Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30449

will be based on consideration of the

following criteria:

(1) The importance and number of

restrictions or requirements violated;

(2) The seriousness of the violation;

(3) The extent to which the violation

is part of a pattern; and

(4) Whether the violation was

intentional.

(c) Financial assistance provided to a

recipient may also be suspended by the

Corporation pursuant to a

recommendation by the Office of

Inspector General when the recipient

has failed to have an acceptable audit in

accordance with the guidance

promulgated by the Corporation’s Office

of Inspector General.

§ 1623.4 Suspension procedures.

(a) When the Corporation has made a

proposed determination, based on the

grounds set out in § 1623.3, that

financial assistance to a recipient

should be suspended, the Corporation

shall serve a written proposed

determination on the recipient. The

proposed determination shall:

(1) State the grounds and effective

date for the proposed suspension;

(2) Identify, with reasonable

specificity, any facts or documents

relied upon as justification for the

suspension;

(3) Specify what, if any, corrective

action the recipient can take to avoid or

end the suspension;

(4) Advise the recipient that it may

request, within 5 days of receipt of the

proposed determination, an informal

meeting with the Corporation at which

it may attempt to show that the

proposed suspension should not be

imposed; and

(5) Advise the recipient that, within

10 days of its receipt of the proposed

determination and without regard to

whether it requests an informal meeting,

it may submit written materials in

opposition to the proposed suspension.

(b) If the recipient requests an

informal meeting with the Corporation,

the Corporation shall designate the time

and place for the meeting. The meeting

shall occur within 5 days after the

recipient’s request is received.

(c) The Corporation shall consider any

written materials submitted by the

recipient in opposition to the proposed

suspension and any oral presentation or

written materials submitted by the

recipient at an informal meeting. If, after

considering such materials, the

Corporation determines that the

recipient has failed to show that the

suspension should not become effective,

the Corporation may issue a written

final determination to suspend financial

assistance to the recipient in whole or

in part and under such terms and

conditions the Corporation deems

appropriate and necessary.

(d) The final determination shall be

promptly transmitted to the recipient in

a manner that verifies receipt of the

determination by the recipient, and the

suspension shall become effective when

the final determination is received by

the recipient or on such later date as is

specified therein.

(e) The Corporation may at any time

rescind or modify the terms of the final

determination to suspend and, on

written notice to the recipient, may

reinstate the suspension without further

proceedings under this part. Except as

provided in paragraph (f) of this section,

the total time of a suspension shall not

exceed 30 days, unless the Corporation

and the recipient agree to a continuation

of the suspension for up to a total of 60

days without further proceedings under

this part.

(f) When the suspension is based on

the grounds in § 1623.3(c), a recipient’s

funds may be suspended until an

acceptable audit is completed.

§ 1623.5 Time extensions and waiver.

(a) Except for the time limits in

§ 1623.4(e), any period of time provided

in this part may be extended by the

Corporation for good cause. Requests for

extensions of time shall be considered

in light of the overall objective that the

procedures prescribed by this part

ordinarily shall be concluded within 30

days of the service of the proposed

determination.

(b) Any other provision of this part

may be waived or modified by

agreement of the recipient and the

Corporation for good cause.

§ 1623.6 Interim funding.

(a) Pending the completion of

suspension proceedings under this part,

the Corporation shall provide the

recipient with the level of financial

assistance provided for under its current

grant or contract with the Corporation.

(b) Failure by the Corporation to meet

a time requirement of this part shall not

preclude the Corporation from

suspending a recipient’s grant or

contract with the Corporation.

Dated: May 29, 1998.

Victor M. Fortuno,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 98–14773 Filed 6–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–98–3881; Notice 01]

RIN 2127–AH21

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Transmission Shift Lever

Sequence, Starter Interlock, and

Transmission Braking Effect

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for comments.

SUMMARY: NHTSA is considering

whether to issue a proposal to amend

the Federal motor vehicle safety

standard on transmission shift lever

sequence to add requirements for

vehicles without conventional

mechanical transmission shift levers.

This is in response to a petition received

from BMW of North America, Inc.

(BMW). BMW has been exploring the

possibility of producing vehicles with

electronically-controlled transmissions

that do not use the conventional

mechanical lever that, when engaged,

places the transmission in the desired

gear. Rather than conventional shift

levers, these systems would employ

shift mechanisms such as a rotary

switch, keypad, touch screen, joystick,

voice activation, or some other method.

Some of these designs, however, do not

comply with requirements in Standard

No. 102.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the

docket and notice numbers cited at the

beginning of this notice and be

submitted to: Docket Management,

Room PL–401, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590. It is requested,

but not required, that two copies of the

comments be provided. The Docket

Section is open on weekdays from 10:00

a.m. to 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

non-legal issues: Mr. Chris Flanigan,

Office of Safety Performance Standards,

NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Flanigan’s

telephone number is (202) 366–4918

and his facsimile number is (202) 366–

4329.

For legal issues: Ms. Dorothy Nakama,

Rulemaking Division, Office of Chief

Counsel, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20590. Ms.

Nakama’s telephone number is (202)
30450 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

366–2992 and her facsimile number is

(202) 366–3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background of Standard No. 102

Standard No. 102’s purpose is to

reduce deaths and injuries resulting

from misshifting. Since 1968, the

standard has ensured against

misshifting by specifying the sequence

in which gears for automatic

transmissions must be selected.

Paragraph S3.1.1 of the standard,

‘‘Location of transmission shift lever

positions on passenger cars,’’ requires

that ‘‘[a] neutral position shall be

located between forward drive and

reverse drive positions. If a steeringcolumn-mounted transmission shift

lever is used, movement from neutral

position to forward drive position shall

be clockwise. If the transmission shift

lever sequence includes a park position,

it shall be located at the end, adjacent

to the reverse drive position.’’ That is,

the gear selection is required to be in the

park, reverse, neutral, drive, and low

(PRNDL) sequence.

Under these requirements, the driver

must shift serially to get from one

position to another. For instance, if a

vehicle is in park, to get to drive, the

driver must move the shift lever serially

through two positions: reverse, neutral,

and then to drive. Moreover, with the

neutral position required to be between

reverse and drive, this further ensures

that no mistakes in selection will be

made. The neutral position provides a

buffer zone between forward and

reverse. Therefore, if there was a

mistake in shifting, it is more than likely

that the vehicle would end up in neutral

instead of drive or reverse.

The main type of misshifting the

standard seeks to prevent is when a

driver initiates forward or rearward

motion from a standstill. For example,

if a driver intends to leave a parking

space by placing a vehicle in reverse

and accidentally places the vehicle in

drive, there is a potential for pedestrians

or other vehicles to be struck. Because

of the required shift lever sequence, it

becomes less likely due to the

standardized sequence of gear positions

a driver must always follow to get to the

desired gear. Further, the vast majority

of gear changes are performed while the

vehicle is not in motion.

BMW’s Petition

BMW petitioned the agency to amend

Standard No. 102 on November 19,

1997. As stated above, it is considering

manufacturing electronically-controlled

transmissions that would not use the

conventional mechanical shift lever as

current vehicles with both

electronically-controlled and

mechanically-controlled transmissions

do. The systems could use

unconventional methods of initiating

shift changes (rotary switches, keypads,

touch screens, joysticks, voice

activation, or other methods). For a

mechanically-controlled transmission, a

shift lever is moved, which activates a

linkage or cable that positions the

transmission’s linkage in the desired

gear. When the shift mechanism on an

electronically controlled system is

moved, it sends an electric signal to a

control on the transmission to place the

transmission in the desired gear.

Standard No. 102 establishes four

primary requirements for vehicles with

automatic transmissions. First, it

specifies a shift lever sequence for

automatic transmissions and requires a

neutral position to be located between

forward drive and reverse drive

positions. Second, it requires a

transmission braking effect for vehicles

having more than one forward

transmission gear ratio. Third, it

requires that the engine starter be

inoperative when the transmission is in

a forward or reverse drive position.

Fourth, it requires that, for shift lever

sequences with a park position,

identification of shift lever positions

shall be displayed in view of the driver.

BMW stated in its petition that the

requirements to provide a transmission

braking effect and a starter interlock

when the transmission is in a forward

or reverse drive position do not pose

any problems for their newer design.

Thus, the focus of BMW’s petition and

this request for comments is on the first

and fourth requirements identified

above—the shift lever sequence for

automatic transmissions and the

requirement that the shift lever

sequence be displayed in view of the

driver.

With respect to the shift lever

sequence, BMW indicated that future

shifting designs, especially joysticks,

could move along two axes, instead of

the single axis associated with

conventional shift levers. That is,

instead of moving around the steering

column or forward and backward like

conventional shift levers, joysticks and

keypads shift by moving forward and

backward and left and right. Adding this

second axis of movement would make

compliance with the shift lever

sequence requirement and the

requirement to display the shift lever

sequence, in the words of BMW’s

petition, ‘‘inappropriate, impracticable,

and sometimes impossible.’’

BMW also believes that because the

shift lever sequence requirements refer

to shift ‘‘levers,’’ Standard No. 102

would not apply to shifting mechanisms

that do not employ a mechanical lever.

It asserts that the standard was based on

mechanical shift levers and its

requirements were written to endorse

the then-current industry practice of

using a shift lever even though other

means of gear selection (e.g., push

buttons) had existed in the past and

could likely be reintroduced in the

future. It states that, ‘‘to avoid ‘outlawing’ such other designs, the wording

in these requirements was intentionally

chosen to clearly apply only to

transmissions with mechanical shift

levers.’’

BMW asked that three requirements

be added to Standard No. 102 that relate

to systems without mechanical

transmission levers. Its suggested

regulatory text is as follows:

S3.1.5 Systems without mechanical

transmission levers.

S3.1.5.1 The engine starter shall be

inoperative whenever a forward or

reverse drive gear is engaged.

S3.1.5.2 Each transmission gear

available for selection, how each

available transmission gear can be

selected, and which gear has been

selected shall be displayed in view of

the driver whenever any of the

following conditions exist:

(a) The ignition is in a position where

the transmission can be shifted.

(b) The transmission is not in park.

S3.1.5.3 Each system shall prohibit

the following:

(a) shifting from drive to reverse and

from reverse to drive at any speed above

five kilometers per hour (km/h) (3.1

miles per hour (mph)).

(b) shifting into park from any gear at

any speed above three km/h (1.9 mph).

NHTSA welcomes this petition to

reexamine whether there is a continuing

need for the shift lever sequence in

Standard No. 102. This was one of the

original safety standards which took

effect on January 1, 1968. The agency

believes it is useful to consider carefully

in 1998 whether the changes over the

past 30 years have eliminated the need

for the shift lever sequence requirement,

or whether that requirement is now

imposing a needless burden on new

technologies. To facilitate this review,

NHTSA has carefully looked at the

purpose of the shift lever sequence. The

agency would now like to have a public

dialogue to gather additional

information and opinions about whether

the shift lever sequence requirements in

Standard No. 102 impose unforeseen

design burdens on manufacturers’

efforts to use new technologies and

whether there is a continuing safety

benefit for the public from the shift

lever sequence requirements.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30451

Standard No. 102’s Applicability

Although the standard mentions only

shift ‘‘levers,’’ the agency’s intention

was not to have the standard apply only

to systems with mechanical levers such

as BMW asserts. The standard specifies

shift levers because they were the

conventional type of shift mechanism at

the time the standard was established in

the late 1960’s. The agency’s intent was

to reduce the likelihood of shifting

errors by standardizing the shift lever

sequence. As with other standards, the

agency’s goal is not to limit innovations

in vehicular systems by establishing

requirements or to establish design

restrictive requirements unless that is

necessary for establishing the required

safety goal.

For example, Standard No. 124,

Accelerator control systems, was written

with respect to mechanical accelerator

control systems. This is because at the

time Standard No. 124 was established,

the only type of accelerator controls that

existed were of a mechanical type.

