Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
42838 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1While 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. 

2The announcement and text of this agreement 

are available on the NHTSA Web site, http:// 

www.nhtsa.dot.gov. 

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. 

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. 

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, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
42840 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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 alreadyexisting 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 163 / Tuesday, August 25, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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: 

§ 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS