Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Transmission Shift Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect, 75961-75965 [05-24372]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
only if the alcohol testing meets all of
the requirements of this part.
(b) Drug testing. (1) Drug testing must
be conducted on each individual
engaged or employed on board the
vessel who is directly involved in the
SMI.
(i) The collection of drug-test
specimens of each individual must be
conducted within 32 hours of when the
SMI occurred, unless precluded by
safety concerns directly related to the
incident.
(ii) If safety concerns directly related
to the SMI prevent the collection of
drug-test specimens from being
conducted within 32 hours of the
occurrence of the incident, then the
collection of drug-test specimens must
be conducted as soon as the safety
concerns are addressed.
(2) If the drug-test specimens required
in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of
this section were not collected, the
marine employer must document on
form CG–2692B the reason why the
specimens were not collected.
I 4. Revise § 4.06–5 to read as follows:
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
§ 4.06–5 Responsibility of individuals
directly involved in serious marine
incidents.
(a) Any individual engaged or
employed on board a vessel who is
determined to be directly involved in an
SMI must provide a blood, breath,
saliva, or urine specimen for chemical
testing when directed to do so by the
marine employer or a law enforcement
officer.
(b) If the individual refuses to provide
a blood, breath, saliva, or urine
specimen, this refusal must be noted on
form CG–2692B and in the vessel’s
official log book, if a log book is
required. The marine employer must
remove the individual as soon as
practical from duties that directly affect
the safe operation of the vessel.
(c) Individuals subject to alcohol
testing after an SMI are prohibited from
consuming alcohol beverages for 8
hours following the occurrence of the
SMI or until after the alcohol testing
required by this part is completed.
(d) No individual may be compelled
to provide specimens for alcohol and
drug testing required by this part.
However, refusal to provide specimens
is a violation of this subpart and may
subject the individual to suspension and
revocation proceedings under part 5 of
this chapter, a civil penalty, or both.
§ 4.06–10
I
I
[Removed]
5. Remove § 4.06–10.
6. Add § 4.06–15 to read as follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Dec 21, 2005
Jkt 208001
§ 4.06–15
devices.
Accessibility of chemical testing
(a) Alcohol testing. (1) The marine
employer must have a sufficient number
of alcohol testing devices readily
accessible on board the vessel to
determine the presence of alcohol in the
system of each individual who was
directly involved in the SMI.
(2) All alcohol testing devices used to
meet the requirements of this part must
be currently listed on either the
Conforming Products List (CPL) titled
‘‘Modal Specifications for Devices To
Measure Breath Alcohol’’ or
‘‘Conforming Products List of Screening
Devices To Measure Alcohol in Bodily
Fluids,’’ which are published
periodically in the Federal Register by
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA).
(3) The alcohol testing devices need
not be carried on board each vessel if
obtaining the devices and conducting
the required alcohol tests can be
accomplished within 2 hours from the
time of occurrence of the SMI.
(b) Drug testing. (1) The marine
employer must have a sufficient number
of urine-specimen collection and
shipping kits meeting the requirements
of 49 CFR part 40 that are readily
accessible for use following SMIs.
(2) The specimen collection and
shipping kits need not be carried on
board each vessel if obtaining the kits
and collecting the specimen can be
completed within 32 hours from the
time of the occurrence of the SMI.
I 7. Revise § 4.06–20 to read as follows:
§ 4.06–20 Specimen collection
requirements.
(a) Alcohol testing. (1) When
conducting alcohol testing required in
§ 4.06–3(a), an individual determined
under this part to be directly involved
in the SMI must provide a specimen of
their breath, blood, or saliva to the
marine employer as required in this
subpart.
(2) Collection of an individual’s blood
to comply with § 4.06–3(a) must be
taken only by qualified medical
personnel.
(3) Collection of an individual’s saliva
or breath to comply with § 4.06–3(a)
must be taken only by personnel trained
to operate the alcohol-testing device in
use and must be conducted according to
this subpart.
(b) Drug testing. (1) When conducting
drug testing required in § 4.06–3(b), an
individual determined under this part to
be directly involved in the SMI must
provide a specimen of their urine
according to 46 CFR part 16 and 49 CFR
part 40.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
75961
(2) Specimen collection and shipping
kits used to conduct drug testing must
be used according to 49 CFR part 40.
I 8. Add § 4.06–70 to read as follows:
§ 4.06–70
Penalties.
Violation of this part is subject to the
civil penalties set forth in 46 U.S.C.
2115.
Dated: December 15, 2005.
Thomas H. Collins,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.
