[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