ID: aiam0817

Dear Mr. MacCleery: This is in reply to your request of August 7, 1972, for the data use to support the conclusions we announced in Notice 20 of Docket 69-7 concerning the ignition interlock for the center front position and the ability of seat belt systems to meet a 60g, 3-millisecond injury criterion in 1975.; In evaluating the petitions for reconsideration of the center sea interlock requirements, we followed the techniques of cost/benefit analysis adopted in our earlier studies of passive restraints (see General Reference items 42, 43, and 99). The anticipated incremental benefit from an interlock at the center position was $9.70 per vehicle, which, when divided by the incremental cost of $7.00 supplied by Ford Motor Company (N16-69- 7-3), produced a favorable ratio of 1.4. Although the analysis was completed, it was used as a rough working paper and was not submitted to the docket. A typed draft of the analysis is being prepared for submission to the docket.; Although we decided to grant interim relief for belt systems from th 60g, 3-millisecond chest injury criterion, several manufacturers submitted data which indicated to us that their present systems were capable of meeting the criterion or that they were close enough that minor modifications would enable them to meet it. The data from your own organization (N13-69-7-16) showed that a number of cars were passing the criterion by comfortable margins. The Chrysler data, for example, revealed that in 9 tests no dummy recorded chest accelerations in excess of 50g's. Although General Motors, in its comment, submitted data on subcompacts which indicated a problem with chest accelerations, the data from their larger vehicles ranged between 38 and 52g's. (N13-69-7-20). Toyota also submitted test results with most accelerations in the range of 45-50g's, with only one test of a Corrolla appearing to show a marginal condition (N13-69-7-23).; From our research contracts, a number of sled tests have been conducte at Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (General Reference No. 135), and most of these produced accelerations of between 30 and 50g's. From other sources have come data indicating that such improvements in belt design as the use of tear seams can produce significantly lower accelerations (see, e.g., General Reference items 161, 166, and 167).; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: 24257ownermodifying

Paul Wagner, President
Bornemann Products Incorporated
402 Industrial Drive
P.O. Box 427
Bremen, IN 46506

Dear Mr. Wagner:

This responds to your March 27, 2002, and April 29, 2002, letters to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, Child Restraint Anchorage Systems (49 CFR 571.225). I regret the delay in responding. Before addressing your specific questions, we would like to note that several of your questions have been raised in petitions for reconsideration of the final rule establishing Standard No. 225 (March 5, 1999) (see Docket No. 98-3390, Notice 2). We indicate where the answers to those questions will be addressed by NHTSA in responding to the petitions for reconsideration. We anticipate that the response will be issued shortly.

Question 1.

Standard No. 225 requires vehicles to be equipped with a certain number of child restraint anchorage systems and tether anchorages, depending on the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle (S4.4 of the standard). The standard also specifies the location of the anchorage systems. ^[1]

You ask about a vehicle owner modifying his or her own vehicle (specifically, a vehicle that has three rows of seating), after the vehicles purchase, to suit his or her needs or preferences. You ask:

[I]f a vehicle purchased by a consumer complies with the Standard at the time of purchase (as in Diagram A) [two child restraint anchorage systems in the second row, and a tether anchorage in the third row], and the consumer later makes revisions as illustrated in Diagrams 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Attachment A, would the vehicle be deemed as non-compliant due to these modifications? Please consider that any revisions indicated as made by the consumer did not create any other non-compliant issue with any other FMVSS codes.

Diagrams 1, 2 and 4 show the second and/or the third rows removed. Diagram 3 shows the second row removed from the vehicle and the third row moved to where the second row was.

There are two parts to our answer. Normally, consumer modifications do not affect the compliance of a vehicle. The FMVSSs apply to new motor vehicles, i.e., until the vehicles first purchase in good faith other than for resale (see 30112(b)(1) of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, the Vehicle Safety Act). The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits persons from manufacturing or selling any new motor vehicle that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs until the first purchase of the vehicle by a consumer. After the vehicle is purchased, the vehicle manufacturer is not responsible for modifications that vehicle owners may make to the vehicle.^[2]

However, an issue raised by your letter concerns whether the vehicle is designed so consumers can easily change seating arrangements by simple operations such as releasing a latch or removing easily accessible mounting hardware. Where a manufacturer designs a vehicle in this manner and alerts consumers of the flexibility of the seating arrangements, e.g., through advertising or an entry in the owners manual, should the manufacturer be responsible for designing the vehicle so that these simple operations cannot be used to create configurations that do not comply with S4.4 of Standard No. 225? This issue was raised in petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. We will respond to it in the context of the rulemaking proceeding.^[3]

Question 2.

S9.1.1(c) of Standard No. 225 specifies that the lower anchorages must be not less than 25 mm, but not more than 40 mm in length. You ask whether the not less than 25 mm but not more than 40 mm language refers to the inside opening of the anchorages (bars), or to the overall length of the bar including the 6 mm steel material. The answer is the inside opening of the bar, and not the overall length of it. We plan to amend S9.1.1(c) to clarify the meaning of the text, in accordance with this interpretation.

Question 3.

