[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30449-30453]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14832]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
[[Page 30450]]
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 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.'' 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 `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)).
(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.
[[Page 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
electronically-controlled. 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
[[Page 30452]]
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 currently-required 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.
[[Page 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 self-addressed, 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
