Interpretation ID: nht93-3.22

DATE: April 26, 1993

FROM: Shintaro Nakatsuka -- Vice President, Environment & Safety, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/29/93 from John Womack to Shintaro Nakatsuka (A41; Std. 102; Std. 114)

TEXT:

Mazda, like many other manufacturers, is relying more and more upon the use of electronics in the development of future vehicles. In the course of examining some applications of these technologies, we discovered some ambiguity between the requirements of FMVSS 102 and FMVSS 114. There appears to be an unintended inconsistency between the two regulations.

We believe that it is possible to interpret the provisions of FMVSS 102 along with the provisions of FMVSS 114 so as to eliminate this ambiguity. We are requesting that you consider the possible interpretations discussed herein and advise us whether we are correct.

In 1989, NHTSA amended FMVSS 102 in order to permit the use of electronic gear shift sequence displays. The agency replaced the requirement that the gear shift sequence be PERMANENTLY displayed with a requirement that it be displayed only when the ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted or when the transmission is not in park (49CFR102 S3.1.4.1).

In 1991, NHTSA amended FMVSS 114 to accommodate electrical transmission shift lock systems. Here the standard was amended to allow override systems to be incorporated in vehicles that permitted the transmission to be shifted out of park in the case of a power failure. The amendment that was added permits the transmission to be shifted out of park in the case of a power failure provided that the key is removed and the vehicle cannot be steered (49CFR114 S4.2.2(b)(1)). This permits towing when the vehicle is otherwise disabled.

In the course of examining electrical systems for future vehicle programs, we encountered some ambiguity between the two provisions discussed above. There appears to be what can best be described as unintended inconsistency between the two provisions. The agency clearly contemplated power failures and the need to deal with them when it added the override provisions to FMVSS 114. This standard permits the incorporation of features in a vehicle that allows the transmission to be moved out of park, provided first, that the key is not in the ignition so as to prevent vehicle operation, and second, that the vehicle cannot be steered.

These safeguards assure that moving the transmission out of park does not inadvertently present an unsafe situation.

However, when we turn to the requirements of FMVSS 102, that standard does not explicitly address the situation where the transmission has been moved out of park in the case of a power failure (as contemplated under the provisions of FMVSS 114). It is the safeguards that are incorporated in FMVSS 114 that allow a manufacturer to design and sell a vehicle with an electrical shift lock system.

We presume that reading FMVSS 102 alongside FMVSS 114 allows a similar situation with respect to electronic shift sequence displays. We believe that the provisions of S3.1.4.1(b) of FMVSS 102 would not have to be satisfied in a vehicle equipped with an electronic gear shift sequence display were that vehicle to suffer the same power failure that necessitated the application of the shift lock override provision of FMVSS 114, provided that the same safeguards pertained, minimizing any possible safety risk.

An alternative interpretation of this issue may be equally valid. Under this interpretation, we advance the position that the agency never intended that the provisions of FMVSS 102 would apply in situations where a manufacturer elected to use an electronic transmission shift sequence display and there was a power failure.

It is clear that the 1989 amendments were promulgated only to permit manufacturers to offer electronic displays. In amending the regulation to allow those types of displays, the agency clearly recognized that its requirements could not be satisfied under conditions where there was a power failure. Thus, compliance testing was never intended to be conducted in such a situation.

In fact, only where the agency has a particular safety concern in cases where there is a power failure, such as those conditions addressed by FMVSS 114, does NHTSA explicitly establish requirements that apply in such a situation. The absence of any such requirements in FMVSS 102 is a further indication that the standard is not meant to apply when there is no power.

We would appreciate an early response to this request for interpretation. If NHTSA does not believe that there is a suitable interpretation that permits FMVSS 102 to be read consistently with FMVSS 114, we respectfully request that this letter be treated as a petition for rulemaking and that it receive expedited treatment.

Please feel free to contact me or Mr. M. Ishibashi of this office should you have any questions.