[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61810-61813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29684]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA 99-3881]
RIN No. 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: Withdrawal of rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document withdraws the rulemaking in which NHTSA was
considering whether to propose to amend its safety standard for
transmission shift lever sequence. This rulemaking was 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 shift lever,
but instead could employ shift mechanisms such as a rotary switch,
keypad, touch screen, joystick, voice activation, or some other method.
The joystick and other systems which employ lever-like designs,
however, may not comply with requirements for the transmission shift
lever sequence.
[[Page 61811]]
NHTSA is willing to consider the possibility of modifying the
present standardized shift lever sequence of Park, Reverse, Neutral,
Drive, Low, or ``PRNDL,'' if the standardized approach were shown to be
a needless impediment to new technology. However, BMW has informed the
agency that its anticipated joystick design complies with the existing
standardized shift lever sequence. Therefore, there is currently no
demonstrated need for the agency to modify its standardized approach to
allow the introduction of new technology. For this reason, the
rulemaking action in this aea is withdrawn.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical 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) 366-2992 and his facsimile
number is (202) 366-3820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
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 transmission shift lever sequence
for automatic transmissions. Pargaraph 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 steering-column-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.
Under these requirements, the driver must move the shift lever
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 moving the
shift lever, 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. The
required shift lever sequence minimizes this safety risk by specifying
that a driver must always follow a standardized sequence to get to the
desired gear.
II. 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. 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 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
the request for comments was 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 possibly be
reintroduced in the future. It states that, ``to avoid `out-lawing'
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)).
[[Page 61812]]
(b) shifting into park from any gear at any speed above three km/h
(1.9 mph).
III. Request for Comments
On June 4, 1998 (63 FR 30449), in response to BMW's petition, NHTSA
published a request for comments which posed the following questions to
determine the merits of allowing transmission shift mechanisms which
change the transmission's gears in a non-serial manner.
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, 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.
IV. Comments and Agency Response
After reviewing the information submitted by BMW and the comments
submitted to the notice, NHTSA has decided to withdraw our rulemaking
on this issue. NHTSA is concerned about giving up the benefits of the
standardized shift lever sequence. We would, however, be willing to do
so if it were shown that the current standardized shift lever sequence
was a needless impediment to new designs AND that there was no
continuing need to standardize shift lever sequence or that some other
sort of standardization would achieve the benefits without blocking new
technology. In this case, BMW asked for and got an interpretation dated
September 25, 1998 that said its contemplated shift lever sequence
would not violate the existing requirements. Given that BMW's current
plans do not give rise to the problems it identified in its petition
and that no other commenter gave any information on designs where the
standardized shift lever sequence would be a problem, it does not
appear that there is any compelling reason in 1999 to do away with the
benefits of a standardized shift lever sequence.
NHTSA received seven comments on the June 1998 notice. Of the
comments received, five were from vehicle manufacturers (BMW, Meritor
Automotive, Inc. (Meritor), Nissan North America, Inc. (Nissan),
Mercedes-Benz of North America (Mercedes), and, filing jointly, the
American Automobile Manufacturers Associations and the Association of
International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AAMA/AIAM)). One comment
was from a safety advocacy group (Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
(AHAS)), and one was from a private citizen, Mr. John Chevedden.
A. Shift Lever Sequence
A significant question in the notice was whether the current shift
lever sequence requirements should permit non-serial shift mechanisms.
Only AHAS believed this should not be permitted. AHAS felt that any
manufacturer asking for an amendment of the standard to allow non-
serial shifting ``should demonstrate a compelling need and an
equivalent, if not superior, safety outcome resulting from such
changes.'' It did not feel that BMW has done this in its petition. The
rest of the commenters supported the allowance of non-serial shifting.
In fact, AAMA/AIAM argued that the standard does not currently preclude
non-serial shifting. AAMA/AIAM stated that the standard specifies
``gear locations in relationship to one another, but it does not state
that the act of shifting must be accomplished serially--or in any
particular sequence.'' AAMA/AIAM further stated that the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) standards upon which Standard No. 102 is
based are worded so as not to preclude push button transmissions.
Subsequent to the request for comments being published, BMW
submitted a request for interpretation. This request was more specific
in that it focused on the placement of the park control mechanism in
the shift lever sequence. Also, in a meeting to discuss this request
for an interpretation, BMW presented to the agency the design of the
shifting mechanism it would like to use in a future vehicle model. With
this design, a button that is separate from the shift lever is
depressed to place the transmission in park. The rest of the
transmission positions are activated from a joystick on the steering
column. Pushing the joystick up places the transmission in reverse and
pushing it down places it in drive. The lever comes back to the center
(neutral) position after each gear change. The agency found nothing in
the current standard that precludes BMW from implementing this new
design. This view was given to BMW in the agency's written response to
its request for interpretation.
Upon further consideration, NHTSA has concluded that some of its
discussion in the request for comments could be incorrectly read as
precluding non-serial shift mechanisms that do not use a ``shift
lever,'' such as pushbuttons, keypads, or touch screens. We agree with
the manufacturers' observations that Standard No. 102 only specifies a
sequence for shift ``levers.'' Therefore, possible automatic
transmission designs like pushbuttons, keypads, and touch screens are
not subject to the shift lever sequence requirements, since they have
no levers.
However, we do not agree with BMW's suggestion that the shift lever
sequence requirements apply only to transmission designs that use a
mechanical shift lever. The Random House Dictionary of the English
Language defines a ``lever'' as: ``any rigid bar, straight or bent,
that oscillates about a pivot and acts with other parts in the manner
of a lever.'' This definition is broad enough to encompass conventional
shift levers, regardless of whether they are on a mechanically or
electronically controlled transmission, the joystick design BMW has
chosen to pursue, or any other lever design. Any automatic transmission
that uses a lever must comply with the shift lever
[[Page 61813]]
sequence requirements in Standard No. 102.
In addition, we have said that the design BMW intends to implement
is not precluded by the standard. However, we are concerned that non-
serial shift methods may not be as effective in preventing misshifting
as those which are shifted serially. While Standard No. 102 only has a
sequence requirement for shift levers, the result of the standard has
been that all automatic transmission shift mechanisms are shifted
serially in a PRNDL pattern. We believe that this standardization has
been an important factor in the prevention of misshifting.
We are concerned that, as new designs for automatic transmissions
that do not use a shift lever come into the market, there is nothing in
Standard No. 102 to prevent misshifting in those vehicles. Since the
public will be unfamiliar with those new designs, they would seem to be
more at risk for misshifting. To address these concerns, NHTSA is
studying what can be done to prevent misshifting on vehicles whose
automatic transmission does not use a shift lever. Among other
approaches, NHTSA is specifically considering the effectiveness and
appropriateness of a requirement for automatic transmissions that the
brake pedal be depressed to shift the vehicle out of the park position.
B. Other Issues
The agency also requested comments on a number of other issues
related to Standard No. 102. First, the notice asked whether it would
be appropriate to specify a maximum speed at which the transmission can
be shifted between forward and reverse. BMW was the only commenter that
saw some possible merit in a requirement of this type. However, BMW
believes that the requirements would have to be vehicle-specific. For
example, sport utility vehicles may need a higher maximum speed for the
purpose of rocking the vehicle when it gets caught in mud or snow.
Nissan and AAMA/AIAM both stated that this type of a requirement is not
necessary. Nissan feels that the purpose of the standard is to prevent
misshifting when the vehicle is at a standstill.
After considering the comments, we have determined that there is no
current need for such a requirement. Ensuring that transmissions are
not shifted between forward and reverse at higher speeds does more to
protect the condition of the transmission than the vehicle occupants.
Crashes resulting from a vehicle being shifted into an inappropriate
gear, e.g., placing the transmission in reverse while traveling 55
miles per hour on a highway, are rare. We believe it is the duty of the
manufacturer to determine the best way to protect the transmission from
damage while in use.
The notice also asked whether there should be a requirement that
the brake pedal be depressed, or some other action, in order to
initiate a gear change between forward and reverse. BMW, Meritor,
Nissan, and AASMA/AIAM were all opposed to this. They felt that it
could be design restrictive. None of the commenters were in favor of
such a requirement.
As noted above, the agency is considering such a requirement that
the brake pedal be depressed in order to shift a vehicle out of Park as
one alternative for addressing misshifting, even though no commenters
supported such an amendment. The agency believes that this idea may
have some merit, especially if shift mechanisms become more diverse.
Therefore, this issue will be discussed if any future rulemaking is
undertaken in this area.
Comments were requested on how display requirements should be
changed, if at all, to accommodate non-serial shifting methods. BMW
stated that the display should show gear positions, but not their
positions relative to each other. For example, if a joystick were used,
showing the actual relationship might require a three dimensional
display. This could lead to confusion. Meritor also stated that only
the currently engaged gear should be displayed. Nissan stated that no
specific display should be required as it may restrict technology.
AAMA/AIAM stated that the current display requirements should be
maintained regardless of the method of shifting.
We have determined that the current display requirements should not
be changed at this time. This is another aspect of vehicles with
automatic transmissions that has remained unchanged for thirty years.
Absent any demonstrated need for such a change, NHTSA is not proposing
its display requirement now.
Finally, regarding the transmission braking effect, the notice
asked whether the standard should be less specific by allowing other
means of slowing down the vehicle when the transmission is shifted into
a lower forward gear. BMW, Meritor, Nissan, and AAMA/AIAM all felt that
alternatives should be allowed for this requirement. While these
commenters all supported the concept of creating alternatives to meet
the transmission braking effect, none was able to offer any specific
discussion of how to achieve that concept. Because this issue appears
to be technically challenging, the agency will not consider it further
until there has been a more thorough discussion of the issues.
For the reasons set forth above, NHTSA has decided to withdraw the
rulemaking action on whether to issue a proposal to amend the Standard
No. 102 to add requirements for vehicles without conventional
mechanical transmission shift levers.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegation
of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
Issued on: November 8, 1999.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Acting Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 99-29684 Filed 11-12-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P