Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 3421 - 3430 of 16517

Interpretations	Date

ID: aiam3389 Open Mr. John M. Klinger, Sales Manager, Medallion Instruments, Inc., 917 W. Savidge Street, Spring Lake, Michigan 49456; Mr. John M. Klinger Sales Manager Medallion Instruments Inc. 917 W. Savidge Street Spring Lake Michigan 49456; Dear Mr. Klinger: This responds to your letter of December 10, 1980, to Joan Griffin o my staff regarding Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. In your letter, you state that you manufacture speedometers and odometers for replica car manufacturers. You ask whether you can be exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 127 in light of the small number of speedometers and odometers that you sell.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has n authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment from compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Thus, your Speedometers and odometers must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 127 that are in effect at the time of manufacture.; We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this offic if you have any questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam3223 Open Mr. Albert P. Penter, President, American Mfg. & Equipment Inc., 145 Caldwell Drive, Cincinnati, Ohio 45216; Mr. Albert P. Penter President American Mfg. & Equipment Inc. 145 Caldwell Drive Cincinnati Ohio 45216; Dear Mr. Penter: Pursuant to the requires in your February 13, 1980, letter to thi office, I am enclosing an up-to-date copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR S571.117).; You asked about the agency's 'current position with respect to Standar No. 117 as to (1) passenger tires and (2) truck tires.' The requirements of this standard apply to all retreaded pneumatic passenger car tires sold in the United States. As of this date, however, neither Standard No. 117 nor any other standard applies to retreaded truck tires.; If you have any further questions regarding the requirements of th enclosed standard or any other regulations of the agency, please contact Steve Kratzke of my office (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4732 Open Virve Airola Oy Toppi Ab Toppi Plast. PL 25 P.O. Box SF-02321 ESPOO Finland; Virve Airola Oy Toppi Ab Toppi Plast. PL 25 P.O. Box SF-02321 ESPOO Finland; "Dear Mr. Airola: This responds to your letter concerning Federal Moto Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses. We understand that you are interested in supplying your products to a vehicle manufacturer (Saab-Scania), who specifies that you must 'register' with this agency as a brake hose manufacturer. You request information that would enable you to meet this product specification. I regret the delay in responding. By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake hoses) sold in or imported into this country. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. Saab-Scania's product specification appears to relate to the labeling requirements of Standard No. 106. Under S7.2.1(b) of Standard No. 106, air brake hose manufacturers must label their hose with a designation (consisting of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol) that identifies the manufacturer of the hose. The designation assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturers of noncomplying or defective brakehoses. There is no NHTSA application form for the designation, instead, the manufacturer simply files the designation in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division, at the address provided in S7.2.1(b) of the standard. From your letter, it appears that Saab-Scania also specifies that your brake hoses must meet all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 106 applies to new motor vehicles and to 'brake hoses' (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If they don't comply, the manufacturers are subject to civil penalties of $1000 per violation, and the notification and remedy provisions of the Safety Act. I have enclosed a copy of the standard for your information, photocopied from the October 1, 1989 edition of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR 571.106). In addition to the requirements described above, please note that your manufacture of brake hoses may also be affected by NHTSA's longstanding interpretation of our regulation on manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566, copy enclosed), if Saab-Scania sells vehicles equipped with your brake hoses in this country. This rule requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies ('covered equipment'--e.g., brake hoses) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA separately from the vehicle manufacturer to which the equipment manufacturer supplies its products. NHTSA has interpreted this regulation to require the information from foreign manufacturers of covered equipment supplying their products to a foreign vehicle manufacturer selling its vehicles in the United States. (Enclosed is a copy of the agency's January 26, 1972 letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota Motor Company on this issue.) Please note that Oy Toppi is not required to designate an agent for service of process under 49 CFR Part 551 (Subpart D), if Oy Toppi supplies its products only to a foreign vehicle manufacturer. This is the case even if the foreign vehicle manufacturer installs Oy Toppi's products on vehicles that will be sold in the United States. However, please keep in mind that Oy Toppi must designate an agent under Part 551 if Oy Toppi decides to offer its equipment for importation into the United States. I have enclosed a copy of this regulation for your information. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosures";
ID: aiam1530 Open Mr. K. Nakjima,Director/General Manager,Factory Representative Office,Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,1099 Wall Street,West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071; Mr. K. Nakjima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc. 1099 Wall Street West Lyndhurst New Jersey 07071; Dear Mr. Nakajima:#This responds to your June 11, 1974, request fo approval of Toyota's banding design to meet the requirements of Standard No. 106, Brake hoses, for labeling brake hose assemblies.#The NHTSA interprets a band as a label which encircles the hose completely and attaches to itself. To constitute labeling at all, of course, the band must be affixed to the hose in such a manner that it cannot be easily removed. You should be able to determinate the compliance of your labeling method with the standard. It does appear that the Toyota label does not encircle the assembly and attach to itself. The NHTSA does not approve specific designs in advance, in any case, because the material, installing method, and underlying material can significantly affect the quality of a specific design.#Yours truly,Richard B. Dyson,Assisting Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam4362 Open The Honorable John P. Murtha, Member of Congress, Post Office Box 780, Johnstown, PA 15907; The Honorable John P. Murtha Member of Congress Post Office Box 780 Johnstown PA 15907; Dear Mr. Murtha: Thank you for your letter to the Department of Transportation's Offic of Congressional Affairs, which has been referred to me for a response. In an addendum enclosed with your letter, you note that one of your constituents, Mr. Gene Bird, would like information on the Federal regulations addressing 'completing the finishing work on automobiles.' Apparently, another manufacturer would send small sports cars to Mr. Bird's business. Your addendum states that these sports cars 'will need the following type of work done: installation of the engine, components, radiators, interiors, and the cars will finally have to be tested.' I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations to you.; By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Ac (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act also specifies that the manufacturer itself must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not 'approve' any vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.; Further, the Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer' certification be based on a specified number of tests or any tests at all. The Safety Act only requires that the certification be made with the exercise of 'due care' on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the safety standards. We would certainly recommend that a new manufacturer test some of its vehicles for compliance with the applicable safety standards.; It is not entirely clear from your addendum whether Mr. Bird would b classified as an 'alterer' or a 'final stage manufacturer' under our regulations. His company would be considered an 'alterer' of motor vehicles, if the second company referred to in your addendum furnishes completed and certified sports car to Mr. Bird's company, and Mr. Bird's company changes the engine and other components on those vehicles. If this is the contemplated action, Mr. Bird's company would be treated as an alterer under our regulations.; The certification requirements for alterers are set forth in 49 CF S567.7 (copy enclosed). Generally speaking, that section requires a person who alters a vehicle before its first purchase to supplement the certification label affixed by the original manufacturer with its own certification label. The alterer's certification label must include all of the information set forth in Part 567, including a statement that the altered vehicle complies will all applicable safety standards in effect on the date the vehicle was altered. In the case of sports cars, an alterer must certify that the altered car complies with all of the following:; >>>49 CFR S571.101 Controls and Displays, 49 CFR S571.102 Transmission Shift Level Sequence, 49 CFR S571.103 Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, 49 CFR S571.104 Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, 49 CFR S571.105 Hydraulic Brake Systems, 49 CFR S571.106 Brake Hoses, 49 CFR S571.107 Reflecting Surfaces, 49 CFR S571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, 49 CFR S571.110 Tire Selection and Rims, 49 CFR S571.111 Rearview Mirrors, 49 CFR S571.112 Headlamp Concealment Devices, 49 CFR S571.113 Hood Latch System, 49 CFR S571.114 Theft Protection, 49 CFR S571.115 Vehicle Identification Number, 49 CFR S571.116 Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, 49 CFR S571.118 Power-operated Window Systems, 49 CFR S571.124 Accelerator Control Systems, 49 CFR S571.201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impacts, 49 CFR S571.202 Head Restraints, 49 CFR S571.203 Impact Protection for the Driver from the Steerin Column,; 49 CFR S571.204 Steering Control Rearward Displacement, 49 CFR S571.205 Glazing Materials, 49 CFR S571.206 Door Locks and Door Retention Components, 49 CFR S571.207 Seating Systems, 49 CFR S571.208 Occupant Crash Protection, 49 CFR S571.209 Seat Belt Assemblies, 49 CFR S571.210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, 49 CFR S571.211 Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps, 49 CFR S571.212 Windshield Mounting, 49 CFR S571.214 Side Door Strength, 49 CFR S571.216 Roof Crush Resistance, 49 CFR S571.219 Windshield Zone Intrusion, 49 CFR S571.301 Fuel System Integrity, and 49 CFR S571.302 Flammability of Interior Materials.<<< Alternatively, Mr. Bird's company may be treated as a 'final stag manufacturer,' as that term is defined at 49 CFR S568.4. A final stage manufacturer means a person who finishes the manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle. Thus, if the second company referred to in your addendum is planning to furnish Mr. Bird's company with sports cars that have no engine, radiator, and so forth, the vehicles provided to Mr. Bird's company would be considered 'incomplete vehicles' and Mr. Bird's company would be considered a 'final stage manufacturer.'; If this is the case, Mr. Bird's certification responsibilities depen on the information he is provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle, i.e., the second company referred to in your addendum. Part 568 (copy enclosed) requires the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle to furnish Mr. Bird's company with a document that states one of three things for the incomplete vehicle. These are:; >>>1. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of th applicable safety standards if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle.<<<; If Mr. Bird receives such a document and does not make any of th specified alterations, his company could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(C)(7). Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.; >>>2. The vehicle when completed will conform to some or all of th applicable safety standards if specific conditions are followed by the final stage manufacturer.<<<; If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his situation will be ver similar to that described above. That is, if his company follows the specific conditions, it could certify compliance with the standards listed in the previous manufacturer's document simply by stating that compliance has not been affected by the operations performed by Mr. Bird's company. See 49 CFR S567.5(c)(7). Again, Mr. Bird's company would have to certify compliance with any applicable standards not listed in this document.; >>>3. Conformity with some or all of the standards is not substantiall affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standards.<<<; If Mr. Bird receives this type of document, his company would b required to certify compliance with the standards identified in the document on its own. This type of document would put Mr. Bird's company in the same position as an alterer for the listed standards.; I have also enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturer of motor vehicles. This sheet highlights the relevant Federal statutes and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations that may apply and explains how to get copies of our regulations. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about our regulations, please contact this office.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel
ID: aiam1160 Open Mr. J. T. Monk, Taylor Machine Works, Inc., P.O. Box 150, Louisville, MS 39339; Mr. J. T. Monk Taylor Machine Works Inc. P.O. Box 150 Louisville MS 39339; Dear Mr. Monk: This is in reply to your letter of May 25, 1973, to Michael Peskoe o this office, requesting clarification of the regulations regarding the certification of motor vehicles. You enclose an incomplete vehicle document concerning a particular tractor, a certification label you would affix to that tractor after its completion, a drawing of a trailer certification label, and a sample quarterly report of production figures for vehicles manufactured by your company.; Mr. Peskoe indicated to you over the phone that in meeting you certification responsibilities for these vehicles, they are certified independently of each other. It appears from your letter that this approach, which is the correct one, is the approach you are using.; With reference to your responsibilities for the certification of th tractor, if the truck does not have a certification label attached to it when you receive it, it is true that when you complete it by mounting a fifth wheel you must then attach a certification label. The label you enclose (exhibit 1) contains the necessary information in the appropriate order. You should obtain the information for the label primarily from the incomplete vehicle document, but may, as you state, rely on your own engineering judgment or contact the truck manufacturer. If, however, in relying on your own judgment you depart from the information contained in the incomplete vehicle document, you may be responsible for failures of the vehicle to conform to applicable standards and regulations.; The sample trailer certification label which you have submitted is no consistent with the certification regulations. We have taken the position that the information must be presented on the label in the form and in the order specified in the regulations. With respect to your sample label, the regulations do not presently call for a kingpin rating. Although we have just proposed to require a weight rating for the trailer coupling, this information should not now be included on the label. The regulations also do not permit ratings for tandem axles to be stated as tandem ratings. Each axle must be independently identified and a separate rating provided for it. Moreover, tire sizes are permitted to be specified only in conjunction with weight ratings. There are no provisions for the listing of plies, apart from their inclusion in a tire size designation, or for the listing of an inflation pressure. Again, information that is not specifically required cannot be inserted between items of required information, and your drawing of a trailer is not permitted unless it is placed after the required information. Finally, the regulations call for gross vehicle weight rating (the phrase 'gross trailer weight rating' is inappropriate) to follow the gross axle weight ratings, and the order in which you present this information must be reversed. I believe you should reexamine the Certification regulations in order to obtain specific guidance on the order and form of the required information.; The sample quarterly production report you submit conforms to th requirements of section 573.5(b) of the Defect Reports regulations. However, that section requires only the reporting of the number of vehicles, identified by make, model, and model year (if appropriate). While we are happy to receive the additional information you provide, you are not required to furnish it to us.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel
ID: aiam4698 Open Herr T. Spingler Abt. K2/ELE2 Robert Bosch GmbH; Herr T. Spingler Abt. K2/ELE2 Robert Bosch GmbH; Dear Herr Spingler: This is in reply to your FAX of July l9, l990, t Richard Van Iderstine of this agency asking for confirmation of an oral interpretation provided you by Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, with respect to replaceable bulb headlamps. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, defines (section S3) a replaceable bulb headlamp as 'a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly and one or two standardized replaceable light sources.' In Europe you fix the lens to the reflector assembly with a rubber seal and clips. For the U.S. market you propose to add 'silicone-glue at four places between lens and housing to prevent removal of the lens.' Mr. Medlin informed you that this would be a 'bonded lens and reflector assembly.' The standard does not define 'bonded', but the intent of the definition is that, once the lens is joined to the reflector assembly, it shall not be separable. Any method of adhesion that accomplishes this would be a sufficient bond for purposes of the definition. If the application of silicone glue at four places between the lens and the reflector assembly is sufficient to prevent manual separation of the lens from the assembly, then it would be a sufficient bond. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely,, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;
ID: aiam5123 Open Mr. Patrick R. Smorra Group Vice President Chrysler Corporation 38111 Van Dyke Avenue Sterling Heights, MI 48312; Mr. Patrick R. Smorra Group Vice President Chrysler Corporation 38111 Van Dyke Avenue Sterling Heights MI 48312; Dear Mr. Smorra: This responds to your letter of November 12 to th Administrator asking for a variance from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards for vehicles that Chrysler Corporation would like to sell to foreign nationals for their use on vacation in the United States. You have inquired whether additional information is required. The agency would be willing to consider Chrysler's request through the medium of a petition for temporary exemption from one or more specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The temporary exemption, two years in duration, permits a manufacturer to sell up to 2,500 exempted vehicles in any 12-month period during the term of the exemption, subject to such terms and conditions as the agency deems appropriate. These exemptions are renewable. Indeed, NHTSA has already provided exemptions to General Motors for the same purpose as Chrysler's, pursuant to 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(d). For your guidance, I enclose a copy of the Federal Register notice that granted GM's original petition in 1988. Because of the necessity to afford the public an opportunity to comment, a petitioner should anticipate an elapsed time of approximately four months between the agency's receipt of its petition and a determination on it. Should you have questions on the exemption process, Taylor Vinson of this office will be pleased to answer them (202-366-5263). You have also asked ' i f, upon expiration of the variance, the vehicle has not left the U.S. who is responsible for the delinquency?' This is an interesting question. The exemption is not provided directly to the purchaser. Instead, it is provided to a manufacturer to allow it to sell nonconforming vehicles to foreign nationals without violating the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, subject to the purchaser's agreement to export the vehicle when (s)he leaves this country. Should a manufacturer sell an exempted vehicle to a foreign national knowing, or in the exercise of due care having reason to know, that the purchaser did not intend to export it, the manufacturer would have violated the Safety Act's prohibition against sale of nonconforming vehicles, notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle had been exempted. Moreover, if the manufacturer did not take appropriate steps to assure that the purchaser honored his or her commitment to export the vehicle, the agency could find that continuation of the exemption was no longer in the public interest, and cancel it. However, if the manufacturer did not know or in the exercise of due care have any reason to know that its exempted vehicles would not be exported, it would appear to have incurred no liability under the Act. As for a foreign national purchaser who fails to export a vehicle in conformity with the terms of the condition imposed by the manufacturer under the exemption, it appears that the purchaser could be deemed to have violated the Safety Act's prohibition against introduction into interstate commerce of a nonconforming vehicle, notwithstanding the fact that the manufacturer had received an exemption for the manufacture and sale of the vehicle. Finally, depending on the safety standards from which the vehicle had been excused, the owner of the vehicle might find it difficult to register it in a State without bringing it into full compliance with the safety standards. You have also asked, ' I n the unlikely event that this vehicle has an accident in which it is deemed undriveable, who is responsible for its disposition.' The answer to this question would appear to turn on the ownership of the vehicle. Since Chrysler does not intend to lease the exempted vehicles, we assume that it will transfer all right, title, and interest in them to the foreign national purchasers, and we assume that those owners will be responsible for the disposition of wrecked vehicles deemed undriveable. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;
ID: aiam0321 Open Mr. Warren S. Sumner, Sales Representative, Hamill Manufacturing Company, 61166 Van Dyke Road, Washington, MI 48094; Mr. Warren S. Sumner Sales Representative Hamill Manufacturing Company 61166 Van Dyke Road Washington MI 48094; Dear Mr. Sumner: This is in reply to your letter of March 16, 1971, in which you as certain questions concerning a child booster seat that you plan to market. You describe the booster seat as a rectangle about 6 inches in height, tapering to 4 inches in the front, and state that it would be advertised for use by children under 50 pounds and would not be designed to fall into the category of child seating systems under Standard No. 213. You also state that your engineers feel a booster chair will 'definitely help more five, six and seven year old children to use seat belts simply because these children will be able to see out of a vehicle.'; While you state that the booster seat 'would not be designed to fal into the category of child seating systems under Standard No. 213,' it is not clear from your description of the device that this is actually the case. If you wish an opinion on this matter, we will provide one, but to do so we will need some additional information. Specifically, we will need to know if the booster seat is to be designed or advertised for use with the vehicle seat belts, and if so, how it will be so designed or advertised.; The questionsyou (sic) ask concerning the booster seat are: (1) Can w set a minimum of 50 or 60 pounds?(2)Exactly (sic) what is the maximum child weight covered under MVSS No. 213? and (3) What recommended weight can we advertise as a minimum for our booster seat?; The answers to these questions do not depend on whether the standar applies to your booster seat. If the device is a child seating system, Standard No. 213 does not specify the minimum or maximum heights or weights for children who may use it. Under the standard, it is up to the manufacturer to determine, based upon the design of each particular child seating system, the heights and weights of children for which he recommends the child seating system.; If the device is not a child seating system, the manufacturer is no required to recommend any heights or weights for children who can use it. Should he choose to do so, however, the heights and weights recommended must be consistent with the safe use of the device.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel
ID: aiam5573 Open Milford R. Bennett, Director North American Operations Safety Affairs and Regulations General Motors Corporation 30200 Mound Road Warren, Michigan 48090-9010; Milford R. Bennett Director North American Operations Safety Affairs and Regulations General Motors Corporation 30200 Mound Road Warren Michigan 48090-9010; Dear Mr. Bennett: This responds to General Motors' (GM's) inquiry raised in a June 16, 1995 meeting with the agency, regarding the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 for determining whether a vehicle is in the 'park' position. Under those procedures, a vehicle is deemed to be in park if it ceases rolling within 150 mm. You were concerned that different methods of measuring this distance could result in some vehicles not complying with the requirement that the vehicle roll less than 150 mm. The short answer to your question is that the test procedure is a 'static' measurement procedure. In other words, the agency will not measure the distance that a vehicle has rolled until after the vehicle has completely ceased moving. This agency recently amended Standard No. 114, adding test procedures to determine whether the key can be removed when the transmission is in positions other than the 'park' position and that the transmission remains locked in 'park' after key removal. (60 FR 30006, June 7, 1995) NHTSA initiated that action in response to a petition from the automotive industry alleging that such a procedure was needed to make the standard objective. Section S4.2.1(a)(3) of the amended standard specifies that ' e ach vehicle shall not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade when the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park.' To demonstrate that the vehicle is in 'park' prior to attempting to remove the key, the test procedures in S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both state: Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade and stop it with the service brakes. Apply the parking brake (if present). Move the shift mechanism to the 'park' position. Apply the service brakes. Release the parking brake. Release the service brakes. . . . Verify that vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm after release of the service brakes. In the June 16 meeting with the agency, GM stated that vehicle movement could be measured in two different ways: dynamic or static. GM inquired as to which method NHTSA interpreted the standard as specifying, because the results using these two methods would be different. The 'dynamic' method of measuring vehicle movement was described by GM as measuring the maximum play-out of a spool of wire attached to the front bumper after release of the service brakes. The 'static' method would measure vehicle movement from a reference point on the wheels after the vehicle has come to a complete stop. Under the dynamic method, a portion of the measured play-out would be due to the 'rocking' motion of the vehicle's chassis on its suspension when the transmission engaged. The driveline components would also contribute some movement by temporarily storing some of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle by flexing and twisting. However, both of these contributions to total rearward movement are temporary, disappearing after the vehicle comes to rest, as in the static measuring method. GM presented test data for certain vehicles and theoretical worst-case calculations of static roll distance on non- production hypothetical vehicles and one test vehicle. The test data showed that dynamic measuring produces larger measurements of roll than does static measuring. NHTSA interprets the limitation on vehicle movement specified in S4.2.1(a)(3) as referring to static movement. The agency did not contemplate using the dynamic method. The agency intends to measure only permanent components of total vehicle movement, using the 'static' method. When conducting compliance testing, NHTSA will measure vehicle movement from a reference point such as the wheel centerline position. The starting time for the measurement will be at the moment before the service brakes are released. The ending time of the measurement will be when the vehicle has completely ceased moving, bouncing, and rocking (i.e., until the vehicle is again 'static'). This agency believes that its confirmation that the static test method is the proper method should relieve any realistic concerns regarding compliance of the 1996 model year vehicles GM tested, and probably of any future vehicles as well. The actual tests GM conducted in preparation for the meeting with NHTSA all showed static roll distances well within the requirements of Standard No. 114. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;