
[Federal Register: August 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 163)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 42837-42841]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25au09-25]                         


[[Page 42837]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0049; 2127-AK38]

 
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection 
and Rollaway Prevention

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

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA is proposing to place a requirement in the Federal motor 
vehicle safety standards that certain motor vehicles with an automatic 
transmission that includes a ``park'' position manufactured for sale 
after September 1, 2010 be equipped with a brake transmission shift 
interlock. This interlock will require that the service brake pedal be 
depressed before the transmission can be shifted out of ``park,'' and 
will function in any starting system key position.
    NHTSA is issuing this document in response to a statutory mandate 
in the Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007. The 
proposed rule would not differ from the Congressional requirement. This 
rule inserts the mandated requirement into the text of Federal Motor 
Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that the 
Docket receives them not later than September 24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in 
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: 202-493-2251.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and 
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public 
Participation heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this 
document. Note that all comments received will be posted without change 
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. or the street 
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions you may 
contact Gayle Dalrymple, NVS-123, Office of Rulemaking, (202) 366-5559, 
or gayle.dalrymple@dot.gov. For legal issues you may contact Ari Scott, 
NCC-112, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-2992, or 
ari.scott@dot.gov. You may send mail to both of these officials at 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 
SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. The Legislative Mandate and Changes to FMVSS No. 114
III. Public Participation
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    On February 28, 2008, President G.W. Bush signed into law the 
``Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007'' (the K.T. 
Safety Act of 2007). Public Law 110-189, February 28, 2008, 122 Stat 
639. This Act related to several aspects of motor vehicle safety 
involving incidents where a person, frequently a child, could be hurt 
in non-traffic situations. Specifically, the K.T. Safety Act of 2007 
addressed safety concerns relating to power windows, rearward 
visibility, and vehicles rolling away. With regard to vehicles rolling 
away, the specific language of the Act included:

    (d) Preventing Motor Vehicles From Rolling Away.--
    (1) Requirement.--Each motor vehicle with an automatic 
transmission that includes a ``park'' position manufactured for sale 
after September 1, 2010, shall be equipped with a system that 
requires the service brake to be depressed before the transmission 
can be shifted out of ``park''. This system shall function in any 
starting system key position in which the transmission can be 
shifted out of ``park''.
    (2) Treatment As Motor Vehicle Safety Standard--A violation of 
paragraph (1) shall be treated as a violation of a motor vehicle 
safety standard prescribed under section 30111 of title 49, United 
States Code, and shall be subject to enforcement by the Secretary 
under chapter 301 of such title.
* * * * *
    (e) Definition of Motor Vehicle--As used in this Act and for 
purposes of the motor vehicle safety standards described in 
subsections (a) and (b), the term `motor vehicle' has the meaning 
given such term in section 30102(a)(6) of title 49, United States 
Code, except that such term shall not include--
    (1) a motorcycle or trailer (as such terms are defined in 
section 571.3 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations); or
    (2) any motor vehicle that is rated at more than 10,000 pounds 
gross vehicular weight.

    NHTSA is proposing this rule in response to section (d) of the K.T. 
Safety Act of 2007's mandate to require a brake shift transmission 
interlock on light vehicles. We further note that the term ``motor 
vehicle'' is defined differently in the K.T. Safety Act of 2007 than in 
49 U.S.C. 30102. As defined in part (e) of the Act, the term ``motor 
vehicle'' means a motor vehicle equal or less than 10,000 pounds 
``gross vehicular weight'' that is not a motorcycle or a trailer. As to 
how this definition of motor vehicle as stated by the K.T. Safety Act 
would relate to ``motor vehicles'' under 49 U.S.C. 30102, the K.T. 
Safety Act definition is limited to passenger cars, multipurpose 
passenger vehicles, light trucks, and low-speed vehicles.
    According to the legislative history of the K.T. Safety Act of 2007 
(S. Rep. 110-275, March 13, 2008)) when a vehicle is inadvertently put 
into gear or neutral, it may roll away causing harm to bystanders or 
individuals in the vehicle. As stated in the Congressional record (Sen. 
Rep. 110-275), Congress believes that children are especially at risk 
because, should they move a transmission out of the park position, they 
may not know what they did or how to stop the vehicle once they realize 
what is happening, and a Brake Transmission Shift Interlock (BTSI) 
could help prevent these incidents. BTSI, as mandated by Congress, 
requires depression of the brake pedal to move the gear shift out of 
the ``park'' position. Since small children typically cannot reach the 
brake pedal, if a BTSI is in place, Congress decided there is little 
chance small children can shift the

[[Page 42838]]

vehicle into gear by themselves.\1\ We note that, in general, key 
removal by the operator is still the most effective way to prevent 
children from shifting the vehicle's transmission out of the ``park'' 
position. The K.T. Safety Act mandates that a BTSI should function in 
any starting key position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While this was the rationale provided by Congress, we note 
that NHTSA has no data on actions and behavior of unattended 
children in vehicles, although we agree that it is likely accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the passage of the K.T. Safety Act of 2007, in August of 
2006, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Association of 
International Automobile Manufacturers developed a voluntary agreement 
which requires full implementation of BTSI not later than September 1, 
2010.\2\ The agreement states that ``any vehicle under 10,000 pounds 
produced for the U.S. market, with an automatic transmission that 
includes a `park' position shall have a system that requires that the 
service brake be depressed before the transmission can be shifted out 
of ``park.'' Additionally, the agreement required that manufacturers 
provide NHTSA with information about which vehicles were equipped with 
BTSI systems, which will be placed in the docket. Automakers 
participating in the voluntary agreement include: Aston Martin, BMW 
Group, Ford Motor Company, Hyundai Motor, Maserati, Nissan, Suzuki, 
DaimlerChrysler Corporation, General Motors, Isuzu Motors, Mazda, 
Porsche, Toyota, Ferrari, Honda, Kia Motors, Mitsubishi Motors, Subaru, 
and Volkswagen Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The announcement and text of this agreement are available on 
the NHTSA Web site, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For its part, since model year (MY) 2007, the agency has made 
available to the public on http://www.safercar.gov the list of vehicles 
equipped and not equipped with BTSI. Approximately 98 percent of MY 
2008 motor vehicles are forecasted to be equipped with a BTSI system 
designed in accordance with the agreement. One of the functions of the 
K.T. Safety Act of 2007 is that it codifies and makes mandatory the 
terms of the agreement for all manufacturers and vehicles as described 
above.

II. The Legislative Mandate and Changes to FMVSS No. 114

    Because Congress mandated all vehicles be equipped with BTSI, no 
action is required by NHTSA for this portion of the legislation to 
become effective. However, there are several reasons why we are 
proposing to integrate this requirement into Federal Motor Vehicle 
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 114, Theft protection and rollaway 
prevention. So that manufacturers and others may conveniently find all 
requirements for rollaway prevention systems in the FMVSSs, we are 
proposing to locate the requirement for the BTSI together with 
requirements for other rollaway systems (in paragraph S5 of FMVSS No. 
114). We also note that Congress mandated that a violation of the BTSI 
requirement shall be treated as a violation of a motor vehicle safety 
standard. To facilitate compliance with the safety requirement and make 
clear that NHTSA will enforce violations of the BTSI requirement by way 
of the recall and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.), we are proposing to 
integrate the BTSI requirement into FMVSS No. 114.
    Comments are requested on our interpretation of various provisions 
of section 2(d) of the Act. The last sentence of section (d) states: 
``This system shall function in any starting system key position in 
which the transmission can be shifted out of `park'. This means that no 
matter the starting system position the key is in (e.g., ``lock,'' 
``accessory,'' or ``start'') the transmission must only shift out of 
``park'' when the service brake is depressed. Further, while the second 
sentence of section (d)(1) refers to the term ``key,'' we believe that 
the BTSI requirement applies to vehicles that operate with all keys, 
i.e., a physical device or an electronic code, such as those requiring 
the operator to enter the code or push a button to start the vehicle. 
In all vehicles, the brake pedal must be depressed in order to shift 
the transmission out of the ``park'' position. Other findings we have 
made are that the reference to ``gross vehicular weight'' in section 
(e)(2) of the Act is referring to ``gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR),'' a vehicle metric commonly used in the FMVSSs in determining 
the applicability of the standards, and that the reference to 
``manufactured for sale after September 1, 2010'' in section (d)(1) 
means ``manufactured on or after September 1, 2010.'' Finally, we have 
not included in FMVSS No. 114 any language relating to a test 
procedure. Given the relatively simple nature of the requirement, we do 
not believe a test procedure is needed in the regulatory text. However, 
in a compliance test, NHTSA will attempt to shift the transmission out 
of ``park'' without depressing the vehicle's service brake for each 
ignition position. If the transmission is able to be shifted out of 
park without the brake pedal depressed, an apparent noncompliance will 
be deemed to have been found.
    We note that because of the difference in the applicability of the 
BTSI requirement and the general applicability requirements of FMVSS 
No. 114, we will need to modify paragraph S3, Application, to insert 
the BTSI requirement as it was mandated by Congress. According to 
section (e) the K.T. Safety Act of 2007:

    The term `motor vehicle' has the meaning given such term in 
section 30102(a)(6) of title 49, United States Code, except that 
such term shall not include--
    (1) a motorcycle or trailer (as such terms are defined in 
section 571.3 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations); or
    (2) any motor vehicle that is rated at more than 10,000 pounds 
gross vehicular weight.

    The vehicles subject to the K.T. Safety Act of 2007 largely overlap 
with the vehicles currently subject to FMVSS No. 114, but there are 
some differences. Using the term ``motor vehicle'' as described in 49 
U.S.C. 30102, the Congressional definition would apply to passenger 
cars, trucks, buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and low-speed 
vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. This contrasts with the 
vehicle types listed in paragraph S3 of FMVSS No. 114, which includes 
``all passenger cars, and to trucks and multipurpose vehicles with a 
GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. However, it does not 
apply to walk-in van-type vehicles.'' Thus, as a result of the 
Congressional definition, in addition to all of the vehicles currently 
subject to FMVSS No. 114, the BTSI requirement would apply to buses 
(under 10,000 pounds), walk-in van-type vehicles, and low-speed 
vehicles. We are proposing to add language to paragraph S3 of the 
standard, to make it clear that the BTSI requirement applies to this 
somewhat larger class of vehicles, while not changing the applicability 
of current FMVSS No. 114 requirements.

III. Public Participation

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your 
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket 
number of this document in your comments.
    Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). 
We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary 
comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary 
additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length 
of the attachments.
    Please submit two copies of your comments, including the 
attachments,

[[Page 42839]]

to Docket Management at the address given above under ADDRESSES.
    Comments may also be submitted to the docket electronically by 
logging onto the Docket Management System Web site at http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for 
substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agency, it must meet 
the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and DOT Data 
Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the 
guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed 
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's 
guidelines may be accessed at http://dms.dot.gov.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of 
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the 
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket 
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of 
confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete 
submission, including the information you claim to be confidential 
business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 
above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, you should 
submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed confidential 
business information, to Docket Management at the address given above 
under ADDRESSES. When you send a comment containing information claimed 
to be confidential business information, you should include a cover 
letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential 
business information regulation. (49 CFR part 512.)

Will the agency consider late comments?

    We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives 
before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated 
above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also consider 
comments that Docket Management receives after that date. If Docket 
Management receives a comment too late for us to consider in developing 
a final rule (assuming that one is issued), we will consider that 
comment as an informal suggestion for future rulemaking action.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the 
address given above under ADDRESSES. The hours of the Docket are 
indicated above in the same location. You may also see the comments on 
the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the 
dockets.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will 
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes 
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, 
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

IV. 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 was not reviewed by the Office of 
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866. The agency has considered the 
impact of this action under the Department of Transportation's 
regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979), 
and has determined that it is not ``significant'' under them. This 
rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O. 12866.
    Today's notice proposes to insert the Congressional mandate into 
the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for the convenience of 
users. It does not impose any additional regulatory requirements. We 
also note that most vehicles are already equipped with a BTSI system. 
The agency concludes that the impacts of the proposed changes are so 
minimal that preparation of a full regulatory evaluation is not 
required.