When promulgated, the definitions and

requirements were easy to understand

and apply because their language was

strongly influenced by the design of

mechanical systems. However, with the

advent of electronic accelerator control

systems, it did not mean that the

standard did not apply to them. In the

case of Standard No. 124, the purpose

was to provide a means for reducing

deaths and injuries resulting from a loss

of control of a moving vehicle’s engine,

due to malfunctions in the accelerator

control system. That is, the system

should return a vehicle’s throttle to the

idle position if the driver removes the

actuating force (removes foot from

accelerator pedal or disengages cruise

control) and when there is a severance

or disconnection in the system. This can

be accomplished whether the system is

electronic or mechanical.

The same is true for Standard No. 102.

The standard does not differentiate

between whether a transmission is

mechanically- or electronicallycontrolled. There are a number of

vehicles on the market today that have

electronically-controlled transmissions

that employ conventional mechanical

shift levers to which the standard

applies. The sequence and mechanism

of gear selection is the issue at hand and

whether this means should remain

standardized as is, or whether other

aspects need to be standardized.

Further, if the agency determines that

the existing standardization is no longer

appropriate and amends the standard to

accommodate other types of shift

mechanisms, a decision needs to be

made as to what other requirements, if

any, need to be established to maintain

the level of safety that has existed with

the current requirements for the last

thirty years.

Discussion of Issues

Shift Lever Sequence

Having these requirements in place

for over thirty years has ingrained them

in the minds of the vast majority of

drivers. Because of the familiarity with

the required gear positions, it is not

uncommon for a driver of a vehicle with

an automatic transmission to shift into

a desired gear without looking at the

shift lever or display. The universality

of these controls allows this behavior

without necessarily degrading motor

vehicle safety. Drivers know where

certain gear positions are in relation to

the others. As stated above, to get from

the park position to the drive position,

a driver would move the control in a

clockwise or rearward, serial sequence

to go through the reverse and neutral

positions. However, if shift levers were

allowed to be significantly different as

in some of the designs BMW has

outlined, it is possible that a significant

amount of misshifting would occur.

Other than the rotary switch, the shift

mechanisms that BMW has outlined

would allow non-serial selection of

gears. Shift mechanisms such as

joysticks, push buttons, keypads, and

touch screens would allow the driver to

shift from gear to gear in any sequence.

For example, if a vehicle is equipped

with push buttons, a keypad, or a touch

screen for gear selection, the driver

would simply depress a button or touch

a screen at the position for the desired

gear, regardless of the currently selected

gear position. Therefore, one could

change gears in any sequence. Regarding

the joystick design, the driver must

move a mechanical lever from its center

position either up for drive, down for

reverse, left for park, or right for neutral.

After the lever is moved toward the

desired gear selection, it returns back to

its center position.

Some of the systems BMW mentioned

could theoretically be changed so that

they comply with the standard. For

systems employing push button,

keypad, or touch screen shift

mechanisms, it is possible to envision a

series of interlocking buttons or touch

screen positions which would operate

only in a specific serial sequence. That

is, to place the vehicle in drive from

park, first one would have to push the

reverse button, neutral button, and the

drive button in sequence. While we

believe this would meet the standard,

we understand it is unlikely a

manufacturer would opt for such a

cumbersome shift mechanism.

These non-serial methods of shifting

could increase the likelihood of

misshifting. In situations where the

vehicle is being operated at night or if

the driver’s attention is focused on a

more critical area, the driver may

change gears without looking at the shift

lever or display. Some drivers may shift

gears without looking for no other

reason than their familiarity with the

system. Because the gear positions

could be selected randomly in most of

the systems BMW has outlined, not

looking at the shift mechanism or

display when shifting would allow less

room for error than with conventional

systems.

Another scenario which could

increase the likelihood of misshifting is

when a driver is operating a rental car.

In this situation, the driver may not be

familiar with the vehicle’s controls and

displays. If the driver was not

accustomed to an unconventional shift

mechanism, misshifting could occur.

Also, the agency has received numerous

letters regarding confusion with the

placement of controls and displays on

rental cars. These letters express some

of the public’s frustration with the lack

in standardization of placement of

controls and displays. Allowing

unconventional shift mechanisms could

add to already existing confusion among

some drivers.