[FR Doc. 05–24375 Filed 12–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[DOT Docket No. NHTSA–05–23407]
RIN 2127–AJ74
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Transmission Shift
Position Sequence, Starter Interlock,
and Transmission Braking Effect
National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions
for reconsideration; delay of effective
date.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document responds to
petitions for reconsideration of a final
rule published on July 1, 2005, which
amended the Federal motor vehicle
safety standard that includes starter
interlock requirements. The final rule
announced an effective date of
December 28, 2005. NHTSA received
petitions for reconsideration from
General Motors (GM) requesting a delay
in the effective date in the final rule,
and a petition from International Truck
and Engine Corporation (ITEC)
requesting an amendment that addresses
hybrid electric systems on trucks with a
gross vehicle weight rating over 4,536 kg
(10,000 pounds).
In this final rule, NHTSA grants both
of these petitions, and is amending the
standard accordingly.
DATES: The effective date of the rule
amending 49 CFR 571.102 published at
70 FR 38040, July 1, 2005, is delayed
until September 1, 2007. The final rule
amending 49 CFR Section 571.102
published today is effective September
1, 2007.
Optional early compliance with these
final rules is available as of December
22, 2005.
E:\FR\FM\22DER1.SGM
22DER1
75962
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Any petitions for reconsideration of
today’s final rule must be received by
NHTSA not later than February 6, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration
should refer to the docket number for
this section and be submitted to:
Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590.
For
non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
William Evans, Office of Crash
Avoidance Standards at (202) 366–2272.
His FAX number is (202) 366–7002.
For legal issues, you may call Ms.
Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief
Counsel at (202) 366–2992. Her FAX
number is (202) 366–3820.
You may send mail to both of these
officials at National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St.,
SW., Washington, DC, 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
At present, the starter interlock
requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102,
Transmission shift position sequence,
starter interlock, and transmission
braking effect (at S3.1.3) states ‘‘the
engine starter shall be inoperative when
the transmission shift lever is in a
forward or reverse drive position.’’ The
purpose of this requirement is to
prevent injuries and death from the
unexpected motion of a vehicle when
the driver starts the vehicle with the
transmission inadvertently in a forward
or reverse gear.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Final Rule of July 1, 2005
In a final rule of July 1, 2005 (70 FR
38040), FMVSS No. 102 was amended
to accommodate the new technologies
represented by hybrid/electric systems.
With respect to vehicles with automatic
transmissions, the rule makes it clear
that after activation of the vehicle’s
propulsion system by the driver, the
engine may stop and restart
automatically when the transmission
shift position is in any forward drive
gear. The rule prohibits the engine from
automatically stopping in reverse gear.
When the engine is automatically
stopped in a forward drive shift position
and the driver selects Reverse, the
engine is permitted to restart
automatically in Reverse if two
conditions are satisfied. The first
condition is that the engine must restart
immediately whenever the service brake
is applied. The second condition is that
the engine does not start automatically
if the service brake is not applied.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Dec 21, 2005
Jkt 208001
The rule also provides,
notwithstanding these limitations, that
the engine may stop and start at any
time after the driver has activated the
vehicle’s propulsion system if: (a) The
vehicle’s propulsion system can propel
the vehicle in the normal travel mode in
all forward and reverse drive gears
without the engine operating, and (b) if
the engine automatically starts while the
vehicle is traveling at a steady speed
and steady accelerator control setting,
the engine does not cause the vehicle to
accelerate.
The final rule announced an effective
date of December 28, 2005.
Petitions for Reconsideration
In response to the final rule, NHTSA
received petitions for reconsideration of
the July 1, 2005 final rule from General
Motors Corporation (GM) and the
International Truck and Engine
Corporation (ITEC). The following
describes the petitions and how we have
addressed the issues raised in the
petitions:
A. GM’s Petitions
The July 1, 2005 final rule announced
an effective date of December 28, 2005.
In a petition dated September 14, 2005,
GM requested that the effective date of
the final rule be delayed until
September 1, 2007.1 GM explained that
in 2004, it began producing a ‘‘Parallel
Hybrid Truck’’ (PHT) that incorporates
idle-stop technology in that the engine
shuts off when the vehicle is stopped
and the engine restarts when the brake
pedal is released. GM asserted that this
system eliminates needless idle time,
improving fuel economy and reducing
emissions. At present, the PHT is
designed so that a rapid process of
releasing the brake pedal and selecting
Reverse will permit the engine to start
in Reverse while the brake is released.
GM stated that this action appears to be
‘‘inconsistent with S3.1.3.1(c)(2).’’ GM
stated it is evaluating possible
modifications to the PHT system to
comply with S3.1.3.1(c) and asked for a
delay in the effective date until
September 1, 2007.
NHTSA has carefully reviewed GM’s
request. GM must modify its PHT
system in order to meet the July 1, 2005
final rule’s new requirements for starter
interlock systems and needs additional
time to comply. We were not aware of
this need for leadtime when we issued
the July 2005 final rule. Accordingly,
1 GM submitted two petitions for reconsideration,
one dated August 15, 2005, and another dated
September 14, 2005. Since the September 14, 2005
petition superseded the earlier one, we are
addressing only the issue raised in the September
14, 2005 petition.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
NHTSA will delay the effective date of
the final rule until September 1, 2007.
