ID: 2905yy

Ms. Jessie M. Flautt
4405 Lafayette Street
Bellaire, TX 77401

Dear Ms. Flautt

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle.

You explained that you are under five feet, two inches and legally blind in one eye. You further explained that, due to the increased size of headrests in recent years, you are unable to locate a 1991 automobile which does not have headrests which impede your field of vision. You wish to arrange to have the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile reduced. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulation will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, 108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the headrest on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the headrest to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle. Many manufacturers are currently installing headrests in vehicles which exceed the minimum dimensions required by FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. I urge you not to have your headrest reduced below these dimensions if it is not necessary for your field of view.

If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA, 202 d:3/26/9l

ID: 2915yy

Mr. Mark A. Pacheco
Vice President
Innovative Industries
of Tampa, Inc.
5126 Le Tourneau Circle
Tampa, FL 33610

Dear Mr. Pacheco:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the application of Federal regulations to your client's product. This product, called a "Walk Machine," looks like a two-wheeled scooter, with a small 37cc engine attached to it. You stated that this product is designed for off-road use.

NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A]ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Your letter did not indicate whether the "Walk Machine" would be designed and sold solely for off-road use, or whether it would be used on-road for a substantial amount of time. However, based on your letter, this vehicle would not be a "motor vehicle" even if it is regularly used on the public roads. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and have an abnormal configuration which readily distinguishes them from other vehicles. The information provided for the "Walk Machine" indicates that it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that would readily distinguish it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles.

Because this vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," none of this agency's standards apply to it. You may wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply to this vehicle. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20207. You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your client's product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:VSA d:4/l/9l

ID: 2969yy

Ms. Jessie M. Flautt
4405 Lafayette Street
Bellaire, TX 77401

Dear Ms. Flautt

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) grant permission to a repair business to modify your motor vehicle.

You explained that you are under five feet, two inches and legally blind in one eye. You further explained that, due to the increased size of headrests in recent years, you are unable to locate a 1991 automobile which does not have headrests which impede your field of vision. You wish to arrange to have the size of the headrests in a 1991 automobile reduced. You asked if you could obtain permission from this agency to permit this modification. I hope the following discussion explaining our regulation will be of assistance to you.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted permission from NHTSA to arrange to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our regulations to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our regulations when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses modifying certified vehicles are affected by 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. It prohibits those businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any elements of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a FMVSS. In general, 108(a)(2)(A) would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of 108(a)(2)(A) are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violation of 108(a)(2)(A) a purely technical one justified by public need. I can assure you that NHTSA would not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the headrest on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the headrest to accommodate your condition and we urge your dealer to modify your vehicle in such a manner that would not degrade from the safety currently provided by your vehicle. Many manufacturers are currently installing headrests in vehicles which exceed the minimum dimensions required by FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. I urge you not to have your headrest reduced below these dimensions if it is not necessary for your field of view.

If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:VSA, 202 d:3/26/9l

ID: 77-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Alderson Research Laboratories Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Alderson Research Laboratory's July 15, 1977, request for confirmation that Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummy (49 CFR 572), neither requires nor prohibits venting of the abdominal insert specified in drawing No. ATD 3250-2. The agency proposed the addition of leak test specifications to the drawing in August 1975 (40 CFR 33462, August 5, 1975) but they were not made final (42 CFR 7148, February 7, 1977).

Your interpretation that Part 572 neither requires nor prohibits venting of the abdominal insert is correct. The language you cite from the preamble to our February 1977 rulemaking is misleading in suggesting the requirement for venting. The agency more clearly described the requirement in its most recent amendment of Part 572 (42 FR 34299, July 5, 1977), stating that the Part does not "specify an abdominal sealing specification." Agency testing demonstrated conforming results both with and without venting (DOT HS-020875) and sees no reason to control this aspect of dummy design.

SINCERELY,

ALDERSON RESEARCH LABORATORIES, INC.

July 15, 1977

Stanley Backaitis National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Crashworthiness

Subject: Abdominal Inserts, 49CFR Part 572

Notice 04 of Docket 73-8 finalized rulemaking on the Part 572 Anthropomorphic Test Dummy, and, in so doing, retracted an earlier proposed change which would have required the abdominal insert of the dummy to be sealed and leak free. It is our clear understanding that this retraction merely reverted the insert back to its original form, which imposed no rigid requirements for either sealing or venting of this component. Indeed, the original specifications for this insert were virtually universally interpreted as leaving the question of venting or not venting entirely discretionary as long as the Part 572 component calibration tests were satisfied.

In conversation with several of our customers, we are informed that widespread opinion exists that notice 04 now absolutely requires the abdominal insert to be vented, despite the fact that the manufacturing drawing (ATD-3250-2) for this component now, as before, provides no definition for any breathing vent. We think that the reason for this belief is based on the wording of the preamble discussion of Notice 04 which states ". . .the leak test has been removed from the drawings and the vent is retained." We respectfully suggest that the addition of the words " as an option" at the end of this phrase would have reenforced the clarity of the retraction of the proposed sealed only specification. We are, accordingly, requesting from the NHTSA a firm declarative statement as to whether or not the NHTSA's current specifications still permit discretionary venting or sealing of the abdominal insert.

Robert Rubenstein Chief Engineer

HUMANOID SYSTEMS DIVISION OF HUMANETICS, INC.

June 3, 1977

Stanley Backaitis NHTSA

We are in the process of revising our test equipment to take into account the new revision of the Part 572 specifications. In this connection, we want to inquire about the added provision that the neck pendulum "shall not reverse direction until T = 123 ms."

We would presume that this means that the minimum time for reversal should be 123 ms, since otherwise the variability of the honeycomb would make this an impossible standard to meet. Can you confirm our interpretation, or if we are in error, could you give us a tolerance on the 123 ms?

Samuel W. Alderson President

ID: 1983-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jeff S. Brantner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 9, 1983, to the Urban Mass Transit Administration, which was forwarded to this agency for reply, concerning legal requirements regulating window stickers. The following discussion addresses the Federal requirements applicable to sticker or other films applied to glazing materials in motor vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that films such as the type referred to in your letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Please contact Stephen Oesch of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-1834).

SINCERELY,

Arthur E. Teele Jr. Urban Mass Trans. Admin.

November 9, 1983

Dear Mr. Teele.

I have designed an automobile sticker that I feel is very catchy and will hopefully be on the rear windows of a large number of vehicles. I do have a question though, regarding the legal size of a window sticker. My tentative design is three (3) inches high by sixteen (16) inches wide. I feel that the width is not as critical as the heighth as far as a visability restriction is concerned, yet I would like to keep it legal in order to avoid any trouble.

I will appreciate any help that you can give me, since this means a great deal to me. Thank you, in advance, for your time and effort.

Jeff Brantner

ID: 1984-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bob D. Troxel -- Vice President and General Manager, J.F. Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys (RVI Inc.)

TEXT:

Mr. Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager J. F. Enterprises, Inc. Box 583 Wakarusa, Indiana 46573

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, your company manufactures innerspring mattresses, some of which are used in motor vehicles. You noted that the mattress covers on those mattresses for use in motor vehicles must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, and that you had interpreted the mattress cover to consist only of the covering applied over the finished mattress. Hence, under your interpretation, Standard No. 302 would not apply to the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. However, you were told by several ticking manufacturers that a recent decision by this agency stated that ticking used on mattresses for use in motor vehicles must also satisfy the flammability requirements of the standard. It is correct that the ticking must satisfy Standard No. 302's flammability requirements.

The mattress cover has been interpreted by this agency to include both a covering put over a finished mattress and the permanent mattress ticking since Standard No. 302 became effective. Hence, the information that this was a recent decision by this agency is incorrect. For your information, I have enclosed a 1973 letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute setting forth this interpretation over ten years ago.

Should you have any other questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302 to your products, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure - 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys omitted here.

December 7, 1983

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Our company is a manufacturer of innerspring mattresses. A small percentage of our production goes to the Recreational Vehicle Industry. Of this portion of our business a portion goes into Motorized Vehicles (Mini Homes, Motor Homes, etc.).

I am told that you may be able to clarify an item pertaining to how these mattresses are affected by the FMVSS 302 Flammibility Standard. We have been informed that the DOC FF 4-72 Standard that all of our mattresses are manufactured under applies and FMVSS 302 applies only to mattress "covers". The term "cover" we understand applies to a covering applied over the finished mattress and not the ticking used as the outside of the mattress.

I have recently been "told" by several manufacturers of "ticking" that a recent decision has been made that the ticking must meet FMVSS 302 when the finished product is used in a Motorized Vehicle.

I am asking your help in clarifying this question of the FMVSS 302 as it applies to an innerspring (or poly) mattress used in a Motorized Recreational Vehicle.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager

BDT:csy

ID: nht79-2.50

DATE: 01/23/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Esley Development Corporation

COPYEE: Don Morrison -- BMCS

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 21, 1978, asking about your responsibilities, as the manufacturer of a snow plow headlamp holder, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Under the Act a truck, with or without snow plow attachment, is a "motor vehicle" and the plow itself and any associated equipment is considered "motor vehicle equipment" since it is an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle. But Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, contains no requirements either for snow plow or accessory lighting, and your sealbeam holder therefore is not subject to regulation under the standard. However, as a manufacturer of "motor vehicle equipment," you are responsible for notification of purchasers and dealers, and remedy of any safety-related defects that may occur in your product. (Sec. 151 et seq. of the Act)

As to "what legal burden rests" with you as a "manufacturer of the sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse" of your units once they leave your plant, we are uncertain what you mean by "misuse." If you mean that the holder is used in a way that you did not intend, then the question would appear to be one not answerable under Federal law. If the "misuse" is attributable to a defect in the sealbeam holder, then the question would arise whether the defect is safety-related. If the answer is affirmative, then you would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the Act mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

We are forwarding a copy of your letter to the Federal Highway Administration, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, for a reply to your question as to what Federal requirements must be met for use of your units "on inter and intra state highways."

Enclosed is a copy of Standard No. 108 as you requested, as well as a copy of the Act.

SINCERELY,

ESLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

December 21, 1978

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of an all rubber heavy duty auxiliary lighthousing used in off road mining, construction and logging. We are looking into manufacturing a snow-plow headlight with a turn signal attachment out of the same heavy duty rubber. It will be similar to the Yankee snow plow light and the Dietz snow plow light. It will be designed to hold a standard PAR 56 sealbeam of the 6014 or 6015 series as manufactured by G.E., Wagner Tung-Sol, and Westinghouse which are the standard sealbeams being used as OEM in autos and trucks for their primary headlights. Since we are not manufacturers of the sealbeams but just the holder of the sealbeam we would like your determination and response to the following questions:

-- Is a snow plow or truck using a snowplow attachment considered a motorized vehicle?

-- What legal burden rests with us as a manufacturer of the sealbeam holder as to the possible misuse of our units once they leave our plant?

-- What federal requirements or regulations must be met for use of our units on inter and intra state highways? $-- Please send us a copy of Federal Standard 108.

Gentlemen, it takes 6 to 8 months to develope a product such as this prior to going into production. We are aiming at the 79-80 winter season and would therefore appreciate receiving your reply and any other advise you care to pass along as soon as possible.

Stephen E. Hall President

ID: nht81-1.15

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. L. Lubatti

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicle equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

SINCERELY,

December 12, 1980

N.H.T.S.A.

ATTENTION PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. x

John L. Lubatti Branch Manager

Police report omitted.

ID: nht81-1.18

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Proprietors Insurance Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 12, 1980

PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION -- N.H.T.S.A.

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

John L. Lubatti -- Branch Manager, PROPRIETORS INSURANCE CO.

Enclosures omitted.

ID: nht81-2.30

DATE: 06/01/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letters concerning section 4.2(d) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Section 4.2(d) provides that after seat belt webbing has been subjected to an abrasion test, it must have not less than 75 percent of the strength of the unabraded webbing set in section 4.2(b) of the standard. You pointed out that section 5.2(d) is inconsistent with section 4.2(d). As explained below, section 4.2(d) correctly states the requirement intended by the agency and section 5.2(d) needs to be corrected.

The abraded webbing strength test procedure set forth in section 5.2(d) of the standard is incorrect. It specifies that the median value of the breaking strengths of the abraded and unabraded webbing are used to determine the percentage of breaking strength retained. Such a test procedure unfairly penalizes a manufacturer that produces webbing with an unabraded breaking strength far in excess of the requirements specified in section 4.2(b).

For example, section 4.2(b) specifies that Type I webbing is to have a breaking strength of 6,000 pounds. Assume that the unabraded webbing has a median breaking strength of 8,000 pounds and the abraded webbing has a median breaking strength of 5,600 pounds. The median breaking strength of the abraded webbing is substantially more than 75 percent of the 6,000 pound breaking strength specified in section 4.2(b). However, the median abraded breaking strength is only 70 percent of the median unabraded breaking strength.

The agency intends to modify the standard so that the abraded webbing strength test procedure specifies that the median breaking strength of the abraded webbing is compared to the breaking strength specified in section 4.2(b) to determine the percentage of breaking strength retained.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

British Standards Institution

JANUARY 6, 1981

F. BERNDT -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sirs

FMVSS

Many thanks for your letter of 12 December 1980 on the above subject.

You say in your letter that Standard Number 209 requires abraded webbing in manual belt systems for use in motor vehicles to have not less than 75% of the strength of unabraded webbing.

Clause @ 4.2(b) at the end states 'the median value shall be used for determining the retention of breaking strength in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of this section'.

Clause @@ 4.2(d) states that 'after abrasion, the webbing shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the breaking strength listed in @@ 4.2(b). For clarity surely this should read - not less than 75% of the median value obtained during tests to clause @@ 4.2(b)'.

I would appreciate your comments.

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM SENIOR TEST ENGINEER

British Standards Institution

FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sirs

FMVSS - 209 SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES

Clause 5.1 (b) reads . . . . the median value shall be used for determining the retention of breaking strength in paragraphs (d) (e) and (f) of the section.

Clause 4.2(d) reads . . . . shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the breaking strength listed in Clause 4.2(b) for that type of belt assembly.

Please clarify the level to which the webbing strength after abrasion is to be compared. Is it:-

1. 75% of median breaking strength found under clause 5.1(b) or

2. 75% of minimum breaking strength listed in clause 4.2(b)

I have written to you on this subject before and would appreciate a speedy reply.

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM -- SENIOR TEST ENGINEER, MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY COMPONENTS SECTION