One possible method to lessen the

likelihood of misshifting is to require

that the brake pedal be depressed to

initiate a change in gears. In this case,

the only gear changes that could be

made without depressing the brake

would be when switching between drive

and the lower forward gears. This may

eliminate many potential problems with

drivers not looking at the shift

mechanisms while changing gears. Even

if a driver did not look at the shift

mechanism or display while changing

gears, after completing this action while

the brake pedal is depressed, the driver

would feel a vehicle ‘‘tug’’ towards the

selected gear’s direction. Therefore, if a

driver intended to place the

transmission in the drive position and

the vehicle tugged in the reverse

direction, the driver probably would

immediately know a mistake had been

made. Further, it could eliminate

potential problems with voice activated

systems. Saying key words such as

‘‘drive’’ or ‘‘reverse’’ would not change

the gear without the driver depressing

the brake and thus being in control of

the vehicle. Brake pedal application

while shifting might, however, be

problematic under certain driving
30452 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules

conditions such as rocking a vehicle

stuck in snow.

BMW briefly mentions voice activated

gear selection in its petition. There

would be a multitude of safety issues if

these systems were used. For example,

if some of the activating words were

used in conversation while driving, an

undesired shift could take place. Also,

if someone were to shout out a

command outside of a parked, idling

vehicle, the transmission could be

shifted into a forward or reverse gear

which would cause the vehicle to move.

BMW did not suggest any requirements

to forestall such an event.

BMW did describe a non-lever shift

mechanism that would meet the current

requirements of the standard. The rotary

switch would be acceptable because the

driver would have to turn a dial-like

mechanism through the PRNDL

sequence to get to the desired gear. To

get the transmission into the drive

position, one would have to turn the

rotary switch through the reverse and

neutral positions. This serial selection

of gears would allow the driver to shift

through the standardized gear sequence.

As stated above, the type of

misshifting that the standard seeks to

prevent is when a vehicle is at a

standstill. BMW suggests requirements

to deter shifting while the vehicle is in

motion. The requirements that BMW

suggests appear to center mainly on the

protection of the transmission.

However, BMW’s suggested

requirements do not appear to address

how misshifting could be prevented if

the vehicle is not in motion, the main

purpose of the standard.

Display of Shift Lever Sequence

Standard No. 102 also specifies

requirements for the display of the shift

lever sequence. It requires that

identification of the shift lever positions

including the positions in relation to

each other and the position selected be

displayed in view of the driver when

either the ignition is in a position where

the transmission can be shifted or when

the transmission is not in the park

position. If the vehicle does not have a

park position, identification of the shift

lever positions, including the positions

in relation to each other and the

position selected, shall be displayed in

view of the driver whenever the ignition

is in a position in which the engine is

capable of operation. The purpose of

these requirements is to ensure that the

vehicle operator is aware of which gear

has been selected as well as its relation

to the other shift positions. This reduces

the likelihood of misshifting.

BMW stated in its petition that,

because of the physical nature of future

transmissions, meeting the

aforementioned display requirements

could be ‘‘inappropriate, impracticable,

and sometimes impossible.’’ BMW does

not elaborate further on why the display

requirements would be difficult to

comply with. However, BMW believes

the future transmission designs can

satisfy the standard’s intended purpose:

to reduce the likelihood of shifting

errors.

As stated previously, the shift lever

requirements in the standard have been

around for 30 years. Drivers are

accustomed to the requirements for the

display of the shift lever sequence. The

agency believes that, if the currentlyrequired display was changed, drivers

could become confused. This could lead

to them making a mistake in selecting

the desired gear. Further, this problem

could be exacerbated in rental cars

where the driver is not familiar with the

controls and displays.

Starter Interlock

Paragraph S3.1.3 of the standard

states that ‘‘[t]he engine starter shall be

inoperative when the transmission shift

lever is in a forward or reverse drive

position’’ (emphasis added). Because

the purpose of this notice is to seek

comments on permitting other types of

shift mechanisms, some of which are

not considered shift ‘‘levers,’’ the

agency would like to clarify that our

intention is not to remove the

requirement for a starter interlock on

vehicles which do not have shift lever.