S9.1.1(f) of Standard No. 225 requires that the lower bars must be an integral and permanent part of the vehicle or vehicle seat. You ask whether the bars can be bolted or otherwise attached without the use of a tool. This issue has been raised in petitions for reconsideration and will be answered by us in the upcoming response.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
ref:225
d.6/28/02

^[1] Among other issues, petitions for reconsideration have asked that the number of tether anchorages required for certain vehicles (multipurpose passenger vehicles with seating capacity of 5) be reduced from three to two. Petitions have also asked that NHTSA reconsider the requirement that a tether anchorage must be placed in a center rear seating position, if such a position exists. See Docket No. 98-3390, Notice 2.

^[2] If a motor vehicle were modified by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business, 30122 of the Vehicle Safety Act limits the modifications that may be made. That section prohibits those entities from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Section 30122 does not apply to individual owners modifying their own vehicle.

^[3] The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers asked for clarification that providing a user-ready tether anchorage at a seat that can be used at either an outboard or a non-outboard (center) seating position meets the subject requirement. Petitioner stated that some vehicles are now equipped with vehicle seats that can be moved from an outboard position to a non-outboard position. Petitioner wanted to know how the agency would position such a movable seat in determining compliance with the requirement that a tether anchorage must be provided in a center seating position.

ID: 86-2.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ron Luce, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 3/14/77 letter from F. Berndt to Sergio Campanini, The Berg Manufacturing Co.; 8/27/79 letter from F. Berndt to the Berg Manufacturing Co.; 9/30/77 letter from R. L. Carter to R. W. Hildebrandt, The Bendix Corp.

TEXT:

Mr. Ron Luce President International Transquip Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 590169 Houston, Texas 77259

This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You asked several questions relating to whether vehicles equipped with "Mini-Max" brakes, a type of brake produced by your company, comply with the standard. Your questions are responded to below. We note that while Question 4 was not asked directly by your letter, the question is implicit with respect to one of the questions you did ask.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicle 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.

Question 1: Is delayed mechanical parking permissible under section S5.6.3 as long as the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 are satisfied?

The second sentence of section S5.6.3 provides that "(o)nce applied, the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means." As discussed by a recent notice granting a petition for rulemaking submitted by the California Highway Patrol (copy enclosed), there are at least two issues relating to whether a braking system such as Mini-Max complies with these requirements.

The first issue is whether the system meets the requirement that once applied, the parking brakes must be held solely by mechanical means. As currently designed, the Mini-Max parking brake can be held by air and not by mechanical means, solely or otherwise, for many hours. Indeed, since a driver will often park the vehicle for a period of time shorter than that required to obtain mechanical holding, there will be many instances when the vehicle is parked and the parking brake never is held by mechanical means. The second issue is whether the parking brakes are held in the applied position. With the current design of the Mini-Max braking system, the air pressure leaks down over time until the mechanical lock is activated. Since the position of the brake components necessarily changes during this time, resulting in reduced parking brake force, there is an issue whether the parking brake is being held in the applied position.

While NHTSA has never concluded that a brake system resulting in false parking is safe or provided an interpretation that the current Mini-Max system complies with section S5.6.3, we recognize that some past interpretations, as well as one issued by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, could contribute to ambiguity concerning whether some of the features incorporated in the Mini-Max design are permitted by the standard. In light of that ambiguity and for the other reasons discussed in the grant notice, NHTSA decided to grant the CHP petition to initiate rulemaking on the delayed mechanical park issue rather than issuing an interpretation whether or not such a braking system complies with these requirements.

Question 2: Is an external pressure separation assembly consisting of a two-way check valve and accompanying steel hex nipple considered to be a component of a brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3 if the assembly is "permanently bonded" to the housing?

The answer to this question is no. Section S5.6.3 provides in relevant part that "(t)he parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimum performance specified either in 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)." (Emphasis added.) The dictionary defines "housing" as "a fully enclosed case and support for a mechanism." See Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition). Thus, the term "brake chamber housing" refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. An external pressure separation assembly does not become part of the brake chamber housing merely because it is attached to the housing, whether by "permanent bonding" or some other means. However, a brake chamber housing could be cast or molded to include a fitting, serving the same purpose as the external pressure assembly, as an integral part of the brake chamber housing.

Question 3: Is an internal assembly consisting of a diaphragm within the brake chamber housing considered to be a component of the brake chamber housing under section S5.6.3?

The answer to this question is no. As discussed above, the term "brake chamber housing" refers to the case enclosing a brake chamber. A diaphragm within the brake chamber is not a component of the case enclosing the brake chamber.

Question 4: Does section S5.2.1.1 require that capability of release must be unaffected or that air pressure in the tank must be unaffected?

Section S5.2.1.1 provides that "(a) reservoir shall be provided that is capable, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i., of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once and that is unaffected by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system." (Emphasis added.) The word "unaffected" refers back to "reservoir". Thus, the required reservoir is not permitted to be "affected" by a loss of air pressure in the service brake system, i.e., it must be protected. A reservoir would not meet this requirement if a loss of air pressure in the service brake system resulted in a loss of air pressure in the reservoir, even if the reservoir was still capable of releasing the parking brakes.