To prevent this final rule; ‘‘response to
petitions for reconsideration’’ from
affecting those manufacturers ready to
meet the original effective date, NHTSA
is permitting optional early compliance
with the July 1, 2005 final rule and the
amendments made in this final rule as
of the date this document is published
in the Federal Register.
B. ITEC Petition
A petition from ITEC requested an
amendment to S3.1.3.2(a) of the July 1,
2005 final rule. ITEC explained that it
is developing a hybrid electric system
for large trucks, which would allow the
trucks to operate strictly on an electric
motor in Reverse gear and in the lower
forward gears. Large trucks would thus
be able to automatically stop their
engines during applications with
frequent stopping and starting, such as
pickup and delivery, and to run only on
the electric motor, eliminating needless
engine idling and reducing fuel
consumption, emissions, and noise. The
engine automatically starts and runs
continuously in the higher gears at
normal highway speeds. In the final rule
of July 1, 2005, S3.1.3.2(a) requires that
the propulsion system propel the
vehicle in all forward and reverse gears
without the engine operating.
ITEC indicated that its system does
not meet the requirements in S3.1.3.2(a)
in that its system propels the vehicle in
Reverse and the lower forward gears
(not all forward gears) without the
engine operating. ITEC requested that
S3.1.3.2 be amended to require the
propulsion system in vehicles with a
GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000
pounds) to propel the vehicle in ‘‘any’’
forward or reverse drive gears without
the engine operating.
In S3.1.3.2 of the final rule, NHTSA
addresses hybrid vehicles that operate
primarily as electric vehicles and that
use an internal combustion engine to
assist when additional motive power is
needed or the batteries need charging.
Vehicles that meet S3.1.3.2 are excluded
from the engine starting requirements of
S3.1.3.1. The final rule allows vehicles
meeting S3.1.3.2 to automatically stop
and start the engine at any time after the
driver has activated the vehicle’s
propulsion system if:
(a) The vehicle’s propulsion system
can propel the vehicle in the normal
travel mode in all forward and reverse
drive gears without the engine
operating; and
(b) If the engine automatically starts
while the vehicle is traveling at a steady
speed and a steady accelerator control
E:\FR\FM\22DER1.SGM
22DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
setting, the engine does not cause the
vehicle to accelerate.
The system described by ITEC would
meet the requirements of S3.1.3.2 except
for the fact that the propulsion system
is only capable of propelling the vehicle
in Reverse and the low forward gears
instead of all forward and reverse gears.
Upon review, NHTSA has decided to
amend the standard along the lines
requested by ITEC. Amending
S3.1.3.2(a) takes into account the special
features of hybrid electric vehicles with
GVWRs greater than 4,536 kg (10,000
pounds) that distinguish them from
smaller vehicles, and minimizes design
limits on heavy vehicles, that have a
wider range of applications than do
lighter vehicles. NHTSA does not
foresee any safety implications with
amending S3.1.3.2(a) in the way that
ITEC intends.
NHTSA believes that it is important
that a hybrid propulsion system that
falls under the requirements of S3.1.3.2
be capable of propelling the vehicle in
Reverse and at least one forward drive
gear without the engine operating. If the
propulsion system cannot propel the
vehicle in Reverse without the engine
operating, it would have implications
with S3.1.3.1 when the engine was
stopped in a forward gear and the brake
pedal was rapidly released while
Reverse was selected.
For these reasons, NHTSA is
amending S3.1.3.2 for hybrid electric
vehicles over 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds)
GVWR. To effectuate ITEC’s intent in its
petition for reconsideration, in this final
rule; response to petitions for
reconsideration, S3.1.3.2(a) is amended
to require that propulsion systems on
vehicles with a GVWR greater than
4,536 kg must be capable of propelling
the vehicle in the normal travel mode in
Reverse and at least one forward drive
gear without the engine operating.
Statutory Bases for the Final Rule
We have issued this final rule
pursuant to our statutory authority.
Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor
Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.),
the Secretary of Transportation is
responsible for prescribing motor
vehicle safety standards that are
practicable, meet the need for motor
vehicle safety, and are stated in
objective terms. 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
When prescribing such standards, the
Secretary must consider all relevant,
available motor vehicle safety
information. 49 U.S.C. 30111(b). The
Secretary must also consider whether a
proposed standard is reasonable,
practicable, and appropriate for the type
of motor vehicle or motor vehicle
equipment for which it is prescribed
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Dec 21, 2005
Jkt 208001
and the extent to which the standard
will further the statutory purpose of
reducing traffic accidents and deaths
and injuries resulting from traffic
accidents. Id. Responsibility for
promulgation of Federal motor vehicle
safety standards was subsequently
delegated to NHTSA. 49 U.S.C. 105 and
322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.