If some type of shift mechanism other

than a shift lever, such as a rotary

switch, is permitted, the starter

interlock requirements would have to be

amended to incorporate this change.

Questions for Comment

In determining the merits of BMW’s

petition and discussion of the issues,

the comments should not focus on the

type of transmission that is involved,

i.e., whether it is electronically- or

mechanically-controlled. This is

irrelevant because it does not affect the

ability to comply with the standard.

There are compliant vehicles on the

road today which have both types of

transmissions. The issue we are

interested in receiving comments on is

the effect on motor vehicle safety of a

change in standardization of the shift

lever sequence (PRNDL) to a non-serial

type of gear selection.

1. Should Standard No. 102 be

amended to permit transmission shift

mechanisms which allow changing

gears in a non-serial manner, e.g.,

keypads, touch screens, push buttons,

voice activation, etc.? If these non-serial

shift mechanisms were allowed, what

types of restrictions, if any, should be

placed on them to reduce the likelihood

of misshifting? Please be specific.

2. Should the standard specify

maximum speeds at which the

transmission can be shifted, (except

when switching between drive and

lower forward gears) presuming that

additional safety concerns exist that

could be resolved by preventing shifting

while a vehicle is in motion? If so, are

the maximum speeds and the vehicle

conditions that BMW has suggested in

its petition appropriate? If not, what

speeds and conditions would be

appropriate?

3. Should there be a requirement that

the brake pedal be depressed, or any

other action, to achieve a failsafe

condition to occur in order to initiate a

change in gears (except when switching

between drive and lower forward gears)?

4. If non-serial shift mechanisms were

allowed, how should the display

requirements be altered to accommodate

them?

5. Although BMW did not raise any

issues regarding transmission braking

effect, the agency would like to get

comments on this requirement. The

standard states that ‘‘[i]n vehicles

having more than one forward

transmission gear ratio, one forward

drive position shall provide a greater

degree of engine braking than the

highest speed transmission ratio at

vehicle speeds below 40 kilometers per

hour.’’ The only way the standard

permits this requirement to be met is

through the transmission braking effect.

Should the requirement be less specific

by allowing other means of slowing

down the vehicle when the transmission

is shifted into a lower forward gear?

This could be accomplished when

downshifting the transmission by

controlling the vehicle’s brake system

via a traction control system, using a

drive line retarder, using regenerative

braking, or some other method.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

This request for comment was not

reviewed under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

NHTSA has analyzed the impact of this

request for comment and determined

that it is not ‘‘significant’’ within the

meaning of the Department of

Transportation’s regulatory policies and

procedures. The agency anticipates if a

proposal and ultimately a final rule

should result from this request for

comment, new requirements would not

be imposed on manufacturers with

respect to currently regulated systems.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 107 /Thursday, June 4, 1998 / Proposed Rules 30453

The request for comment seeks to

determine whether shift mechanisms

that employ a non-serial method of gear

selection would degrade safety, and if

so, could the standard be amended so as

to allow for their safe inclusion in motor

vehicles. If NHTSA decides to initiate

rulemaking, it is NHTSA’s intent that

the rulemaking not impose any

additional costs.

Procedures for Filing Comments

Interested persons are invited to

submit comments on this request for

comment. It is requested but not

required that two copies be submitted.

All comments must not exceed 15

pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).

Necessary attachments may be

appended to these submissions without

regard to the 15-page limit. This

limitation is intended to encourage

commenters to detail their primary

arguments in a concise fashion.

If a commenter wishes to submit

certain information under a claim of

confidentiality, three copies of the

complete submission, including

purportedly confidential business

information, should be submitted to the

Docket Section. A request for

confidentiality should be accompanied

by a cover letter setting forth the

information specified in the agency’s

confidential information regulation. 49

CFR part 512.

All comments received before the

close of business on the comment

closing date indicated above for the

proposal will be considered, and will be

available for examination in the docket

at the above address both before and

after that date. To the extent possible,

comments filed after the closing date

will also be considered. Comments

received after the comment due date

will be considered as suggestions for

any future rulemaking action.

