Interpretation ID: nht92-3.38

DATE: 09/29/92

FROM: DONALD G. MCGUIGAN -- FORD MOTOR COMPANY, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

TO: KENNETH N. WEINSTEIN, ESQ. -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL, LITIGATION DIVISION, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-20-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DONALD G. MCGUIGAN (A40; STD. 114)

TEXT: This letter requests NHTSA's concurrence in our interpretation of how compliance with the newly-effective amendment to Section 4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 appropriately may be demonstrated. Our associated company, Mazda Motor Corporation, informs us that in designing the key-locking and shift control mechanisms for the Ford-built 1993 Escort and Tracer vehicles, as well as for certain Mazda vehicles, it understood that compliance with the "key-locking system" requirement of the recently-amended FMVSS 114 was to be demonstrated by attempting to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever in each of the available gear selector positioning detents. When so tested, the key-locking systems of 1993 Escort and Tracers "prevent removal of the key" except when the transmission shift lever is locked in the "Park" detent.

We have become aware of speculation that it would be appropriate to test compliance with S4.2's "key-locking system" requirements by deliberately placing the transmission shift lever at various points between the "Reverse" and "Park" position gear selector detents while attempting to remove the ignition key. When so tested, the shift control system on at least a large proportion of 1993 Escorts and Tracers can be manipulated to one or another spot -- varying from vehicle to vehicle -- at which the key can be removed while the selector lever is held short of engaging the "Park" positioning detent. (Because the parking pawl will be engaged in or abutted on the park gear, the vehicles will not be free to roll more than a matter of inches). We are informed and believe that it may be possible to induce key removal while the selector lever is mispositioned between gears in vehicles produced by other manufacturers, too.

Ford respectfully submits that a compliance test involving mispositioning of the shift control lever between gear positions would be inappropriate in light of the revised standard's purpose and history. Such a test would be premised on an assumption that a substantive purpose of the recent amendment to FMVSS 114 is to prevent shifting errors (i.e., to ensure that drivers attempting to shift into "Park" fully engage the park mechanism on the vehicle). Of course, the rulemaking record regarding the FMVSS 114 amendment to S4.2 repeatedly indicates that the primary purpose of the FMVSS 114 amendments is to ensure that children or other occupants of a vehicle parked on a slanted surface with the ignition off and the key removed will not be able to move the transmission shift lever out of the "Park" detent, thereby placing the transmission in a neutral mode and creating the potential for a rollaway accident.

There is no indication in the rulemaking history that the revisions of FMVSS 114 are intended to address shifting errors. Indeed, shortly after issuance of the amendment to FMVSS 114 in question, the agency appropriately concluded in another context that the potential for "inadvertent vehicle movement" incidents because of shift control mispositioning is "relatively small" and did not justify beginning a rulemaking proceeding. See, W. A. Barr, 55 Fed. Reg. 25340 (June 21, 1990).

A test based upon mispositioning the shift control lever also seems inappropriate for the additional reason that no peculiar hazard arises because the transmission shift lever may have been left in-between the "Reverse" and "Park" detents. In assessing any safety implications related to an unattended child in a parked vehicle, it must be remebered that NHTSA had permitted manufacturers to have until September 1, 1993 to install covers that would "childproof" the key-lock system override button. Thus, at least in vehicles produced before September 1, 1993, a child who pushed the override button could move the transmission shift lever in a parked vehicle with the key removed, regardless of whether or not the transmission shift lever had been properly positioned in the "Park" detent.

More importantly, since the key-locking system requirement of FMVSS 114 only covers the situation where the ignition has been turned off by removal of the key, the possibility of vehicle movement addressed by the standard involves only unpowered rollaway, and arises only if the vehicle has been parked on a slanted surface without the parking brake having been set. Thus, the scenario envisioned by the revised standard involves even smaller potential for injuries due to inadvertent vehicle movement than the scenarios assessed by NHTSA when it evaluated the Barr petition which included, among other things, powered movement of unattended vehicles.

We hope that you are in agreement with our view of the appropriate approach to FMVSS 114 compliance testing. Assuming this to be the case, we would appreciate your confirming this by return correspondence. We are available to discuss this matter with you at your convenience.