As a Federal agency, before
promulgating changes to a Federal
motor vehicle safety standard, NHTSA
also has a statutory responsibility to
follow the informal rulemaking
procedures mandated in the
Administrative Procedure Act at 5
U.S.C. Section 553. Among these
requirements are Federal Register
publication of a general notice of
proposed rulemaking, and giving
interested persons an opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking through
submission of written data, views or
arguments. After consideration of the
public comments, we must incorporate
into the rules adopted, a concise general
statement of the rule’s basis and
purpose.
The agency has carefully considered
these statutory requirements in
promulgating this final rule to amend
FMVSS No. 102. As previously
discussed in detail, we have solicited
public comment in an NPRM and have
carefully considered the public
comments before issuing this final rule.
As a result, we believe that this final
rule reflects consideration of all relevant
available motor vehicle safety
information. Consideration of all these
statutory factors has resulted in the
following decisions in this final rule;
‘‘response to petitions for
reconsideration:’’ To extend the
effective date of the July 1, 2005 final
rule to September 1, 2007, and to amend
the starter interlock system requirement
so that for vehicles with a GVWR greater
than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds), the
engine may stop and start at any time
after the driver has activated the
vehicle’s propulsion system if the
vehicle’s propulsion system can propel
the vehicle in the normal travel mode in
Reverse and at least one forward drive
gear without the engine operating.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’ (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), provides for making
determinations whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and to the
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
75963
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
We have considered the impact of this
rulemaking action under Executive
Order 12866 and the Department of
Transportation’s regulatory policies and
procedures. This rulemaking document
was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O.
12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review.’’ The rulemaking action is also
not considered to be significant under
the Department’s Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February
26, 1979).
To ensure that manufacturers have
time needed to make changes to current
vehicles in order to meet the new
requirements, we have delayed the
effective date of the final rule to
September 1, 2007. In addition, we are
making a small change to ensure that
the amended requirements are
appropriate for heavy vehicles. As a
result, the impacts are so minimal that
a full regulatory evaluation has not been
prepared.
B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 requires us to
develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
that have federalism implications’’ is
defined in the Executive Order to
include regulations that have
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ Under Executive
Order 13132, we may not issue a
regulation with Federalism
implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
E:\FR\FM\22DER1.SGM
22DER1
75964
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, or unless we consult with
State and local governments, or unless
we consult with State and local officials
early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. We also may not
issue a regulation with Federalism
implications and that preempts State
law unless we consult with State and
local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. The reason is
that this final rule applies to motor
vehicle manufacturers, and not to the
States or local governments. Thus, the
requirements of Section 6 of the
Executive Order do not apply.
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
C. Executive Order 13045 (Economically
Significant Rules Disproportionately
Affecting Children)
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under E.O.
12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental, health or safety risk that
NHTSA has reason to believe may have
a disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
we must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the rule on
children, and explain why the
regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by us.
This rule is not subject to the
Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in
E.O. 12866 and does not involve
decisions based on environmental,
health or safety risks that
disproportionately affect children.
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ we have
considered whether this rule has any
retroactive or preemptive effect. We
conclude that it would not have any
retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C.
30103, whenever a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard is in effect, a
State may not adopt or maintain a safety
standard applicable to the same aspect
of performance which is not identical to
the Federal standard, except to the
extent that the state requirement
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Dec 21, 2005
Jkt 208001
imposes a higher level of performance
and applies only to vehicles procured
for the State’s use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets
forth a procedure for judicial review of
final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety
standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for
reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit
in court.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996) whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of an agency certifies the rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement
of the factual basis for certifying that a
rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
The Administrator has considered the
effects of this rulemaking action under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.) and certifies that this final
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The statement
of the factual basis for the certification
is that since this rulemaking makes no
substantive changes in the scope of
FMVSS No. 102, small manufacturers of
passenger cars, multipurpose passenger
vehicles, trucks or buses need not make
any changes in vehicle manufacturing
processes or procedures to ensure that
their vehicles meet an amended FMVSS
No. 102. Accordingly, the agency
concludes that this final rule does not
affect the costs of motor vehicle
manufacturers considered to be small
business entities.
F. National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this rule for the
purposes of the National Environmental
Policy Act and determined that it would
not have any significant impact on the
quality of the human environment.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
NHTSA has determined that this final
rule will not impose any ‘‘collection of
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
information’’ burdens on the public,
within the meaning of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). This
rulemaking action does not impose any
filing or recordkeeping requirements on
any manufacturer or any other party.
For this reason, we discuss neither
electronic filing and recordkeeping nor
do we discuss a fully electronic
reporting option.
H. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus
standards in our regulatory activities
unless doing so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies, such as the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE). The
NTTAA directs us to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when we
decide not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
After conducting a search of available
sources (including data from
International Organization of Standards
or other standards bodies), we have
determined that there are not any
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards that we can use in
this final rule.