Comments on the request for comment

will be available for inspection in the

docket. NHTSA will continue to file

relevant information as it becomes

available in the docket after the closing

date, and it is recommended that

interested persons continue to examine

the docket for new material.

Those persons desiring to be notified

upon receipt of their comments in the

rules docket should enclose a selfaddressed, stamped postcard in the

envelope with their comments. Upon

receiving the comments, the docket

supervisor will return the postcard by

mail.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,

30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at

49 CFR 1.50.

Issued on: May 29, 1998.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 98–14832 Filed 6–3–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants: Finding on Petitions To

Change the Status of Grizzly Bear

Populations in the North Cascades

Area of Washington and the CabinetYaak Area of Montana and Idaho From

Threatened to Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition

finding.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) announces a recycled

12-month petition finding for two

petitions to amend the List of

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife.

The Service finds that reclassification of

grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in

the North Cascades Recovery Zone of

Washington and Cabinet-Yaak Recovery

Zone of Montana and Idaho from

threatened to endangered status remains

warranted but precluded.

DATES: The finding announced in this

document was approved on June 1,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Questions or comments

concerning this finding should be sent

to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator,

University Hall 309, University of

Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812.

The petition, finding, and supporting

data are available for public inspection

by appointment during normal business

hours at the above office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear

Recovery Coordinator (see ADDRESSES

above) at telephone (406) 243–4903.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

4(b)(3)(A) of the Endangered Species

Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that for

any petition to revise the Lists of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants that contains substantial

scientific and commercial information,

the Service make a finding within 12

months of the date of the receipt of the

petition on whether the petitioned

action is (a) not warranted, (b)

warranted, or ‘‘ warranted, but

precluded. Section 4(b)(3)(C) requires

that petitions for which the requested

action is found to be warranted but

precluded should be treated as though

resubmitted on the date of such finding,

i.e., requiring a subsequent finding to be

made within 12 months. The Service

announces a new 12-month finding on

two petitions requesting the

reclassification of grizzly bears from

threatened to endangered status.

The Service received a petition dated

March 13, 1990, from the Humane

Society of the United States, Greater

Ecosystem Alliance, North Cascades

Audubon Society, Kittitas Audubon

Society, Pilchuck Audubon Society,

Skagit Alpine Club, North Cascades

Conservation Council, and Carol Rae

Smith. The petition requested the

Service to reclassify the grizzly bear in

the North Cascades area of Washington

State from threatened to endangered.

The Service made a 90-day finding that

the petition presented substantial

information indicating that the

requested action may be warranted. The

Service announced the 90-day finding

in the Federal Register on August 7,

1990, (55 FR 32103) and initiated a

status review. The Service issued a 12-

month finding that the petitioned action

was warranted but precluded on July 24,

1991 (56 FR 33892).

A petition dated January 16, 1991,

was received from Mr. D.C. Carlton on

January 28, 1991. The petition requested

the Service to reclassify the grizzly bear

in the Selkirk ecosystem of Idaho and

Washington; the Cabinet-Yaak

ecosystem of Montana and Idaho; and

the North Cascades ecosystem of

Washington from threatened to

endangered. A petition dated February

4, 1991, was received from the Fund for

Animals, Inc., on February 7, 1991. The

petition requested the Service to

reclassify the grizzly bear in the Selkirk

ecosystem of Idaho and Washington; the

Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem of Montana and

Idaho; the Yellowstone ecosystem of

Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho; and the

Northern Continental Divide ecosystem

of Montana from threatened to

endangered. On April 20, 1992 (57 FR

14372) the Service issued a 90-day

finding that there was not substantial

information to warrant the

reclassification of the grizzly bear in the

Yellowstone and Northern Continental

Divide ecosystems, but there was

substantial information to indicate that

reclassification in the Selkirk and

Cabinet-Yaak ecosystems may be

warranted. At the same time, the Service

initiated a status review. On February

12, 1993 (58 FR 8250) the Service issued

a 12-month finding that reclassification

in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem was