[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75961-75965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24372]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[DOT Docket No. NHTSA-05-23407]
RIN 2127-AJ74


Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Transmission Shift 
Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect

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

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration; delay of 
effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of a 
final rule published on July 1, 2005, which amended the Federal motor 
vehicle safety standard that includes starter interlock requirements. 
The final rule announced an effective date of December 28, 2005. NHTSA 
received petitions for reconsideration from General Motors (GM) 
requesting a delay in the effective date in the final rule, and a 
petition from International Truck and Engine Corporation (ITEC) 
requesting an amendment that addresses hybrid electric systems on 
trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating over 4,536 kg (10,000 
pounds).
    In this final rule, NHTSA grants both of these petitions, and is 
amending the standard accordingly.

DATES: The effective date of the rule amending 49 CFR 571.102 published 
at 70 FR 38040, July 1, 2005, is delayed until September 1, 2007. The 
final rule amending 49 CFR Section 571.102 published today is effective 
September 1, 2007.
    Optional early compliance with these final rules is available as of 
December 22, 2005.

[[Page 75962]]

    Any petitions for reconsideration of today's final rule must be 
received by NHTSA not later than February 6, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket 
number for this section and be submitted to: Administrator, National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr. 
William Evans, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-2272. 
His FAX number is (202) 366-7002.
    For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the 
Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992. Her FAX number is (202) 366-3820.
    You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC, 
20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    At present, the starter interlock requirement of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission shift position 
sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect (at 
S3.1.3) states ``the engine starter shall be inoperative when the 
transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.'' 
The purpose of this requirement is to prevent injuries and death from 
the unexpected motion of a vehicle when the driver starts the vehicle 
with the transmission inadvertently in a forward or reverse gear.

Final Rule of July 1, 2005

    In a final rule of July 1, 2005 (70 FR 38040), FMVSS No. 102 was 
amended to accommodate the new technologies represented by hybrid/
electric systems. With respect to vehicles with automatic 
transmissions, the rule makes it clear that after activation of the 
vehicle's propulsion system by the driver, the engine may stop and 
restart automatically when the transmission shift position is in any 
forward drive gear. The rule prohibits the engine from automatically 
stopping in reverse gear. When the engine is automatically stopped in a 
forward drive shift position and the driver selects Reverse, the engine 
is permitted to restart automatically in Reverse if two conditions are 
satisfied. The first condition is that the engine must restart 
immediately whenever the service brake is applied. The second condition 
is that the engine does not start automatically if the service brake is 
not applied.
    The rule also provides, notwithstanding these limitations, that the 
engine may stop and start at any time after the driver has activated 
the vehicle's propulsion system if: (a) The vehicle's propulsion system 
can propel the vehicle in the normal travel mode in all forward and 
reverse drive gears without the engine operating, and (b) if the engine 
automatically starts while the vehicle is traveling at a steady speed 
and steady accelerator control setting, the engine does not cause the 
vehicle to accelerate.
    The final rule announced an effective date of December 28, 2005.

Petitions for Reconsideration

    In response to the final rule, NHTSA received petitions for 
reconsideration of the July 1, 2005 final rule from General Motors 
Corporation (GM) and the International Truck and Engine Corporation 
(ITEC). The following describes the petitions and how we have addressed 
the issues raised in the petitions:

A. GM's Petitions

    The July 1, 2005 final rule announced an effective date of December 
28, 2005. In a petition dated September 14, 2005, GM requested that the 
effective date of the final rule be delayed until September 1, 2007.\1\ 
GM explained that in 2004, it began producing a ``Parallel Hybrid 
Truck'' (PHT) that incorporates idle-stop technology in that the engine 
shuts off when the vehicle is stopped and the engine restarts when the 
brake pedal is released. GM asserted that this system eliminates 
needless idle time, improving fuel economy and reducing emissions. At 
present, the PHT is designed so that a rapid process of releasing the 
brake pedal and selecting Reverse will permit the engine to start in 
Reverse while the brake is released. GM stated that this action appears 
to be ``inconsistent with S3.1.3.1(c)(2).'' GM stated it is evaluating 
possible modifications to the PHT system to comply with S3.1.3.1(c) and 
asked for a delay in the effective date until September 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ GM submitted two petitions for reconsideration, one dated 
August 15, 2005, and another dated September 14, 2005. Since the 
September 14, 2005 petition superseded the earlier one, we are 
addressing only the issue raised in the September 14, 2005 petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has carefully reviewed GM's request. GM must modify its PHT 
system in order to meet the July 1, 2005 final rule's new requirements 
for starter interlock systems and needs additional time to comply. We 
were not aware of this need for leadtime when we issued the July 2005 
final rule. Accordingly, NHTSA will delay the effective date of the 
final rule until September 1, 2007. To prevent this final rule; 
``response to petitions for reconsideration'' from affecting those 
manufacturers ready to meet the original effective date, NHTSA is 
permitting optional early compliance with the July 1, 2005 final rule 
and the amendments made in this final rule as of the date this document 
is published in the Federal Register.

B. ITEC Petition

    A petition from ITEC requested an amendment to S3.1.3.2(a) of the 
July 1, 2005 final rule. ITEC explained that it is developing a hybrid 
electric system for large trucks, which would allow the trucks to 
operate strictly on an electric motor in Reverse gear and in the lower 
forward gears. Large trucks would thus be able to automatically stop 
their engines during applications with frequent stopping and starting, 
such as pickup and delivery, and to run only on the electric motor, 
eliminating needless engine idling and reducing fuel consumption, 
emissions, and noise. The engine automatically starts and runs 
continuously in the higher gears at normal highway speeds. In the final 
rule of July 1, 2005, S3.1.3.2(a) requires that the propulsion system 
propel the vehicle in all forward and reverse gears without the engine 
operating.
    ITEC indicated that its system does not meet the requirements in 
S3.1.3.2(a) in that its system propels the vehicle in Reverse and the 
lower forward gears (not all forward gears) without the engine 
operating. ITEC requested that S3.1.3.2 be amended to require the 
propulsion system in vehicles with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 
pounds) to propel the vehicle in ``any'' forward or reverse drive gears 
without the engine operating.
    In S3.1.3.2 of the final rule, NHTSA addresses hybrid vehicles that 
operate primarily as electric vehicles and that use an internal 
combustion engine to assist when additional motive power is needed or 
the batteries need charging. Vehicles that meet S3.1.3.2 are excluded 
from the engine starting requirements of S3.1.3.1. The final rule 
allows vehicles meeting S3.1.3.2 to automatically stop and start the 
engine at any time after the driver has activated the vehicle's 
propulsion system if:
    (a) The vehicle's propulsion system can propel the vehicle in the 
normal travel mode in all forward and reverse drive gears without the 
engine operating; and
    (b) If the engine automatically starts while the vehicle is 
traveling at a steady speed and a steady accelerator control

[[Page 75963]]

setting, the engine does not cause the vehicle to accelerate.
    The system described by ITEC would meet the requirements of 
S3.1.3.2 except for the fact that the propulsion system is only capable 
of propelling the vehicle in Reverse and the low forward gears instead 
of all forward and reverse gears. Upon review, NHTSA has decided to 
amend the standard along the lines requested by ITEC. Amending 
S3.1.3.2(a) takes into account the special features of hybrid electric 
vehicles with GVWRs greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) that 
distinguish them from smaller vehicles, and minimizes design limits on 
heavy vehicles, that have a wider range of applications than do lighter 
vehicles. NHTSA does not foresee any safety implications with amending 
S3.1.3.2(a) in the way that ITEC intends.
    NHTSA believes that it is important that a hybrid propulsion system 
that falls under the requirements of S3.1.3.2 be capable of propelling 
the vehicle in Reverse and at least one forward drive gear without the 
engine operating. If the propulsion system cannot propel the vehicle in 
Reverse without the engine operating, it would have implications with 
S3.1.3.1 when the engine was stopped in a forward gear and the brake 
pedal was rapidly released while Reverse was selected.
    For these reasons, NHTSA is amending S3.1.3.2 for hybrid electric 
vehicles over 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) GVWR. To effectuate ITEC's 
intent in its petition for reconsideration, in this final rule; 
response to petitions for reconsideration, S3.1.3.2(a) is amended to 
require that propulsion systems on vehicles with a GVWR greater than 
4,536 kg must be capable of propelling the vehicle in the normal travel 
mode in Reverse and at least one forward drive gear without the engine 
operating.

Statutory Bases for the Final Rule

    We have issued this final rule pursuant to our statutory authority. 
Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et 
seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for prescribing 
motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet the need for 
motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. 49 U.S.C. 
30111(a). When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider 
all relevant, available motor vehicle safety information. 49 U.S.C. 
30111(b). The Secretary must also consider whether a proposed standard 
is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of motor 
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed and the 
extent to which the standard will further the statutory purpose of 
reducing traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from 
traffic accidents. Id. Responsibility for promulgation of Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards was subsequently delegated to NHTSA. 49 U.S.C. 
105 and 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
    As a Federal agency, before promulgating changes to a Federal motor 
vehicle safety standard, NHTSA also has a statutory responsibility to 
follow the informal rulemaking procedures mandated in the 
Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. Section 553. Among these 
requirements are Federal Register publication of a general notice of 
proposed rulemaking, and giving interested persons an opportunity to 
participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views 
or arguments. After consideration of the public comments, we must 
incorporate into the rules adopted, a concise general statement of the 
rule's basis and purpose.
    The agency has carefully considered these statutory requirements in 
promulgating this final rule to amend FMVSS No. 102. As previously 
discussed in detail, we have solicited public comment in an NPRM and 
have carefully considered the public comments before issuing this final 
rule. As a result, we believe that this final rule reflects 
consideration of all relevant available motor vehicle safety 
information. Consideration of all these statutory factors has resulted 
in the following decisions in this final rule; ``response to petitions 
for reconsideration:'' To extend the effective date of the July 1, 2005 
final rule to September 1, 2007, and to amend the starter interlock 
system requirement so that for vehicles with a GVWR greater than 4,536 
kg (10,000 pounds), the engine may stop and start at any time after the 
driver has activated the vehicle's propulsion system if the vehicle's 
propulsion system can propel the vehicle in the normal travel mode in 
Reverse and at least one forward drive gear without the engine 
operating.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the 
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' 
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under 
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory 
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to 
be significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
    To ensure that manufacturers have time needed to make changes to 
current vehicles in order to meet the new requirements, we have delayed 
the effective date of the final rule to September 1, 2007. In addition, 
we are making a small change to ensure that the amended requirements 
are appropriate for heavy vehicles. As a result, the impacts are so 
minimal that a full regulatory evaluation has not been prepared.

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires us to develop an accountable process 
to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in 
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism 
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is 
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have 
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation with Federalism 
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and 
that is not

[[Page 75964]]

required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and 
local governments, or unless we consult with State and local 
governments, or unless we consult with State and local officials early 
in the process of developing the proposed regulation. We also may not 
issue a regulation with Federalism implications and that preempts State 
law unless we consult with State and local officials early in the 
process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The reason 
is that this final rule applies to motor vehicle manufacturers, and not 
to the States or local governments. Thus, the requirements of Section 6 
of the Executive Order do not apply.

C. Executive Order 13045 (Economically Significant Rules 
Disproportionately Affecting Children)

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or 
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the rule on children, and explain why the regulation is 
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives considered by us.
    This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not 
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866 and does not involve 
decisions based on environmental, health or safety risks that 
disproportionately affect children.

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we 
have considered whether this rule has any retroactive or preemptive 
effect. We conclude that it would not have any retroactive effect. 
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. 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.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    The Administrator has considered the effects of this rulemaking 
action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and 
certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The statement of the 
factual basis for the certification is that since this rulemaking makes 
no substantive changes in the scope of FMVSS No. 102, small 
manufacturers of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, 
trucks or buses need not make any changes in vehicle manufacturing 
processes or procedures to ensure that their vehicles meet an amended 
FMVSS No. 102. Accordingly, the agency concludes that this final rule 
does not affect the costs of motor vehicle manufacturers considered to 
be small business entities.

F. National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any 
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    NHTSA has determined that this final rule will not impose any 
``collection of information'' burdens on the public, within the meaning 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). This rulemaking action 
does not impose any filing or recordkeeping requirements on any 
manufacturer or any other party. For this reason, we discuss neither 
electronic filing and recordkeeping nor do we discuss a fully 
electronic reporting option.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) 
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory 
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive 
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, 
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    After conducting a search of available sources (including data from 
International Organization of Standards or other standards bodies), we 
have determined that there are not any available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards that we can use in this final rule.

I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, 
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a 
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more 
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base 
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to 
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than 
the least costly, most cost-effective

[[Page 75965]]

or least burdensome alternative if we publish with the final rule an 
explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
    This final rule will not result in costs of $100 million or more to 
either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the 
private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of 
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

J. Plain Language

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in 
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language 
includes consideration of the following questions:

--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of 
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand?

    If you have any responses to these questions, please include them 
in your comments to the docket number cited in the heading of this 
final rule.

K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier 
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center 
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may 
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document 
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

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

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards (49 CFR Part 571), are amended as set forth below.

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; 
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.

0
2. Section 571.102 is amended by revising in S3.1.3.2, the introductory 
text and paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  571.102  Standard No. 102; Transmission shift position sequence, 
starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.

* * * * *
    S3.1.3.2 Notwithstanding S3.1.3.1, the engine may stop and start at 
any time after the driver has activated the vehicle's propulsion system 
if the vehicle can meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (a) 
and (b):
    (a) For passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks 
and buses with a GVWR less than or equal to 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds), 
the vehicle's propulsion system can propel the vehicle in the normal 
travel mode in all forward and reverse drive gears without the engine 
operating. For passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks 
and buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds), the 
vehicle's propulsion system can propel the vehicle in the normal travel 
mode in Reverse and at least one forward drive gear without the engine 
operating.
* * * * *

    Issued on: December 19, 2005.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-24372 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P