ID: 002310Tunick_retrofit_on_off

Mr. Lance Tunick
Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.
P.O. Box 23078
Santa Fe, NM 87502-3078

Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your March 9, 2004, e-mail concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 225, "Child Restraint Anchorage Systems" (49 CFR 571.225), and the installation of air bag on-off switches.

You ask whether the standard requires a dealer or motor vehicle repair business that installs an air bag on-off switch at the front passenger seating position in a vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR Part 595, "Retrofit on-off switches for air bags," to install also a child restraint anchorage system in that position. The answer to your question is a child restraint anchorage system would not have to be installed.

FMVSS No. 225 requires each vehicle manufactured on or after September 1, 2002, to have a child restraint anchorage system at certain designated seating positions. Generally, these are forward-facing rear designated seating positions. An exception is set forth in S5(c)(1) and (c)(2) of FMVSS No. 225, which specify that each vehicle that has an air bag on-off switch must have a child restraint anchorage system for a designated passenger seating position in the front seat.

Under section 30112(b) of our statute (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301), the FMVSSs apply only to the manufacture and sale of new vehicles. Thus, S5(c)(1) and (c)(2) of FMVSS No. 225 require each vehicle that has an air bag on-off switch installed as original equipment to have a child restraint anchorage system in the front passenger seating position. The requirement does not apply to the vehicle once it is sold and delivered to the first purchaser.

If you have further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:225
d.4/20/04

ID: 000322cmc

Mr. Gerald Plante
Governmental Affairs
Subaru of America, Inc.
PO Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your September 17, 2002, e-mail concerning the telltale requirement for vehicles equipped with automatic suppression features for passenger air bags under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208. You ask whether you may use a telltale design that would illuminate "PASS AIR BAG ON" when the passenger air bag is activated and "PASS AIR BAG OFF" when it is not activated. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the illumination you have described is permissible under FMVSS No. 208.

You state in your e-mail that Subaru is interested in using a telltale for which:

With the ignition on, the words PASS AIR BAG will always be illuminated . With the ignition on, if the passenger air bag is deactivated, then the word OFF is illuminated. If the passenger air bag is activated, then illumination of OFF is turned off and illumination of a separate box area with the word ON in black is illuminated.

Subaru's proposed design meets the specific requirement of a telltale using the identifying words "PASS AIR BAG OFF" when the air bag is deactivated, but it also includes the illuminated display "PASS AIR BAG ON" when the passenger air bag is activated.

On May 12, 2000, NHTSA published a final rule requiring all light passenger vehicles to be equipped with advanced air bag systems. These requirements are codified in FMVSS No. 208. The rule also established a phase-in schedule, starting September 1, 2003, under which vehicle manufacturers must certify that their vehicles meet these new advanced air bag requirements. The amended safety standard provides alternative methods of compliance with the advanced air bag requirements. One of the advanced systems contemplated for the passenger side air bag is an automatic suppression system, whereby the air bag is turned off when a small child is present in the front passenger seat. One of the required elements of such a system is a telltale that informs the vehicle occupants that the air bag has been suppressed when the passenger seat is occupied by a person that the suppression system identifies as a child. The final rule was amended in response to various petitions for reconsideration. Those amendments were published on December 18, 2001.

The requirements for the telltale are specified in S19.2.2 of FMVSS No. 208. One of the requirements is that the telltale, a yellow light, emits light whenever the passenger air bag is deactivated and does not emit light whenever the air bag system is activated (except that it need not emit light when the passenger seat is unoccupied). Another requirement is that the telltale have the identifying words "PASSENGER AIR BAG OFF" or "PASS AIR BAG OFF" either on the telltale or within 25 mm (1 inch) of the telltale. There is no requirement that the identifying language be placed directly over the telltale or be otherwise illuminated. While the December 2001 amendments did make some minor changes to S19.2.2, the only change affecting the required wording was the allowance of the words "PASS AIR BAG OFF."

Since the telltale requirements of the advanced air bag rule were based in large part on the requirements of an earlier NHTSA rule governing the installation of air bag on-off switches as original vehicle equipment, I believe it is useful to note that the earlier rule, published in the Federal Register on January 6, 1997 (62 FR 798), directly addressed the issue you have raised. In that final rule, NHTSA addressed Volvo's request that the telltale indicate the air bag status at all times. While deciding against adopting such a requirement, NHTSA noted that with respect to telltales for manual air bag on-off switches, manufacturers can voluntarily provide additional features "such as audible signals or extra lights as long as the Standards specific requirements are met." 62 FR 798, 805. NHTSA believes the same rationale applies to the telltale requirement for vehicles with automatic suppression systems, and the additional wording would be allowed under S19.2.2.

Subaru's design appears to differ from the type of design contemplated by Volvo only in that the words "PASS AIR BAG," which are constantly illuminated when the vehicle ignition is on, are backlit by a yellow light. The pertinent issue under the regulation is not the backlighting of the words "passenger air bag." Rather, the telltale requirements are designed to clearly notify vehicle occupants when the air bag has been turned off. Accordingly, no illumination of the word "off" is allowed when the air bag has been activated. While Subaru's proposed telltale design appears to meet this requirement, you may consider using a different color backlight to illuminate the words "PASS AIR BAG."

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.11/18/02

ID: 06-004327drn

ID: 11705-1.PJA

Mr. James O. Webb
Chief Engineer
Converto Mfg. Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 287
Cambridge City, Indiana 47327

Dear Mr. Webb:

This responds to your letter pointing out some difficulties you anticipate in complying with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA) recent rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. Your company manufactures Aroll off@ hoist equipment, both trailer and truck mounted, that is used to pick up, put down, and dump the long rectangular dumpsters often used to collect trash and construction debris. The short answer to your question is that your straight-body vehicles are excluded from the requirements, while the trailers are not.

Your equipment basically consists of frame rails that lay on the back of the truck or trailer and are hinged at the rear of the trailer. To load a dumpster, the front end of the frame rails are raised by hydraulic pistons to a 45 to 50 degree angle, until the rear end of the rails touches the ground behind the vehicle. Once at this angle, a hoist cable pulls the dumpster up the rails onto the back of the vehicle, after which the pistons are collapsed to return the dumpster to a horizontal orientation. The opposite sequence is used to lower the dumpster. Based on the product literature you enclosed, it appears that your factory mounts this equipment on new truck and trailer chassis prior to first sale. You state that it would be impractical, if not impossible, to mount underride guards on these vehicles, presumably because the guard would be mounted on the rails and would prevent them from being fully raised.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). Two excluded categories of vehicles that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are single unit trucks and special purpose vehicles.

With regard to the Outside Rail Roll-off Tilt Frame Hoist installed on a truck, the vehicle is excluded. Note that the regulation applies only to trailers and semitrailers. Because these vehicles are single unit (i.e., unarticulated) trucks, FMVSS No. 224 does not apply to them.

A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as being Aa trailer or semitrailer having work- performing equipment . . . that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard . . . (emphasis added).@ Your Semi- trailer Roll-off Tilt Frame Hoist is not excluded, because it does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. Although NHTSA considers the rails to be work performing equipment that, as the frame is tilted, passes through the area where the horizontal member of the underride guard would be located, they do not do so while the vehicle is in transit.

NHTSA addressed the issue of roll off hoist trailers in the final rule. The National Solid Wastes Management Association (NSWMA), a trade group that we believe represents many of your customers, requested special consideration for roll-off hoist vehicles. However, NSWMA=s main objection was requiring guards on the containers themselves, which is not your concern. NSWMA stated in their comment that:

[t]he most common type of roll-off tilt frame used is the >outside rail= design . . . In these cases the rear underride [guard] required by [23 CFR] 393.86 will contact the ground at a frame tilt angle of approximate [sic] 40 degrees. Since this causes instability if the ground is uneven, a number of manufacturers have resorted to a retractable underride [guard] design, where a strut attached to the rear chassis frame will cause the underride [guard] to move forward and out of the interference area as the frame is tilted.

NHTSA assumed by this comment that a design solution had been found to address the problem of the guard hitting the ground. Therefore, NHTSA believed it was only necessary to respond to NSWMA that guards were not required on the container, only the trailer that carries it. We suggest that you contact NSWMA to explore the possibility of using the retractable guard design that it discussed.

If you believe your trailers should be excluded from Standard No. 224, you may submit a petition for rulemaking (see 49 CFR Part 552, which I have enclosed for your convenience) requesting that NHTSA amend the standard. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

1 Enclosure: Part 552 ref:224 d:5/16/96

ID: 86-6.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Elinor F. Wilber; Norma Gyle -- Chairpersons, State of Connecticut, Transportation Committee and Seat Belt Subcommittee

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether Connecticut may set performance standards for belts retrofitted to school buses. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. The answer to your question is yes.

First, we would like to distinguish between a state law which would set standards for belts voluntarily retrofitted to school buses and a state law which requires all school buses to be retrofitted with safety belts. As to the latter, Connecticut may require the retrofit installation of safety belts in school buses which the State purchases for its own use. However, as explained below, Federal law would preempt Connecticut from requiring other school buses (i.e., those used by non-public schools) to be retrofitted with safety belts.

Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety regulations is governed by section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 which states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

The first sentence of section 103(d) has the effect of preempting safety standards of the States and their political subdivisions that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance as a Federal safety standard unless they are identical to that safety standard. The second sentence of the section provides that the limitation on safety standards does not prevent governmental entities from specifying nonidentical safety requirements for vehicles procured for their own use. However, the second sentence does not permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable Federal safety standards.

It is our opinion that a state standard which requires all school buses to be retrofitted with safety belts has the effect of mandating the installation of safety belts in all large school buses operating in that state. Since such a standard regulates the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard for school bus occupant crash protection (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222) and would not be identical to the Federal requirements for "compartmentalization," we believe it would be preempted under the first sentence of section 103(d). However, a state is not prohibited from requiring the retrofit installation of safety belts in school buses procured by the State or its political subdivisions (i.e., public school buses) as long as the Federal requirements for compartmentalization are not violated.

Connecticut may set performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed on used school buses, such as for the amount of force the anchorages must be capable of withstanding. As you know, we are currently considering an amendment to FMVSS No. 222 to set performance requirements for voluntarily-installed safety belts on new school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. However, since such an amendment, if adopted, would only affect new school buses and no Federal safety standard establishes performance requirements for retrofitting safety belts, Connecticut would not be preempted from establishing requirements for belts that are voluntarily-installed on used buses. Keep in mind, however, that a state should ensure that its requirements do not prevent vehicles from complying with Federal safety standards. Since FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies requirements for belt assemblies used in motor vehicles, Connecticut must not issue a standard for belt assemblies for nonpublic school buses that is not identical to Standard No. 209.

I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact my office if you have further questions.

ID: 86-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald H. Giberson -- Assistant Director, State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety State of New Jersey 26 South Montgomery Street Trenton, NJ 08666

This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You asked whether vehicles equipped with "Mini-Max" brakes, produced by International Transquip Industries, Inc., comply with the standard. You stated that since the heavy spring is omitted and only a single diaphragm is used, there is no way the brake can function if the diaphragm ruptures. Your question is responded to below. We note that Motor Carrier Regulation 393.40 is administered by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) rather than by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We have sent a copy of this correspondence to BMCS in order that they may respond to that part of your request.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.6.3 provides in relevant part:

The parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimum performance specified in either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing). . . .

The single diaphragm used in the Mini-Max brake is common to both the service and parking brake systems. As part of the service brake system, it is part of a brake system "other" than the parking brake system. Therefore, since the diaphragm is not a component of a brake chamber housing, section S5.6.3 requires that a vehicle must be able to achieve the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure.

We do not have sufficient data to determine whether particular vehicles equipped with Mini-Max brakes would meet the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure. The answer to that question could depend on the nature of the particular vehicle. It is possible, of course, that a vehicle could be capable of meeting the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 as a result of the braking force provided by the other parking brakes whose diaphragms have not failed.

We note that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised this issue and other issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and an interpretation letter to International Transquip. The CHP and Mini-Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2768).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel Office of Rule Making U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Recently I have received several inquiries regarding the legality of the Mini-Max air actuated mechanically held air brake system judging from the technical data supplied by the manufacturer, International Transquip Industries Inc., the Mini-Max brake chambers do not contain the heavy. Since the heavy spring is omitted and only a single diaphragm is used in the Mini-Max, there is no way the brake can function if the diaphragm ruptures. In view of the foregoing , it is questionable as to whether the Min-Max complies with FMVSS-121 and Motor Carrier Regulation 393.40. I would be appreciative if you could clarify this matter.

Sincerely,

Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director

DHG/WH/rc

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: GF006474

Mr. Michael Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1300 19^th Street, NW, 5^th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-1609




Dear Mr. Kastner:

This is in response to your letter in which you requested an interpretation of the new tire information requirements in S4.3.3 of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Specifically, you ask if the tire and rim information specified in S4.3.3 of FMVSS No. 110 could be set forth separately from the certification label. As discussed below, the answer is no. However, as we have indicated in the past, it is permissible to provide a certification label in two parts under certain circumstances.

S4.3.3 reads (with emphasis added) as follows:

Additional labeling information for vehicles other than passenger cars.Each vehicle shall show the size designation and, if applicable, the type designation of rims (not necessarily those on the vehicle) appropriate for the tire appropriate for use on that vehicle, including the tire installed as original equipment on the vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer, after each GAWR listed on the certification label required by 567.4 or 567.5 of this chapter. This information shall be in the English language, lettered in block capitals and numerals not less than 2.4 millimeters high and in the following format:

Truck ExampleSuitable Tire-Rim Choice

GVWR: 2,441 kilograms (5381 pounds).

GAWR: Front1,299 kilograms (2,864 pounds) with P265/70R16 tires, 16 8.0 rims at 248 kPa (36 psi) cold single.

GAWR: Rear1,299 kilograms (2,864 pounds) with P265/70R16 tires, 16 8.00 rims, at 248 kPa (36 psi) cold single.

The information required by S4.3.3 thus cannot appear separately from the certification label.

We note, however, that as we explained in a May 3, 1984, letter to Takeshi Tanuma of Nissan, NHTSA permits the use of a certification label in two parts, under certain circumstances. We explained that while the Part 567 certification regulations specify that "a label" must be used, the agency has permitted the use of a label in two parts in circumstances which will not lead to confusion and which will satisfy the basic intent of Part 567. Specifically, the two portions of the label must be placed in close proximity to each other, to permit individuals to readily find all the specified information and to leave no doubt as to the significance of either portion of the label. Further, the two portions must be oriented in such a manner that the specified information appears in the required order. As a practical matter, these considerations require that the two portions be affixed to the same vehicle part. While the agency did not specify a particular distance as a maximum permissible separation of the two portions of the label, we stated that the two portions must be located so as to leave the unmistakable impression that they provide related information.

Accordingly, the information required by S4.3.3 cannot be separated from the certification label. However, the certification label may be affixed in two parts under the circumstances described above.

We note that the information required by S4.3.3 cannot be added to the tire information placard required by S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110. As the agency previously explained in amending the tire safety information regulations, additional information is not appropriate because it would overcrowd the already content-rich vehicle placard (see 69 FR 31306 at 31311).

Finally, we note that in the end of your letter, you requested that, if a separate label is not permitted, the agency treat your letter as a request for rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 110 in order to afford vehicle manufacturers the option of specifying alternative tire and rim information separately from the certification label. However, your letter did not provide sufficient supporting information for us to determine whether rulemaking would be warranted.

If, after reviewing this letter, you still believe that rulemaking is needed, please submit a petition for rulemaking with detailed supporting information. Among other things, the agency would want to examine actual examples (photographs) of vehicles unable to display the information required by S4.3.3 on the usual certification label or a split certification label. We would also want to review additional information about spacing problems, and what location requirements might be appropriate for an additional label.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, you may contact Mr. George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:110
d.11/16/05

ID: 9478

Mr. Ted H. Richardson
Fleet Coordinator
Priefert Manufacturing Company, Inc.
Post Office Box 1540
Mt. Pleasant, TX 75456-1540

Dear Mr. Richardson:

This responds to your letter and telephone call to this office asking our opinion regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Your letter referenced a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff about the applicability of FMVSS 120 to your product. As Mr. Myers informed you, the answer to your question depends on whether your product, the "Wishbone Carriage" used to position and carry the "Priefert livestock chute" is a "motor vehicle" (i.e., trailer) under our Safety Act and regulations. Based on the information we have, we believe the answer is no.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue safety standards applicable to motor vehicles. Section 102(3) (15 U.S.C. 1391(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 further defines "trailer" in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

Your letter enclosed a brochure containing pictures and other information relating to the livestock chute (Priefert Squeeze Chute, Model 91). The chute is farm equipment. The upper 2/3 of the chute is constructed of steel bars, while the lower 1/3

is composed of steel panels on both sides that can be lowered or removed. The chute comes with such accessories as head gate, tail gate, and calf table. The chute is positioned on the ground in a barnyard, feed lot, pasture, or field. It is used to channel livestock or, with the head and/or tail gate in place, to immobilize an animal for medicating, branding, tagging, and the like. Your information also describes the carriage that transports the chute. The Wishbone Carriage is a 2-wheeled U-shaped dolly which is designed to be manually attached to special fittings on the chute. With the carriage thus attached, the chute can be towed by vehicle to the next job site. Once at the next job site, the wheeled carriage is detached and the chute is once again placed on the ground for use.

Whether the Wishbone Carriage is a motor vehicle (trailer) depends on its on-road use. This agency has consistently held that vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use, such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining equipment, are not considered motor vehicles even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and that have a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour are not considered motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, as well as equipment that uses the highways solely to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site, are not considered motor vehicles. That is because the use of these vehicles on the public roadways is intermittent and merely incidental to their primary off-road use.

We have determined that the Wishbone Carriage is not a motor vehicle, because it appears it will be primarily used to transport the chute from job site to job site on the farm. Not being a motor vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including FMVSS No. 120, would not apply to your product.

Please note, however, that if the Carriage is regularly used to carry the chute from farm to farm on public roads, or is used more frequently on the public roads than the use we anticipate, the agency may reexamine the determination that the carriage is not a motor vehicle. Also, you may wish to consult your attorney for information on possible operational restrictions on your product, such as State licensing and use laws and product liability.

I hope this information is helpful to you. We have enclosed a copy of FMVSS 120 and provided you our definition of a trailer, as you requested. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:120#VSA d:4/12/94

ID: 1984-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Manning; Fulton; and Skinner -- John B. McMillan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/18/77 letter from Frank Berndt to Video Research Corp.

TEXT: Mr. John B. McMillan Manning, Fulton, and Skinner Raleigh, North Carolina

This is in response to your March 5, 1984 letter regarding the extent to which an automotive remote starting device which one of your clients wishes to market is compatible with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 114, Theft Protection. This device would permit a vehicle to be started from a remote location using a signal transmitter, provided the vehicle's gear shift is in the park position, the emergency brake is set, the hood is closed, and all the vehicle doors are closed. Further, should any of these failsafe systems became deactivated (e.g., gear shift lever moved out of the park position), the engine would automatically shut off.

FMVSS 114 reguires that passenger cars as well as trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less must have a key locking system that, when the key is removed, will prevent normal activation of the vehicle's engine and either steering or forward self-mobility. We presume that the steering/transmission lock feature is unaffected by your client's device. Therefore, the question presented by your client's system is whether that device, which permits activation of the engine when the ignition key is removed, permits "normal activation" of the vehicle.

In a previous agency interpretation (copy enclosed), the agency described certain characteristics of a remote starting system similar to your client's which we concluded were outside the concept of "normal activation." These characteristics are automatic deactivation of the remotely started engine when a vehicle door is opened, maintenance of the steering column or gear shift locking feature until the ignition key is inserted in the vehicle, and automatic deactivation of the remotely started engine after 15 minutes (unless the key is inserted in the ignition).

Your client's device apparently has some of these same characteristics as this previously considered device, as well as other automatic engine deactivation features which are comparable in nature. Therefore, we conclude your client's device does not conflict with the requirements of FMVSS 114, since it does not permit normal activation of the engine without the ignition key.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt

Enclosure - See 5/18/77 Letter from Frank Berndt to Video Research Corp.

March 5 1984

Re: Hawban, Inc. - G-11934

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter will confirm my telephone conversation with Roger Fairchild regarding a patented device which my client Hawban, Inc. is attempting to market with major automobile manufacturers. A description of this product is attached for your review. In one of our meetings, John Mapleback of Ford suggested that we contact your office to review the concept with you. Specifically, before going any further, we wanted to be sure that your office would agree that this system is compatible with the existing standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and particularly Standard No. 114.

My client's device provides for the remote starting of an automobile and the signaling back as to whether the starting has been accomplished. There are significant safety features built into the device so, for example, the device will not operate unless the gear shift is in the park position, the emergency brake is set, the hood is closed and the doors are all closed. In the event any of these circuits are broken, as for example the hood is open, the engine will cut off. We do not feel that the device conflicts with Standard No. 114 because the use of it would not be "normal activation" of the vehicle. The device is not intended as a substitute for a key because the automobile could not be operated without a key. If the car door were to be opened the engine would shut off. If the gear shift were taken out of the park position, the engine would shut off. In fact, because it would encourage the owner to leave the vehicle in the "park" position and with the emergency brake engaged, we hope you will agree that it is a positive device.

We would appreciate your looking into this matter and confirming our interpretation of the relationship between this device and your standards.

Very truly yours,

MANNING, FULTON & SKINNER

John B. McMillan

JBM/gbj Enclosure omitted.

ID: 1984-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/06/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. Kawano General Manager, U.S. Office Toyota Motor Corporation One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, New Jersey 07094

Dear Mr. Kawano:

This letter replies to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. Your first question concerns the measurement of the lateral width of a head restraint with a "Volvo-type configuration." The drawing attached to your letter appears to depict an adjustable head restraint with a rectangular shape and a hollow center. Paragraph S4(b) of Standard No. 202 requires measurements, according to S4(b)(1) and (2), to be made when the head restraint is "adjusted to its fully extended design position." The lateral width of the head restraint of a individual or bucket seat may be measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the restraint or 25 inches above the seating reference point. These are the only two locations at which this measurement may be made. The lateral width may not be measured at part B on your drawing, because B is not the correct location at which to make this measurement. A copy of this drawing is enclosed for your convenience.

Your letter and drawing indicate a concern that, if the lateral width is measured 2.5 inches below the top of the restraint, the hollow space between the two sides of the rectangular head restraint may not be included in measuring the total width. Using the information you have supplied, we believe that the lateral width of this type of head restraint, measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the restraint or 25 inches above the seating reference point, would include the hollow space, if the hollow space occurs at either location. The lateral width would also include, of course, the widths of both sides of this restraint, marked A1 and A2 in your drawing. This lateral width may or may not equal the width, B, located at the top of the restraint in your drawing.

Your second question regarding the correct demonstration procedure to test compliance with Standard No. 202 is answered by the language of paragraph S5.2 of the standard. This paragraph states that, if the head restraint conforms to S4(b), compliance is demonstrated in accordance with S5.2 with the head restraint in its fully extended design position. The dynamic testing procedure would not be required, unless your head restraint conforms to paragraph S4(a). The manufacturer has the option of designing a head restraint which meets the performance requirements of either paragraph S4(a) or paragraph S4(b).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

January 26, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOA-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: Toyota' s Request for Interpretation Regarding Std. 202, "Head Restraints," S4(2) (i) and (ii)

In reference to the above subject matter, Toyota requests clarification of the specified head restraint width.

In FMVSS 202, S4(b), the lateral width of the head restraint is required as follows:

"When measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the head restraint or 25 inches above the seating reference point, the lateral width of the head restraint shall not be less than (i) 10 inches for use with bench-type seats; and (ii) 6.75 inches for use with individual seats."

Our question is as follows: If the head restraint has a Volvo-type configuration (see Attachment), which part is used to measure the lateral width? A or B? We believe that B should represent the lateral width of this head restraint. Therefore, if the lateral width B is more than 6.75 inches (individual seat), we believe that the dynamic test (FMVSS 202, S4(a)) is not required.

Please review the attached drawing and inform us of the correct area to measure for width of the head restraint. Your prompt response would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION

J. Kawano General Manager U.S. Office

JK:KY:gcm Enclosure -

"INSERT"

VOLVO-TYPE Head Restraint