[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rulemaking action in this aea is withdrawn.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