation, the agency had sent Mazda a copy of a November 20, 1992 
interpretation letter to Ford. That interpretation letter was a 
response to a Ford letter written to NHTSA concerning a compliance 
issue for certain of its keylocking systems which had been designed by 
Mazda. In its petition, Mazda stated that it was aware of at least five 
other manufacturers which had been informed of apparent noncompliances 
with that same provision of Standard No. 114.
    In its November 20, 1992 interpretation letter to Ford, NHTSA 
rejected a request by that company to interpret Standard No. 114 to 
prevent 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 not when the lever is at 
points between those detents. The agency stated that following: We 
cannot agree with your suggested interpretation, as it is inconsistent 
with the express language of S4.2.1. That section states that, with 
certain exceptions not at issue, the key-locking system must 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. Stated more simply, 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. 
Therefore, under section S4.2.1, key removal must be prevented in that 
situation, unless the transmission/transmission shift lower becomes 
locked in ``park'' as a direct result of removing the key.
    In its petition, Mazda characterized the agency's interpretation as 
permitting ``intentional mispositioning'' of the transmission shift 
lever during compliance testing. That company argued that during the 
design and development of the vehicles which are the subject of the 
agency's December 1, 1992 letter, it never understood ``intentional 
mispositioning'' to be a reasonable and legitimate means for testing 
compliance with Standard No. 114. It also argued that even if it had 
such an understanding, it is not at all clear what kind of 
certification test procedure it would have used to assure that key 
removal could not occur in any possible situation.
    Mazda also argued that it had reexamined the rulemaking record and 
found nothing to indicate that ``intentional mispositioning'' of the 
transmission shift lever was ever contemplated. In addition, Mazda 
alleged that even if this is now believed by NHTSA to be an appropriate 
aspect of the performance required by the standard, the absence of an 
objective test procedure for determining compliance with the standard 
results in a lack of objectivity and fails to satisfy the requirements 
of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
    Mazda requested that Standard No. 114 be amended to incorporate a 
provision that it considers to set forth an objective performance 
requirement. The provision would specify testing with the transmission 
level in each detent position, and moving the lever from detent 
position to detent position using force levels specified by the 
manufacturer.
    NHTSA rejects Mazda's claim that the existing provision in Standard 
No. 114 is non-objective. There is nothing subjective about a 
requirement that a key-locking system must 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. As discussed in the agency's interpretation letter, key 
removal must be prevented in all circumstances save those specified in 
S4.2.1.
    While the agency rejects Mazda's objectivity argument, NHTSA does 
believe it is appropriate to address in rulemaking whether Standard No. 
114 should be amended along the lines suggested by that company, albeit 
for different reasons. In the preamble to the May 1990 final rule, the 
agency stated that it believed the injuries in question could be 
prevented at a relatively low cost to manufacturers since most vehicles 
would already comply with the amendments. This belief was based on the 
fact that the vast majority of vehicles with automatic transmissions 
already had transmission locking systems or had already been scheduled 
to have newly designed systems installed. The agency assumed that all 
of those locking systems were or would be designed in a manner that 
would comply with the requirements. However, it now appears that some 
of these transmission locking systems do not comply with the 
requirements.
    Based on agency testing of post-September 1, 1992 vehicles, the 
agency estimates that approximately 650,000 model year 1993 passenger 
cars and 18,000 light trucks do not meet the present requirement. For 
the final rule, the agency estimated the consumer cost of redesigning 
the transmission key-locking system to be $6.75 to $14.00 per vehicle. 
Those are maximum figures that include both the situation where a 
complying system must be installed and the situation in which an 
existing system need only be adjusted in order to comply. In that 
respect, those figures likely overstate costs for this rulemaking, 
especially those applicable to an existing system needing only a minor 
adjustment. Additionally, some manufacturers have likely modified model 
year 1993 systems to comply with the existing requirements. Therefore, 
the actual numbers of passenger cars and light trucks that do not now 
meet the requirements are probably less than the estimates suggested 
above.
    Since NHTSA did not anticipate the need for manufacturers to 
redesign a large number of transmission locking systems, the agency 
believes that it should consider whether it is appropriate to require 
such redesign. This is particularly true to the extent that the 
apparently noncomplying locking systems at issue result in essentially 
the same child-injury prevention safety benefits as would occur if the 
systems were redesigned to comply with the current requirement.