Question 5: If the emergency brakes on trailers can be modulated so as to provide a driver with several applications and releases to move the disabled vehicle off the road after the signal from the low air warning system that the vehicle has lost its service brake system, is it unnecessary for an S5.2.1.1 reservoir to be capable of releasing the brakes?

The capability of modulation after activation of the low air warning system does not satisfy the requirements of section S5.2.1.1 (quoted above). That section requires that the reservoir not be affected by loss of service air, i.e., that it be protected, and that, when pressurized to 90 p.s.i. (a pressure that corresponds to the lower end of the range of pressures maintained by compressors), it be capable of releasing the parking brakes at least once. A vehicle's emergency brakes could be capable of modulation after activation of the low air warning system and not meet either of these requirements.

In addition to the notice granting the CHP petition, we are enclosing copies of interpretation letters concerning the Mini-Max system addressed to Navistar, P.T. Brake Lining Company, and the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures August 20, 1985 U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590 ATTN: Duane Perrin

Subject: Our letter of August 6, 1985 and Docket No. 75-16: Notice 27. Request for immediate interpretation - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121.

Dear Mr. Perrin:

After our July 31, 1985 meeting in Washington, DC and subsequent to my letter of August 6, 1985 I have requested, received and reviewed copies of all information contained in all volumes of the "Red Book" of 121 interpretations maintained in the document section of the D.O.T. After review of this information it is very evident that the NHTSA has offered several interpretations with respect to delayed mechanical parking that clearly allows this means of parking to satisfy the requirements of S5.6.3 as long as either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 can be achieved. The references are as follows.

1. Berg Mfg. Co. letter dated February 9, 1977 that describes a system that is air applied on initial emergency or parking application and is held by spring application only in the event of service application pressure loss. The NHTSA response N40-30 (TWH) dated March 14, 1977 does not allow all design features of the Berg system but does clearly allow delayed mechanical parking as stated in the last sentence of the reference letter.

"In other respects the system you described does not appear to violate the requirements of Standard No. 121. The use of service air pressure to actuate the parking brakes has been used in certain bus applications and is permissible as long as a source of energy to apply the parking brakes is usable at all times and is unaffected by any single failure in the service brake system."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit A".

2. Berg. Mfg. Co. letter dated June 28, 1979 that describes a parking brake system that employs delayed mechanical parking. This system, I believe, was later denied because of non compliance to section S5.2.1.1 because emergency springs were released by supply air rather than from a protected reservoir. However, the NHTSA interpretation is clear with respect to application by service air and subsequent spring application as the air supply is depleted. The NHTSA response NOA-30 dated August 27, 1979 covers this point in the second paragraph.

"You first ask whether section S5.6.3 allows the use of service air to apply the parking brakes as long as a source of energy to supply the parking brakes is available at all times and is unaffected by a single failure in the service brake system. The answer to this question is yes. On August 9, 1979, the agency published in the federal register a notice amending section S5.6.3 of the standard to permit the type of parking brake system that you outlined in your letter."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit B".

3. Bendix letter dated September 14, 1977 that explains the many benefits of delayed mechanical parking by use of service air for initial application and spring application only after service pressure has depleted. This system also was later determined to not be in compliance to S5.2.1.1 because no reservoir was provided for release of brakes. However it clearly describes the delayed mechanical parking mode. The NHTSA response dated September 30, 1977 states in the last paragraph:

"You also requested written confirmation that the interpretation of S5.6.3 of FMVSS No. 121 given by NHTSA to Motor Coach Industries Inc., on April 14, 1976, would pertain to the air/spring parking brake system described in your letter. Your assumption is correct, and this letter constitutes such written confirmation."

Supporting copies are marked "Exhibit C".

Upon review of the information presented we respectfully request written confirmation that our assumption is correct that our delayed mechanical system as outlined in the information provided with our August 6, 1985 letter does comply with S5.6.3 of the 121 Standard.

We also request an interpretation with respect to the use of an external pressure separation assembly detailed in the information provided with our August 6, 1985 letter. Is our assumption correct that both the external and internal assemblies are a component of the brake chamber housing in this unique brake chamber design.

We further request an interpretation with respect to S5.2.1.1. Is our assumption correct that as discussed in our August 6, 1985 letter and detailed in the enclosures with the same letter that our "system" complies to section S5.2.1.1 of the 121 Standard. Without considering the above, in our letter of August 6, 1985 page 6, we also disclosed the fact that our trailer system allows modulation of emergency brakes. Are we correct in assuming that if we are able to modulate emergency brakes on trailers, this improvement in safety would also dictate that no release is necessary because a modulated emergency system provides a driver with several applications and releases of the emergency brake system to move the disabled vehicle off the road after the signal from the low air warning system that the vehicle has lost its service brake system. We understand that this would not exempt us from the requirement that "a reservoir shall be provided..." however it should remove the release requirement in emergency situations and would result in improved vehicle safety.

Please respond as quickly as possible to these requests for interpretations. We again point out that the absence of compliance checks at the OE level have placed us at an extreme disadvantage when compared to systems that were being marketed prior to discontinuation of compliance inspections. Thanks again for your assistance and early reply.

Regards, Ron Luce enc.:

See 3/14/77 letter from F. Berndt to Sergio Campanini, The Berg Manufacturing Company. See also 8/27/79 letter from F. Berndt to The Berg Manufacturing Company. See also 9/30/77 letter from R.L. Carter to R.W. Hildebrandt, The Bendix Corporation.

ID: 22058

Mr. Bob Snyder
Vice President
Longacre and Associates, Inc.
424 Fourth Street, Suite C
Annapolis, MD 21403





Dear Mr. Snyder:

This responds to your letter asking about the audible seat belt warning requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our response. Specifically, you ask the following questions:

1. Are vehicles allowed to have an intermittent audible warning longer than 8 seconds if a front seat occupant (driver or passenger) does not buckle his or her seat belt?
2. If so, when did the requirement change to allow an intermittent audible warning longer than 8 seconds?
3. Can the intermittent audible warning remain on indefinitely if the seat belt is not buckled?
4. Are continuous audible warnings allowed indefinitely?
5. What were the differences in the audible requirements for automatic and manual seat belt systems?

You asked your questions in the context of an article you read about Ford's "Belt-Minder" device. The issues raised by your letter are discussed below.

Paragraph S7.3 has long required that the driver's seating position be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

To meet this requirement, a manufacturer must provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that lasts for a period no shorter than 4 seconds and no longer than 8 seconds. The issue raised by your letter is whether a manufacturer that meets this requirement may also voluntarily provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that sounds outside the required 4-8 second period.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that a manufacturer may voluntarily provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that sounds outside the required period. However, as we discuss below, some means must be provided for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal.

We note that the 8-second limitation on the audible signal required by paragraph S7.3 reflects a statutory requirement. 49 U.S.C. 30124 provides, in relevant part, that a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by . . . using . . . a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the 'start' or 'on' position." Congress enacted the predecessor to this provision in 1974 as part of legislation responding to public resistance to seat belt interlock systems, which prevented a vehicle from starting unless its seat belts were fastened. The Conference Report noted that the legislation prohibited the establishment of a continuous buzzer (one longer than 8 seconds) "as a mandatory or optional motor vehicle safety standard." See House Report 93-14521, pp. 44-45.

Given this statutory provision, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not have the authority to require, or specify as a compliance option, an audible seatbelt warning that sounds outside the specified 8 second period. However, the statute does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from voluntarily providing audible signals that sound outside that period. Nor do we believe it appropriate to interpret Standard No. 208 to prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily providing audible signals outside that period. We note that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are "minimum standards," and manufacturers are permitted to go beyond the requirements of a standard. Moreover, we believe that Congress, in prohibiting this agency from specifying an audible seat belt warning longer than 8 seconds as a requirement or as an option, wanted to ensure that the Federal government would not be in the position of requiring or inducing vehicle manufacturers to provide a device that was unduly annoying or irritating to vehicle occupants, even though such a device might provide safety benefits. This does not, however, mean that vehicle manufacturers should be precluded from providing audible seat belt warning devices that sound outside the 8 second period that provide safety benefits without being unduly annoying or irritating.

Given Standard No. 208's requirement that the required seat belt warning be no longer than 8 seconds, a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal must provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. Such differentiation could be provided in various ways, e.g., by time (the voluntarily provided signal begins well after the required signal ends) or sound (the voluntarily provided signal has a different sound than the required signal).

I believe the above discussion is responsive to your first four questions. You also asked about the differences in the audible signal requirements for automatic and manual seat belt systems. However, you did not explain what sort of differences you are interested in. I note that the warning requirements for automatic seat belts may be found in paragraph S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208. While there are a variety of differences between S7.3 and S4.5.3.3, both paragraphs require activation, under specified circumstances, of a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

Finally, I note that in a letter to Joseph W. Phebus, Esq., dated August 7, 1996, we took the position, in the context of S4.5.3.3, that a chime that sounded at intervals of one minute if the belt is not buckled would not be permitted, given the requirement that the required audible signal may not be activated for a period of more than 8 seconds. For the reasons discussed above, we have reconsidered that interpretation and conclude that it was incorrect.

I hope this information answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.5/25/01

ID: 1735y

Raymond F. Brady, Esq.
1216 N.W. 8th Avenue
Gainesville, FL 32601

Dear Mr. Brady:

This responds to your letter asking whether certain seats in a limousine would be considered "designated seating positions" within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR /571.3. You stated that the seats in question are two free-standing, rearward facing passenger seats installed in the rear passenger compartment of a limousine. According to your letter, these seats are mounted to the floor and do not fold into the back of another seat, nor are these seats labeled to indicate that they are not designated for occupancy while the limousine is in motion. In a February 24, 1989 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that the vehicles in which these seats are installed have not previously been sold for purposes other than resale. If the situation is as described in your letter, these seats would be considered "designated seating positions" within the meaning of 49 CFR /571.3.

Title 49 CFR /571.3 defines a "designated seating position" as follows:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

The seats described in your letter appear to be capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female. Further, the overall seat configuration and design and the limousine's design is such that these seats appear likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. Finally, the seats do not appear to be auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. For a more complete explanation of what type of seats the agency considers to be "auxiliary seating accommodations," I have enclosed an April 28, 1971 letter from this agency to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota. Based on these conclusions, this agency would consider each of the two rear facing seats to be "designated seating positions." If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:571 d:3/13/89

ID: nht88-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: GERALD PETERSON -- TARACO ENTERPRISES INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/17/88 FROM GERALD PETERSON TO ERIKA JONES; OCC - 2052; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM CARL C CLARK TO JERRY PETERSON; LETTER DATED 09/29/86 FROM DALE T FANZO TO DIANE STEED

TEXT: Dear Mr. Peterson:

This responds to your May 17, 1988 letter to me asking for "information on petitions filed, concerning the safety problems on trucks." You also enclosed for the agency's information materials on the product you manufacture called a "Truk-Hedrest." Accord ing to the brochures you sent, the Truk-Hedrest attaches to the rear window of a vehicle by means of velcro and "is designed to help protect the head of the driver and passenger of a truck or van in an accident when their head is snapped back against the rear window or bulkhead of a vehicle." You also enclosed a copy of an August 28, 1987 letter which Mr. Carl Clark of this agency sent you regarding your product. The latter part of this letter addresses statements in your brochures relating to our regu lations and the Truk-Hedrest.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shares your concern for light truck safety and is currently reviewing a number of actions intended to improve the protection for occupants of such vehicles. This review has been described in det ail in the enclosed reports to Congress issued by NHTSA in May 1987 ("Light Truck and Van Safety") and April 1988 ("Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles"). Among the rulemaking activities considered by NHTSA for light tru cks is a possible extension of Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, to those vehicles. The agency is presently reviewing petitions for rulemaking on this subject from Mr. Dale T. Fanzo of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania and Mr. Mark E. Goodson of Lewisvi lle, Texas. I have enclosed copies of these petitions for your information.

With regard to the brochures and materials you sent on your product, I would like to first to make it clear that Mr. Clark's letter on the Truk-Hedrest only expressed his personal opinions and interests concerning your product. His letter does not repre sent any official agency position regarding light truck safety in general or regarding your product in particular. Mr. Clark's letter was neither an approval nor

endorsement of your product by this agency. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. In addition, the agency cannot as a matter of law and will not as a matter of policy determine t he extent, if any, of the occupant protection provided by any commercial product apart from the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Thus, the agency does not concur in any manner with Mr. Clark's assessement that the Truk-Hedrest "does indeed pr ovide excellent head protection" or with any other statement as to the effectiveness of your product.

Second, your brochures imply that the Truk-Hedrest has been shown to help protect against possible neck and head injuries when tested to "NHTSA guidelines." NHTSA has neither adopted or even developed guidelines for testing the Truk-Hedrest. Again, in h is letter to you Mr. Clark provided only his personal opinion on certain aspects of your product testing program. He expressed no agency recommendations or "guidelines" for testing a product such as yours "for rear end collisions up to 50 MPH," or with bowling balls, since no such guidelines exist.

My final clarification concerns the statements in your brochures that the Truk-Hedrest "Passes MVSS-302 Test for fire and toxic fumes." Please note that Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, addresses only the flammability resistance of v ehicle components and not the toxicity of gases from burning materials.

With respect to your statment about meeting the FMVSS 302 requirement regarding fire, please note that if the Truk-Hedrest did not in fact meet those requirements and were installed in a vehicle by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or rep air business, there could be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits those persons from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal motor ve hicle safety standards. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS 302.

To repeat, in his letter to you Mr. Clark was only expressing his personal opinions and interests concerning your product and made no statements that should be construed as official agency positions. NHTSA does not endorse the Truk-Hedrest nor do we mak e any determination on the extent, if any, of the occupant protection provided by your product. I regret any confusion that may have resulted from Mr. Clark's letter to you on the Truk-Hedrest.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

ENCLOSURES

ID: NCC-250121-001 FMVSS No 135.Parking Brake Indicator-lanetta signed 11.8.25

October 8, 2025

U.S. Department of Transportation 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE. 

Washington, DC 20590

Ms. Christie Iannetta 

Nelson Mullins 

101 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Suite 900

Washington, DC 20001   

Dear Ms. Iannetta:

I am writing in response to your letter addressed to NHTSA dated January 15, 2025, asking the agency to reconsider an interpretation issued on October 31, 2024 ("the interpretation").1 The interpretation was issued in response to a request you submitted on behalf of an anonymous client on February 26, 2024. In the request, you asked for clarification on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 135, "Light vehicle brake systems." Specifically, you asked about paragraph S5.5.1, which sets out requirements for when certain brake indicators must be activated. In the interpretation, the agency concluded that the parking brake system described in your letter likely would not comply with FMVSS No. 135's requirements. 

Your January 15 letter requests that we reconsider the interpretation. After considering your request and evaluating the conclusion and analysis in the interpretation, we do not believe we misunderstood your original interpretation request, and we are not reconsidering the interpretation. A detailed explanation of our reasoning follows. 

Background 

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. 

Please also note that our answer below is based on our understanding of the specific information provided in your letter. This letter does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is intended only to provide clarity regarding existing 

1 NHTSA Interpretation File Search, ID: NCC-230308-001, https://www.nhtsa.gov/interpretations/ncc-230308-001- nelsonmullinsparkingbrakeindicatorinterp.

requirements under the law and represents the opinion of the agency on the questions addressed in your letter at the time of signature. 

FMVSS No. 135 establishes requirements for light vehicle braking systems. Paragraph S5.5.1 therein requires indicators to be activated when the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" ("run") position and one or more of seven scenarios occur. Paragraph (c) of S5.5.1 requires an indicator to be activated upon "application of the parking brake." Therefore, if the parking brake is applied and the vehicle's ignition is in the "on" position, a parking brake indicator must be activated. 

You explain that your client's vehicle uses an Electronic Parking Brake (EPB) system where the parking brake can be applied manually by the driver or automatically by the system. The driver can engage the parking brake via the in-vehicle control at any time before shifting the vehicle into park, and when the parking brake is engaged by the driver, the parking brake indicator displays clearly in front of the driver. However, the EPB system can also apply the parking brake on its own, and it does so whenever the vehicle is shifted into park. If the EPB system engages the parking brake on its own, the parking brake indicator does not display. Finally, regardless of how the parking brake is engaged (by the driver or by the EPB system), the parking brake always disengages automatically once the vehicle is shifted out of park, or in some vehicles, when the brake pedal is depressed. 

In the interpretation we concluded that your client's system is likely not compliant with the requirements of FMVSS No. 135. Specifically, we explained that S5.5.l(c) requires that if a vehicle ignition is in the "on" position and the parking brake is applied, an indicator must activate to inform the driver of the status of the parking brake. You may reference the interpretation for our complete analysis on the issue. 

In your January 15 letter, you express your belief that we misunderstood an important fact about the manufacturer's parking brake system, and that we failed to consider relevant regulatory context. 

NHTSA's Response 

We adequately understood the functionality of your client's parking brake system, and we also considered all of the relevant regulatory background. 

NHTSA Did Not Misunderstand Your Client's EPB System 

You indicate that we purportedly failed to understand that it is impossible for your client's vehicle to be driven with the parking brake applied because the system is designed to disengage whenever the vehicle is shifted out of park. Your letter quotes the following line from the interpretation as evidence that we misunderstood this crucial fact about the EPB system: "nothing prevents the vehicle from driving during this engagement." (See interpretation p. 3, ID: NCC-230308-001). 

When we drafted the interpretation, we did so with a complete understanding that your client's vehicle is designed to make it impossible to drive with the parking brake activated. We considered this fact when analyzing your client's system under the requirements of paragraph S5.5.1(c). We concluded that even though your client's vehicle design may potentially address the safety concern of driving with the parking brake activated, manufacturers may not disregard FMVSS requirements because they feel they have resolved the safety issue the standard was designed to address. As we stated in the interpretation, "[I]f a manufacturer believes that it has developed technology that makes certain regulatory requirements unnecessary, it may petition the agency for a rulemaking to amend the relevant requirements." Until the standard is amended, manufacturers must certify in good faith to the current requirements. 

NHTSA Did Not Ignore Important Regulatory Context 

You assert that the stated purpose of paragraph S5.5.l(c) is to prevent drivers from driving with the parking brake on, and your client's EPB system addresses that safety concern. Not only did we consider this argument in the interpretation, but our response to this argument was a central component of the interpretation. As we stated in the interpretation:

Just because a manufacturer has designed a system that purports to resolve, through other means, a safety concern addressed in an FMVSS does not mean that it is not bound by the requirements of the FMVSS or that it may introduce noncompliant motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment to the market. If a manufacturer believes that it has developed technology that makes certain regulatory requirements unnecessary, it may petition the agency for a rulemaking to amend the relevant requirements. 

We understood then that your client believes it has created an EPB system that addresses the stated safety purpose of paragraph S5.5.l(c)'s parking indicator requirement. As noted, manufacturers must certify compliance with the express terms of an FMVSS, and not just with its stated purpose. In this case, we believe that even if your client's system may address the stated safety purpose underlying paragraph S5.5.l(c), it does not comply with the paragraph's requirements. 

Nor is your argument about the test procedures set out in FMVSS No. 135 S7.12.2 persuasive. You note that the parking brake test procedure requires a vehicle to be put into neutral and the parking brake applied, after which the parking brake must hold the vehicle stationary for a specific amount of time. One of the steps in the test procedure (S7.12.2(m)) is for the test conductor to verify the operation of the parking brake application indicator. You assert that the parking brake indicator is only evaluated after the performance of the steps within the test procedure in S7.12.2, during which the parking brake is applied manually. 

However, nothing in the parking brake test procedure negates paragraph S5.5.l(c)'s parking brake indicator requirement. The requirements that the brake system warning indicators illuminate under specified conditions exists independent of any test procedure. The duration during which a brake system warning indicator must be displayed is addressed in paragraph S5.5.3, which provides that each warning indicator "shall remain activated as long as the condition exists, whenever the ignition ('start') switch is in the 'on' ('run') position, whether or not the engine is running." Nothing in the test procedures purports to alter or limit this requirement. Thus, your client must be able to certify in good faith that its vehicle's parking brake indicator appears in plain view of the driver whenever the parking brake is engaged. We do not believe your client is able to do so based on your description of its EPB system. We note also that the final inspection procedure in paragraph S7.17 requires inspection of "[t]he brake system indicators, for compliance with operation in various key positions, lens color, labeling, and location, in accordance with S5.5." We expect that noncompliance with the requirement of paragraph S5.5.l(c) would be observed during this final inspection. 