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). 
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121 
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates 
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies the rule will 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 will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this NPRM under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. I certify that this NPRM will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
proposal merely includes in the Federal motor vehicle safety standards 
a requirement passed by Congress in the K.T. Safety Act of 2007. No 
substantive changes to the Act are being proposed in this notice. Small 
organizations and small government units would not be significantly 
affected since this proposed action would not affect the price of new 
motor vehicles. For the vast majority of motor vehicle manufacturers, 
the BTSI requirement merely codifies a voluntary pledge made by 
manufacturers to install BTSI systems on all vehicles by September 1, 
2010.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's proposal pursuant to Executive Order 
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional 
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is 
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that 
the proposal does not have federalism implications because it does 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.''
    Further, no consultation is needed to discuss the issue of 
preemption in connection with today's proposed rule. The issue of 
preemption can arise in connection with NHTSA rules in at least two 
ways. First, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains 
an express preemption provision: ``When a motor vehicle safety standard 
is in effect under this chapter, a State or a political subdivision of 
a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable

[[Page 42840]]

to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle 
equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed 
under this chapter.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1). It is this statutory 
command that unavoidably preempts State legislative and administrative 
law, not today's rulemaking, so consultation would be unnecessary.
    Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the possibility of implied 
preemption: in some instances, State requirements imposed on motor 
vehicle manufacturers, including sanctions imposed by State tort law, 
can stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of a NHTSA 
safety standard. When such a conflict is discerned, the Supremacy 
Clause of the Constitution makes the State requirements unenforceable. 
See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000). However, 
NHTSA has considered the nature and purpose of today's proposal and 
does not currently foresee any potential State requirements that might 
conflict with it. Without any conflict, there could not be any implied 
preemption.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation, 
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 
4729, February 7, 1996) requires that Executive agencies make every 
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies 
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately 
defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting 
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the 
Attorney General. This document is consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of 
preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no 
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or 
pursue other administrative proceeding before they may file suit in 
court.

Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, 
health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
    Although this notice is part of a rulemaking expected to have a 
positive safety impact on children, it is not an economically 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. 
Consequently, no further analysis is required under Executive Order 
13045.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency 
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There is not 
any information collection requirement associated with this NPRM.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272) directs the 
agency to evaluate and use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or is 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. The NTTAA directs us to provide 
Congress (through OMB) with explanations when we decide not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. There are no 
voluntary consensus standards developed by voluntary consensus 
standards bodies pertaining to the BTSI requirement. However, we note 
that currently, most automobile manufacturers incorporate a brake shift 
transmission interlock in their vehicles. In 2006, most large vehicle 
manufacturers agreed to a voluntary commitment to include a BTSI system 
in their vehicles by September 1, 2010. Finally, due to the BTSI 
provision in the K.T. Safety Act of 2007, all manufacturers will be 
required by statute to include it in their vehicles by September 1, 
2010. This NPRM proposes to incorporate the already-existing 
requirement into FMVSS No. 114 and does not include any additional 
requirements on manufacturers.

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 annually (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 the agency 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 the agency to adopt an alternative 
other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome 
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation 
of why that alternative was not adopted.
    This NPRM will not result in any expenditure by State, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this NPRM is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that 
implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on 
the quality of the human environment.

Regulatory 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.

Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments 
received into any of our dockets by the

[[Page 42841]]

name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, 
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 
19477-78) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571

    Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Tires.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 571 as follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

    1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 would continue 
to read as follows:

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

    2. Section 571.114 would be amended by revising paragraphs S3 and 
S5 and adding paragraph S5.3 to read as follows:


Sec.  571.114  Standard No. 114; Theft protection and rollaway 
prevention.

* * * * *
    S3 Application. This standard applies to all passenger cars, and to 
trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. However, it does not apply to walk-
in van-type vehicles. Additionally, paragraph S5.3 of this standard 
applies to all motor vehicles, except trailers and motorcycles, with a 
GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less.
* * * * *
    S5 Requirements. Each vehicle subject to this standard must meet 
the requirements of S5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. Open-body type vehicles are not 
required to comply with S5.1.3.
* * * * *
    S5.3 Brake Transmission Shift Interlock. Each motor vehicle 
manufactured on or after September 1, 2010 with a GVWR of 4,536 
kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less with an automatic transmission that 
includes a ``park'' position shall be equipped with a system that 
requires the service brake to be depressed before the transmission can 
be shifted out of ``park.'' This system shall function in any starting 
system key position in which the transmission can be shifted out of 
``park.'' This section does not apply to trailers or motorcycles.
* * * * *

    Issued on August 19, 2009.
Julie Abraham,
Director, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 
Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-20384 Filed 8-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