    As indicated above, Standard No. 114 currently requires 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. In other words, under the first alternative, a 
vehicle must be designed so that the key cannot be removed when the 
transmission shift lever or other shifting mechanism is in any position 
other than ``park.'' NHTSA is proposing to amend Standard No. 114 to 
instead require a key-locking system that prevents removal of the key: 
(1) Whenever the shift lever or other shifting mechanism is fully 
placed in the park position, unless the transmission and transmission 
shift mechanism are locked in park or become locked in ``park'' as the 
direct result of removing the key, and (2) whenever the shift lever or 
other shifting mechanism is fully placed in any designated shift 
position other than park, unless the transmission and transmission 
shift mechanism become locked in ``park'' as the direct result of 
removing the key. The standard would no longer address key removal when 
the transmission shift lever is between shift positions.
    (NHTSA notes that, for nearly all current designs, the key cannot 
be removed if the transmission shift lever is in a detent other than 
park. However, electronic designs can be produced which permit the key 
to be removed while the transmission is in a position such as drive and 
then automatically move the shifting mechanism and transmission to 
park. Both the existing language of Standard No. 114 and the proposed 
language permit such designs.)
    The basic rationale for limiting the key-removal requirement to 
situations where the transmission shift lever is in detent positions is 
that drivers are unlikely to attempt to remove the key when the 
transmission shift lever is between shift positions. As a practical 
matter, drivers are likely to either leave the transmission in the gear 
they had last used or attempt to put the transmission in park, before 
attempting key removal. The only chance for mispositioning is therefore 
in the latter situation, and the agency believes the chance for such 
mispositioning is small. Therefore, as a practical matter, when the 
agency decided to prohibit key removal in situations where the 
transmission was not in park, it was essentially addressing situations 
where the shift lever was in detent positions other than park. A more 
complete discussion of this rationale, which addresses the transmission 
designs currently at issue, is provided below.
    Since the key-removal requirement would be limited to situations 
where the shift mechanism is fully placed in any designated shift 
position, it would be necessary for the agency to specify a means for 
determining whether the mechanism is in such position. Under the 
proposal, a vehicle would be considered to be in ``park'' when the 
transmission gear selection indicator shows that ``park'' has been 
selected and the vehicle will not roll away on an incline when the 
parking brake is disengaged. A vehicle would be considered to be in a 
drive gear when the transmission gear selection indicator shows that a 
drive gear has been selected and the vehicle can be moved under its own 
power. A vehicle would be considered to be in ``neutral'' if the 
transmission gear selection indicator shows that ``neutral'' has been 
selected, the vehicle is stopped, and activation of the accelerator 
pedal does not cause the vehicle to move.
    As part of assessing the safety implications of the proposed 
amendment, it is necessary to evaluate the types of locking systems 
that would likely be produced under it. NHTSA believes that the most 
likely types of systems are ones like the Mazda-designed locking system 
that was the subject of the agency's November 1992 interpretation 
letter and the other locking systems that led the agency to issue 
letters concerning apparent noncompliances.
    Ford and Mazda first advised the agency of a possible compliance 
issue concerning the Mazda-designed locking system in September 1992, 
shortly after the requirement at issue became effective. Ford advised 
that if key removal were attempted while the transmission shift lever 
on a large proportion of 1993 Escorts and Tracers was placed at various 
points between the ``reverse'' and ``park'' detents, the key could be 
removed while the selector lever was held short of engaging the 
``park'' detent, and without the transmission becoming locked in park. 
Ford and Mazda also demonstrated these vehicles to NHTSA personnel. 
These personnel found that the transmission shift lever could be moved 
to a position where it appeared to be in ``park,'' but where in fact 
the lever was not fully in the ``park'' position. After releasing the 
shift lever in this position, the personnel could remove the key 
without the transmission's becoming locked in park.
    As indicated above, in its November 1992 interpretation letter, 
NHTSA rejected Ford's suggestion that the agency interpret Standard No. 
114 to prevent key removal only when the transmission shift lever is in 
one of the available gear positioning detents other than ``park.'' The 
agency stated that its interpretation was consistent with the agency's 
intent in promulgating S4.2.1, explaining: As discussed in several 
rulemaking notices, NHTSA amended Standard No. 114 to prevent vehicle 
rollaway caused by unattended children shifting the transmission lever 
in automatic transmission vehicles. If a driver were able to remove the 
key while the transmission or transmission shift lever were not locked 
in park, and if the transmission or transmission shift lever did not 
become locked in ``park'' as a result of removing the key, a child 
might later shift the transmission shift lever, thereby causing a 
vehicle rollaway. For this reason, we continue to believe that this 
amendment to Standard No. 114 meets the need for motor vehicle safety.
    Subsequent to issuing the November 1992 interpretation letter, the 
agency conducted a number of compliance tests for Standard No. 114. As 
a result of these tests, the agency sent letters to Mazda, Ford, Honda, 
GM, Suzuki, and Hyundai, advising that, for certain of their vehicles, 
there was an apparent noncompliance with Standard No. 114's provision 
requiring that key removal be prevented unless the transmission or 
transmission shift lever is locked in park or becomes locked in park as 
a direct result of removing the key. (Copies of the correspondence 
between NHTSA and these manufacturers, and the compliance test reports 
for the vehicles at issue, have been placed in the docket for this 
NPRM.)
    For all of the vehicles for which tests showed apparent 
noncompliances, it was possible to remove the ignition key from the 
key-locking system when the transmission shift lever was in a position 
between ``park'' and ``reverse,'' without the transmission becoming 
locked in ``park'' as a result of removing the key. The circumstances 
under which the ignition key could be removed when the transmission 
shift lever was between ``park'' and ``reverse'' varied. For some 
vehicles, the lever could simply be placed in a position between park 
and reverse, the hand that controlled it removed, and the key then 
removed. For certain of these vehicles, this happened only over a very 
small range of lever movement when the lever was very close to the park 
position and appeared to be in park, when in fact it was not fully in 
the park position. For other vehicles, this condition existed for about 
half of the range of lever movement between park and reverse.
    For another set of vehicles, key removal without the transmission 
becoming locked in park only happened if one hand was kept on the 
transmission lever while the key was removed with the other hand, since 
the transmission lever would ``spring'' into park if the hand holding 
it between the two positions was removed.
    NHTSA also notes that, while it was not a compliance issue before 
September 1, 1993, in some cases the transmission shift lever could be 
moved from the ``park'' position after the key was removed if the thumb 
button on the transmission shift lever was kept depressed while the 
shift lever was moved to the ``park'' position and the key was removed. 
(For a discussion of this issue, see October 21, 1992 interpretation 
letter to Transportation Research Center, Inc., which has been placed 
in the docket for this NPRM.)
    With respect to the problem of child-induced rollaway, the safety 
consequences of permitting these types of apparently noncomplying 
systems are dependent on the likelihood that drivers would, in fact, 
remove the key in a manner that the transmission would not be locked in 
park after such removal. If the existing requirement is complied with, 
removal of the ignition key gives absolute assurance that the 
transmission is (or will become) locked in ``park'' and that vehicle 
movement will not occur as a result of the shift lever being moved. If 
the proposed requirement is complied with, removal of the ignition key 
while the transmission shift lever is fully placed in any designated 
shift position would give the same assurance that the transmission is 
(or will become) locked in ``park,'' but the requirement would no 
longer prohibit key removal in the circumstance when the lever is 
between detents. NHTSA is not aware of any specific reported crashes 
that would be relevant to permitting these systems.
    For some of the vehicles tested by the agency, deliberate action by 
the driver appears to be necessary in order to remove the key without 
the transmission becoming locked in ``park.'' Such action is necessary 
where the driver must either hold the shift lever between ``park'' and 
``reverse'' with one hand while removing the key with the other hand, 
or keep the thumb button depressed on the shift lever while removing 
the key. NHTSA tentatively concludes that there is no basis to believe 
that drivers would deliberately make such efforts to defeat the 
transmission shift lock. Therefore, the agency believes that permitting 
such systems would have no safety consequences, and that the existing 
requirement is unnecessarily design-restrictive with respect to these 
systems.
    For other of the vehicles tested by the agency, it is possible that 
a driver might inadvertently remove the key without the transmission 
becoming locked in ``park.'' This could happen, for example, if the 
driver moved the lever so that it appeared to be in ``park'' but was in 
fact short of the full ``park'' position.
    However, in order for such systems to result in any adverse safety 
consequences related to child-induced rollaway, it would be necessary 
both for the driver to inadvertently fail to place the lever fully in 
the ``park'' position and for a child to then play with the lever and/
or the parking brake in a way that creates a rollaway. NHTSA believes 
that either event would occur only very rarely and has tentatively 
concluded that the possibility of both events occurring together is 
minuscule. Therefore, the agency does not believe that it is necessary 
to address this remote possibility in a safety standard.
    NHTSA notes that its safety standards are intended to address 
unreasonable safety risks and not all conceivable risks no matter how 
remote. The agency believes that its proposal is consistent with other 
actions that it has taken in this area. For example, while NHTSA 
decided in the May 1990 final rule to require transmission shift locks 
for automatic transmission vehicles, it also decided, based on a review 
of accident data, not to require such locks for manual transmission 
vehicles. This did not mean that there was no conceivable risk of 
child-induced rollaways for manual transmission vehicles, but instead 
that the risk was sufficiently small that the agency did not believe it 
was necessary to address in a safety standard. Similarly, in June 1990, 
NHTSA denied a petition for rulemaking submitted by Mr. W. A. Barr 
requesting that the agency issue requirements to address inadvertent 
vehicle movement associated with shifting automatic transmissions into 
``park,'' in part because of lack of evidence that the extent of the 
alleged problem was great enough to warrant Federal intervention.
    NHTSA is also proposing to amend the Purpose and Scope section of 
Standard No. 114 to clarify that the purpose of the requirements at 
issue is 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. That section 
currently indicates that the purpose of the requirements is to reduce 
the incidence of crashes resulting from rollaway of parked vehicles.
    NHTSA contemplates making the proposed amendments effective 30 days 
after publication of a final rule. The agency tentatively concludes 
that there is good cause for such an effective date, since the 
amendments would impose no new requirements but instead provide 
additional flexibility to manufacturers with no measurable impact on 
safety.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impacts of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 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 proposed 
amendments would impose no new requirements but instead provide 
additional flexibility to manufacturers, with respect to transmission 
shift lock designs, with no measurable impact on safety. Also as stated 
above, the agency estimates the annual consumer cost savings of 
adopting the proposed amendment to be a maximum of $6.75 to $14.00 per 
affected vehicle. Accordingly, a full regulatory evaluation is not 
required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    NHTSA has also considered the effects of this regulatory action 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this 
proposal, if adopted as a final rule, would not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The vehicle 
manufacturers affected by the proposed requirements would not typically 
qualify as small businesses. Further, since no price changes should be 
associated with this proposal, small businesses, small organizations 
and small governmental entities would not be affected in their capacity 
as purchasers of new vehicles if this proposal were adopted in a final 
rule.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this proposal for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that a final rule adopting this 
proposal would not have a significant impact on the quality of human 
life.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)

    The agency has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the 
principles and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612. NHTSA has 
determined that this proposal does not have sufficient federalism 
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 
section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 
(Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), 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. Section 105 of the 
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1394) 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.

Public Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal. 
It is requested, but not required, that 10 copies be submitted.
    All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21). 
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without 
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage 
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
    If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim 
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including 
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to 
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven 
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been 
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for 
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth 
the information specified in the agency's confidential business 
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
    All comments received before the close of business on the comment 
closing date indicated above for the proposal 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. Comments received too 
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered 
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal 
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue 
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket 
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons 
continue to examine the docket for new material.
    Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their 
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped 
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the 
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Motor 
vehicles, Rubber and rubber products, Tires.

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
571.114, Theft Protection, to read as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1401, 1403, 1407; delegation of 
authority at 49 CFR 1.50.


Sec. 571.114  [Amended]

    2. Section 571.114 would be amended by revising S1 and S4.2.1 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) Except as provided in S4.2.2(a) and (b), the key-locking 
system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic 
transmission with a ``park'' position shall prevent removal of the 
key--
    (1) Whenever the shift lever or other shifting mechanism is fully 
placed in any designated shift position other than park, unless the 
transmission and transmission shift mechanism become locked in ``park'' 
as the direct result of removing the key, and
    (2) Whenever the shift lever or other shifting mechanism is fully 
placed in the park position, unless the transmission and transmission 
shift mechanism are locked in park or become locked in ``park'' as the 
direct result of removing the key.
    (b) The following procedure is used for determining whether the 
shift lever or other shifting mechanism is fully placed in a designated 
position. The lever or other shifting mechanism is moved to a 
designated position and physical contact with the lever or other 
shifting mechanism is ended. The lever or other shifting mechanism is 
considered to be fully placed in the ``park'' position if the 
transmission gear selection indicator shows that ``park'' has been 
selected and the vehicle will not roll away on a 10 percent grade when 
the parking brake is disengaged. The lever or other shifting mechanism 
is considered to be fully placed in the ``neutral'' position if the 
``neutral'' position is selected, the transmission gear selection 
indicator shows that ``neutral'' has been selected, and activation of 
the accelerator pedal does not cause the vehicle to move. The lever or 
other shifting mechanism is considered to be fully placed in a forward 
or reverse drive position if the transmission gear selection indicator 
shows that a drive position has been selected and the vehicle can be 
driven under its own power. For purposes of S4.2.1, rollaway is 
movement of a vehicle greater than 100 mm.
* * * * *
    Issued on March 4, 1994.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 94-5487 Filed 3-11-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-M