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits
and other effects of proposed or final
rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by
State, local or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
more than $100 million in any one year
(adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA
rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA
generally requires us to identify and
consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 do not apply
when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover, section 205
allows us to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
E:\FR\FM\22DER1.SGM
22DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 245 / Thursday, December 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
or least burdensome alternative if we
publish with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was
not adopted.
This final rule will not result in costs
of $100 million or more to either State,
local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus,
this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA.
J. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write all rules in plain
language. Application of the principles
of plain language includes consideration
of the following questions:
—Have we organized the material to suit
the public’s needs?
—Are the requirements in the rule
clearly stated?
—Does the rule contain technical
language or jargon that is not clear?
—Would a different format (grouping
and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing) make the rule easier to
understand?
—Would more (but shorter) sections be
better?
—Could we improve clarity by adding
tables, lists, or diagrams?
—What else could we do to make this
rulemaking easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these
questions, please include them in your
comments to the docket number cited in
the heading of this final rule.
K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation
assigns a regulation identifier number
(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in
the Unified Agenda of Federal
Regulations. The Regulatory Information
Service Center publishes the Unified
Agenda in April and October of each
year. You may use the RIN contained in
the heading at the beginning of this
document to find this action in the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor
vehicles, Rubber and rubber products,
Tires.
I In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(49 CFR Part 571), are amended as set
forth below.
PART 571—FEDERAL MOTOR
VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115,
30117, and 30166; delegation of authority at
49 CFR 1.50.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:00 Dec 21, 2005
Jkt 208001
2. Section 571.102 is amended by
revising in S3.1.3.2, the introductory
text and paragraph (a) to read as follows:
I
§ 571.102 Standard No. 102; Transmission
shift position sequence, starter interlock,
and transmission braking effect.
*
*
*
*
*
S3.1.3.2 Notwithstanding S3.1.3.1, the
engine may stop and start at any time
after the driver has activated the
vehicle’s propulsion system if the
vehicle can meet the requirements
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b):
(a) For passenger cars, multi-purpose
passenger vehicles, trucks and buses
with a GVWR less than or equal to 4,536
kg (10,000 pounds), the vehicle’s
propulsion system can propel the
vehicle in the normal travel mode in all
forward and reverse drive gears without
the engine operating. For passenger cars,
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks
and buses with a GVWR greater than
4,536 kg (10,000 pounds), the vehicle’s
propulsion system can propel the
vehicle in the normal travel mode in
Reverse and at least one forward drive
gear without the engine operating.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued on: December 19, 2005.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–24372 Filed 12–21–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 040804229–4300–02; I.D.
121405A]
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Northeast
Multispecies Fishery; Modification of
the Yellowtail Flounder Landing Limit
for Western and Eastern U.S./Canada
Areas
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Temporary rule; yellowtail
flounder landing limit.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the
Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS
(Regional Administrator), is reducing
the Georges Bank (GB) yellowtail
flounder trip limit from an unlimited
amount to 15,000 lb (6,804.1 kg) per trip
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
75965
for Northeast (NE) multispecies Days-atSea (DAS) vessels fishing in both the
Western and Eastern U.S./Canada Areas.
This action is necessary to prevent the
GB yellowtail total allowable catch
(TAC) from being caught before the end
of the 2005 fishing year and to increase
the likelihood that the GB yellowtail
TAC will be available through the end
of the 2005 fishing year on April 30,
2006. This action is being taken to slow
the rate of harvest of GB yellowtail
flounder under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act).
DATES: Effective 0001 hours local time,
December 21, 2005, through April 30,
2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Grant, Fishery Management
Specialist, (978) 281–9145, fax (978)
281–9135.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulations governing the GB yellowtail
flounder landing limit within the
Western and Eastern U.S./Canada Areas
are found at 50 CFR 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(C).
The regulations authorize vessels issued
a valid limited access NE multispecies
permit and fishing under a NE
multispecies DAS to fish in the U.S./
Canada Management Area as defined at
§ 648.85(a)(1), under specific
conditions. The TAC allocation for GB
yellowtail flounder for the 2005 fishing
year is 4,260 mt (July 7, 2005; 70 FR
39190). When 30 percent of the GB
yellowtail flounder TAC is projected to
be harvested, the regulations at
§ 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(D) authorize the
Regional Administrator to reduce the
yellowtail flounder landing limit for NE
multispecies DAS vessels fishing in
both the Western and Eastern U.S./
Canada Areas to prevent over-harvesting
the GB yellowtail TAC allocation.
Based upon vessel monitoring system
reports and other available information,
the Regional Administrator has
determined that over 51 percent (2,172.6
mt) of the GB yellowtail flounder TAC
of 4,260 mt has been harvested. Based
on current and historic catch rates, it is
likely the entire GB yellowtail flounder
TAC may be caught before the end of
the 2005 fishing year. In order to slow
the catch of GB yellowtail flounder to
prevent over harvesting and to increase
the likelihood that GB yellowtail
flounder will be available through the
end of the 2005 fishing year on April 30,
2006, the Regional Administrator is
reducing the trip limit for GB yellowtail
flounder to 15,000 lb (6,804.1 kg) per
trip for NE multispecies DAS vessels
fishing in both the Western and Eastern
U.S./Canada Areas for the remainder of
E:\FR\FM\22DER1.SGM
22DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75961-75965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-24372]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[DOT Docket No. NHTSA-05-23407]
RIN 2127-AJ74
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Transmission Shift
Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions for reconsideration; delay of
effective date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of a
final rule published on July 1, 2005, which amended the Federal motor
vehicle safety standard that includes starter interlock requirements.
The final rule announced an effective date of December 28, 2005. NHTSA
received petitions for reconsideration from General Motors (GM)
requesting a delay in the effective date in the final rule, and a
petition from International Truck and Engine Corporation (ITEC)
requesting an amendment that addresses hybrid electric systems on
trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating over 4,536 kg (10,000
pounds).
In this final rule, NHTSA grants both of these petitions, and is
amending the standard accordingly.
DATES: The effective date of the rule amending 49 CFR 571.102 published
at 70 FR 38040, July 1, 2005, is delayed until September 1, 2007. The
final rule amending 49 CFR Section 571.102 published today is effective
September 1, 2007.
Optional early compliance with these final rules is available as of
December 22, 2005.
[[Page 75962]]
Any petitions for reconsideration of today's final rule must be
received by NHTSA not later than February 6, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number for this section and be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may call Mr.
William Evans, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards at (202) 366-2272.
His FAX number is (202) 366-7002.
For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the
Chief Counsel at (202) 366-2992. Her FAX number is (202) 366-3820.
You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC,
20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
At present, the starter interlock requirement of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission shift position
sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect (at
S3.1.3) states ``the engine starter shall be inoperative when the
transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.''
The purpose of this requirement is to prevent injuries and death from
the unexpected motion of a vehicle when the driver starts the vehicle
with the transmission inadvertently in a forward or reverse gear.
Final Rule of July 1, 2005
In a final rule of July 1, 2005 (70 FR 38040), FMVSS No. 102 was
amended to accommodate the new technologies represented by hybrid/
electric systems. With respect to vehicles with automatic
transmissions, the rule makes it clear that after activation of the
vehicle's propulsion system by the driver, the engine may stop and
restart automatically when the transmission shift position is in any
forward drive gear. The rule prohibits the engine from automatically
stopping in reverse gear. When the engine is automatically stopped in a
forward drive shift position and the driver selects Reverse, the engine
is permitted to restart automatically in Reverse if two conditions are
satisfied. The first condition is that the engine must restart
immediately whenever the service brake is applied. The second condition
is that the engine does not start automatically if the service brake is
not applied.
The rule also provides, notwithstanding these limitations, that the
engine may stop and start at any time after the driver has activated
the vehicle's propulsion system if: (a) The vehicle's propulsion system
can propel the vehicle in the normal travel mode in all forward and
reverse drive gears without the engine operating, and (b) if the engine
automatically starts while the vehicle is traveling at a steady speed
and steady accelerator control setting, the engine does not cause the
vehicle to accelerate.
The final rule announced an effective date of December 28, 2005.
Petitions for Reconsideration
In response to the final rule, NHTSA received petitions for
reconsideration of the July 1, 2005 final rule from General Motors
Corporation (GM) and the International Truck and Engine Corporation
(ITEC). The following describes the petitions and how we have addressed
the issues raised in the petitions:
A. GM's Petitions
The July 1, 2005 final rule announced an effective date of December
28, 2005. In a petition dated September 14, 2005, GM requested that the
effective date of the final rule be delayed until September 1, 2007.\1\
GM explained that in 2004, it began producing a ``Parallel Hybrid
Truck'' (PHT) that incorporates idle-stop technology in that the engine
shuts off when the vehicle is stopped and the engine restarts when the
brake pedal is released. GM asserted that this system eliminates
needless idle time, improving fuel economy and reducing emissions. At
present, the PHT is designed so that a rapid process of releasing the
brake pedal and selecting Reverse will permit the engine to start in
Reverse while the brake is released. GM stated that this action appears
to be ``inconsistent with S3.1.3.1(c)(2).'' GM stated it is evaluating
possible modifications to the PHT system to comply with S3.1.3.1(c) and
asked for a delay in the effective date until September 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GM submitted two petitions for reconsideration, one dated
August 15, 2005, and another dated September 14, 2005. Since the
September 14, 2005 petition superseded the earlier one, we are
addressing only the issue raised in the September 14, 2005 petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NHTSA has carefully reviewed GM's request. GM must modify its PHT
system in order to meet the July 1, 2005 final rule's new requirements
for starter interlock systems and needs additional time to comply. We
were not aware of this need for leadtime when we issued the July 2005
final rule. Accordingly, NHTSA will delay the effective date of the
final rule until September 1, 2007. To prevent this final rule;
``response to petitions for reconsideration'' from affecting those
manufacturers ready to meet the original effective date, NHTSA is
permitting optional early compliance with the July 1, 2005 final rule
and the amendments made in this final rule as of the date this document
is published in the Federal Register.
B. ITEC Petition
A petition from ITEC requested an amendment to S3.1.3.2(a) of the
July 1, 2005 final rule. ITEC explained that it is developing a hybrid
electric system for large trucks, which would allow the trucks to
operate strictly on an electric motor in Reverse gear and in the lower
forward gears. Large trucks would thus be able to automatically stop
their engines during applications with frequent stopping and starting,
such as pickup and delivery, and to run only on the electric motor,
eliminating needless engine idling and reducing fuel consumption,
emissions, and noise. The engine automatically starts and runs
continuously in the higher gears at normal highway speeds. In the final
rule of July 1, 2005, S3.1.3.2(a) requires that the propulsion system
propel the vehicle in all forward and reverse gears without the engine
operating.
ITEC indicated that its system does not meet the requirements in
S3.1.3.2(a) in that its system propels the vehicle in Reverse and the
lower forward gears (not all forward gears) without the engine
operating. ITEC requested that S3.1.3.2 be amended to require the
propulsion system in vehicles with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000
pounds) to propel the vehicle in ``any'' forward or reverse drive gears
without the engine operating.
In S3.1.3.2 of the final rule, NHTSA addresses hybrid vehicles that
operate primarily as electric vehicles and that use an internal
combustion engine to assist when additional motive power is needed or
the batteries need charging. Vehicles that meet S3.1.3.2 are excluded
from the engine starting requirements of S3.1.3.1. The final rule
allows vehicles meeting S3.1.3.2 to automatically stop and start the
engine at any time after the driver has activated the vehicle's
propulsion system if:
(a) The vehicle's propulsion system can propel the vehicle in the
normal travel mode in all forward and reverse drive gears without the
engine operating; and
(b) If the engine automatically starts while the vehicle is
traveling at a steady speed and a steady accelerator control
[[Page 75963]]
setting, the engine does not cause the vehicle to accelerate.
The system described by ITEC would meet the requirements of
S3.1.3.2 except for the fact that the propulsion system is only capable
of propelling the vehicle in Reverse and the low forward gears instead
of all forward and reverse gears. Upon review, NHTSA has decided to
amend the standard along the lines requested by ITEC. Amending
S3.1.3.2(a) takes into account the special features of hybrid electric
vehicles with GVWRs greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) that
distinguish them from smaller vehicles, and minimizes design limits on
heavy vehicles, that have a wider range of applications than do lighter
vehicles. NHTSA does not foresee any safety implications with amending
S3.1.3.2(a) in the way that ITEC intends.
NHTSA believes that it is important that a hybrid propulsion system
that falls under the requirements of S3.1.3.2 be capable of propelling
the vehicle in Reverse and at least one forward drive gear without the
engine operating. If the propulsion system cannot propel the vehicle in
Reverse without the engine operating, it would have implications with
S3.1.3.1 when the engine was stopped in a forward gear and the brake
pedal was rapidly released while Reverse was selected.
For these reasons, NHTSA is amending S3.1.3.2 for hybrid electric
vehicles over 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) GVWR. To effectuate ITEC's
intent in its petition for reconsideration, in this final rule;
response to petitions for reconsideration, S3.1.3.2(a) is amended to
require that propulsion systems on vehicles with a GVWR greater than
4,536 kg must be capable of propelling the vehicle in the normal travel
mode in Reverse and at least one forward drive gear without the engine
operating.
Statutory Bases for the Final Rule
We have issued this final rule pursuant to our statutory authority.
Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, Motor Vehicle Safety (49 U.S.C. 30101 et
seq.), the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for prescribing
motor vehicle safety standards that are practicable, meet the need for
motor vehicle safety, and are stated in objective terms. 49 U.S.C.
30111(a). When prescribing such standards, the Secretary must consider
all relevant, available motor vehicle safety information. 49 U.S.C.
30111(b). The Secretary must also consider whether a proposed standard
is reasonable, practicable, and appropriate for the type of motor
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed and the
extent to which the standard will further the statutory purpose of
reducing traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from
traffic accidents. Id. Responsibility for promulgation of Federal motor
vehicle safety standards was subsequently delegated to NHTSA. 49 U.S.C.
105 and 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
As a Federal agency, before promulgating changes to a Federal motor
vehicle safety standard, NHTSA also has a statutory responsibility to
follow the informal rulemaking procedures mandated in the
Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. Section 553. Among these
requirements are Federal Register publication of a general notice of
proposed rulemaking, and giving interested persons an opportunity to
participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views
or arguments. After consideration of the public comments, we must
incorporate into the rules adopted, a concise general statement of the
rule's basis and purpose.
The agency has carefully considered these statutory requirements in
promulgating this final rule to amend FMVSS No. 102. As previously
discussed in detail, we have solicited public comment in an NPRM and
have carefully considered the public comments before issuing this final
rule. As a result, we believe that this final rule reflects
consideration of all relevant available motor vehicle safety
information. Consideration of all these statutory factors has resulted
in the following decisions in this final rule; ``response to petitions
for reconsideration:'' To extend the effective date of the July 1, 2005
final rule to September 1, 2007, and to amend the starter interlock
system requirement so that for vehicles with a GVWR greater than 4,536
kg (10,000 pounds), the engine may stop and start at any time after the
driver has activated the vehicle's propulsion system if the vehicle's
propulsion system can propel the vehicle in the normal travel mode in
Reverse and at least one forward drive gear without the engine
operating.
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines a ``significant regulatory action''
as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.'' The rulemaking action is also not considered to
be significant under the Department's Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
To ensure that manufacturers have time needed to make changes to
current vehicles in order to meet the new requirements, we have delayed
the effective date of the final rule to September 1, 2007. In addition,
we are making a small change to ensure that the amended requirements
are appropriate for heavy vehicles. As a result, the impacts are so
minimal that a full regulatory evaluation has not been prepared.
B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132 requires us to develop an accountable process
to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation with Federalism
implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and
that is not
[[Page 75964]]
required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and
local governments, or unless we consult with State and local
governments, or unless we consult with State and local officials early
in the process of developing the proposed regulation. We also may not
issue a regulation with Federalism implications and that preempts State
law unless we consult with State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The reason
is that this final rule applies to motor vehicle manufacturers, and not
to the States or local governments. Thus, the requirements of Section 6
of the Executive Order do not apply.
C. Executive Order 13045 (Economically Significant Rules
Disproportionately Affecting Children)
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or
safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the rule on children, and explain why the regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by us.
This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866 and does not involve
decisions based on environmental, health or safety risks that
disproportionately affect children.
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' we
have considered whether this rule has any retroactive or preemptive
effect. We conclude that it would not have any retroactive effect.
Under 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard
is in effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard
applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to
the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state requirement
imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles
procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure
for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking
Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require
submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative
proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The Administrator has considered the effects of this rulemaking
action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and
certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The statement of the
factual basis for the certification is that since this rulemaking makes
no substantive changes in the scope of FMVSS No. 102, small
manufacturers of passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
trucks or buses need not make any changes in vehicle manufacturing
processes or procedures to ensure that their vehicles meet an amended
FMVSS No. 102. Accordingly, the agency concludes that this final rule
does not affect the costs of motor vehicle manufacturers considered to
be small business entities.
F. National Environmental Policy Act
We have analyzed this rule for the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any
significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
NHTSA has determined that this final rule will not impose any
``collection of information'' burdens on the public, within the meaning
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). This rulemaking action
does not impose any filing or recordkeeping requirements on any
manufacturer or any other party. For this reason, we discuss neither
electronic filing and recordkeeping nor do we discuss a fully
electronic reporting option.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272)
directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory
activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
After conducting a search of available sources (including data from
International Organization of Standards or other standards bodies), we
have determined that there are not any available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards that we can use in this final rule.
I. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base
year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective
[[Page 75965]]
or least burdensome alternative if we publish with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
This final rule will not result in costs of $100 million or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
J. Plain Language
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write all rules in
plain language. Application of the principles of plain language
includes consideration of the following questions:
--Have we organized the material to suit the public's needs?
--Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated?
--Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?
--Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, paragraphing) make the rule easier to understand?
--Would more (but shorter) sections be better?
--Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?
--What else could we do to make this rulemaking easier to understand?
If you have any responses to these questions, please include them
in your comments to the docket number cited in the heading of this
final rule.
K. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)
The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (49 CFR Part 571), are amended as set forth below.
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 571 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
0
2. Section 571.102 is amended by revising in S3.1.3.2, the introductory
text and paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 571.102 Standard No. 102; Transmission shift position sequence,
starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.
* * * * *
S3.1.3.2 Notwithstanding S3.1.3.1, the engine may stop and start at
any time after the driver has activated the vehicle's propulsion system
if the vehicle can meet the requirements specified in paragraphs (a)
and (b):
(a) For passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks
and buses with a GVWR less than or equal to 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds),
the vehicle's propulsion system can propel the vehicle in the normal
travel mode in all forward and reverse drive gears without the engine
operating. For passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks
and buses with a GVWR greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds), the
vehicle's propulsion system can propel the vehicle in the normal travel
mode in Reverse and at least one forward drive gear without the engine
operating.
* * * * *
Issued on: December 19, 2005.
Jacqueline Glassman,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05-24372 Filed 12-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