I hope this letter provides clarity on NHTSA's stance on this matter. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. David Jasinski of my staff at interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov.

Sincerely,

Peter Simshauser 

Chief Counsel

Dated: 10/8/25
Ref: FMVSS No. 135

ID: nht89-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/13/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: RAYMOND F. BRADY

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/14/89 FROM RAYMOND F. BRADY TO NHTSA, REF 2912; LETTER DATED 12/16/88 FROM RAYMOND F. BRADY TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Brady:

This responds to your letter asking whether certain seats in a limousine would be considered "designated seating positions" within the meaning of the definition of that term in 49 CFR @ 571.3. You stated that the seats in question are two free-standing, rearward facing passenger seats installed in the rear passenger compartment of a limousine. According to your letter, these seats are mounted to the floor and do not fold into the back of another seat, nor are these seats labeled to indicate that they are not designated for occupancy while the limousine is in motion. In a February 24, 1989 telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you explained that the vehicles in which these seats are installed have not previously been sold for purpo ses other than resale. If the situation is as described in your letter, these seats would be considered "designated seating positions" within the meaning of 49 CFR @ 571.3.

Title 49 CFR @ 571.3 defines a "designated seating position" as follows:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

The seats described in your letter appear to be capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female. Further, the overall seat configuration and design and the limousine's design is such that these seats appear likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. Finally, the seats do not appear to be auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. For a more complete explanation of what type of seats the agency considers t o be "auxiliary seating accommodations," I have enclosed an April 28, 1971 letter from this agency to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota. Based on these conclusions, this agency would consider each of the two rear facing seats to be "designated seating positions."

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: 10754

Mr. Truman J. Lothen
1340 42nd Ave. NE
Minneapolis, MN 55421

Dear Mr. Lothen:

This responds to your letter of February 6, 1995, requesting information on requirements applicable to a "van seat/bed for aftermarket installation." Your questions and our response to each follows.

Does your department have safety standards that must (should) be designed into aftermarket vehicles seats?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is required to "self-certify" that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There are five safety standards that are relevant to your inquiry: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Hence, any seat belts installed on the aftermarket seat have to be certified as complying with Standard No. 209.

The remaining four standards apply only to new vehicles. If the aftermarket seat were installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including these four, with the aftermarket

seat installed. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. Finally, Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in motor vehicles, specifically including seat cushions, seat backs, and seat belts. While aftermarket seats, as items of equipment, are not required to meet these requirements, you may wish to use these standards as design guidelines.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122(b). That section provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "make inoperative" provision prohibits those entities from performing aftermarket modifications that they know or should know will degrade the safety of the vehicle as it was before the modification.

Please note also that the "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where vehicle owners install your seat in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

Finally, as a manufacturer, you would be subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). I have enclosed a sheet for new manufacturers that discusses the basic requirements of our standards and regulations, including the provisions relating to manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

This seat would be provided with a lap seat belt and shoulder belt with one end attached to the seat frame and the other to the vehicle structure similar to what's currently used in automobiles. What safety design standards must be incorporated into this restraint system?

As explained above, the seat belt would have to comply with Standard No. 209. If you install seat belts manufactured by another company, that company should have certified compliance with that standard.

Would this seat require compliance testing to meet safety requirements?

As noted above, if these seats are installed in a vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale for purposes other than resale, the vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards with the seat installed. NHTSA's position on what steps manufacturers must take before certifying that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards has been often stated and applies with equal force in your situation.

Our position is as follows. The compliance test procedures set forth in the safety standards must be followed by this agency during our compliance testing. With respect to your company's seats, this means that NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle would be conducted using the test procedures set forth in the relevant safety standard or standards. Manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to follow exactly the compliance test procedures set forth in the applicable standard. In fact, manufacturers are not required to conduct any actual testing before certifying that their products comply with applicable safety standards. However, to avoid liability for civil penalties if the vehicle were determined not to comply with a safety standard, the certifying manufacturer is required to exercise "reasonable care" to assure compliance and in making its certification. It may be simplest for the manufacturer to establish that it exercised "reasonable care" if the manufacturer has conducted testing that strictly followed the compliance test procedures set forth in the standard. However, "reasonable care" might also be shown by using modified test procedures, engineering analyses, computer simulations, and the like. Thus, the entity that installs your seat in a vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale will have to decide for itself, in the first instance, what information it needs to make its certification in the exercise of "reasonable care."

As noted above, if the seat were installed after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop that performed the installation would have to ensure that the installation did not "make inoperative" compliance with any applicable safety standard. Your company should carefully examine your product and the proposed installation instructions and compare those with the requirements of the safety standards, to determine if installing your product in accordance with your instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. I have enclosed information on how to get copies of those standards and regulations. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure ref: 207 d:3/31/95

ID: nht87-1.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/10/74 letter from Lawrence R. Schneider to city of Philadelphia; 12/15/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr. to Bud Shuster

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Manager, Environmental Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, NJ 07645

This letter concerns your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, as it applies to the antitheft device BMW intends to install on the Carline 7 passenger car line for model year 1988. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

On October 9, 1986, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register granting BMW's petition for an exemption from the marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard, based on its determination that an effective antitheft device will be in stalled on those lines as standard equipment. (51 FR 36333.) However, because NHTSA wished to further consider the compliance of the double-lock aspect of the central locking system with Standard No. 206, we granted the petition while reserving decision on that issue. We have completed our evaluation of the double-lock system and have determined it is permitted by the standard.

In its petition for the marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard, BMW described an antitheft device which, among other things, prevents entry into the vehicle by affecting the door locks in the following manner:

The inside locking mechanism operating means is a vertical plunger on each door, and the plungers on the front doors override the two rear door plungers. To prevent locking the keys in the car upon exiting, the front doors can only be locked with a key. for convenience, this also locks all the other doors; if they are open at the time of locking, they lock when closed.

The locks in the front doors have three-position cylinders - off, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees. Upon exiting, if the key is turned 45 degrees and removed from the lock, the doors, trunk and gas filler door are locked. If, however, the key is rotated 90 deg rees and removed, the car's burglar alarm is armed and the doors are "double locked"; after the plungers move downward, the central locking system is deactivated and the door locks are mechanically inhibited. Thus locked, neither an outside nor inside ha ndle, nor a locking plunger can be used to unlock a door - the doors can only be unlocked and the alarm disarmed using a key in a front door lock... Disconnecting the battery does not unlock the doors or change the "double locked" mode... In the event of an accident, an inertia switch automatically unlocks all doors.

The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows:

S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.

S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

The standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include the door lock requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadvertent door openi ngs due to impact upon or movement of inside or outside door handles. other objectives were to protect against children opening rear door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicl e (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.

Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the operating means to disengage requisite door locking mechanisms. As explained below, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 20 6 and past NHTSA interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only additional locking systems which interfere with the capability of the operating means to engage the locking system required by the standard. Since according to your letter of September 24, 1986, BMW's double-lock feature does not interfere with the interior operating means' engagement of the required door locks, the secondary locking system is permitted.

The answer to your question about the double lock system is dependent on whether the system interferes with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 of the standard are written in terms of what must occur when the required locking system is engaged and impose no requirements for the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking m echanism is engaged. Since we have determined that S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks, we conclude that the required aspect of performance in S4.1.3 for door locking mechanisms is that the interior o perating means be capable only of engaging the locks. We thus conclude that the standard permits an additional door locking device which might interfere with the disengagement of the required locking system. The additional system, however, must not inter fere with the capability of the operating means to engage the required door locks.

In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 206 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to "minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a re sult of impact." Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements for occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibits a device which negates the capability of the inside o perating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system.

This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies past agency statements on issues raised by secondary locking systems. To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations issued in the past, the previous int erpretations are overruled.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Brian McLaughlin, NHTSA

RE: BMW Petition for Exemption from Part 541 - Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

Dear Mr. McLaughlin:

In our recent telephone conversation, you informed us of NHTSA's reservation about BMW's double-lock feature as described in our petition for exemption from Part 541.

In particular, you indicated concern about the compliance aspect of this feature with FMVSS 206, S4.1.3.

We ask that you consider the following, which shows why the door lock and anti-theft system is in compliance, is safe, and has potential for saving lives by deterring theft.

DESCRIPTION OF DOOR LOCKING SYSTEM IN NEW BMW CARLINE 7

The new BMW Carline 7 passenger car is a four-door sedan with a standard central locking system and an auxiliary anti-theft system incorporating, among other things, a double-lock feature. This additional feature ensures significantly greater security ag ainst attempts of unauthorized persons to open the doors when the car is parked. While the double-lock feature is separate from the central locking system, it is natural to combine it into the total locking system for convenient but distinct operation.

CENTRAL LOCKING SYSTEM

The locks in the front doors have three-position cylinders - off, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees. The locking mechanism of the central locking system is activated by rotating the key 45 degrees in either the driver's door or the front passenger door lock. Th e inside locking mechanism operating means is a vertical-moving plunger on each of the four doors. If raised, the plunger allows opening the door via either inside or outside door handle. In the lowered position, the door cannot be opened by using either the inside or outside door handle.

If any of the four plungers is pushed down into the lowered position by an occupant of the car, it can easily be raised again by that person inside the car. Occupants can lock and unlock the back doors individually via the door plungers, or all doors sim ultaneously using the plunger on either front door.

To prevent locking the key in the car upon exiting, the car can only be locked by using the ignition key in a front door after the door has been closed.

Upon exiting, if the key is turned 45 degrees in the lock and removed in the conventional manner, all four door plungers are lowered, the doors are locked and the door plungers remain operable.

ANTI-THEFT LOCKING

If the key is rotated twice as far as the normal locking position, past the detent to the 90 degree position and removed from the lock, the doors are "double-locked"; the plungers remain lowered and, additional to the central locking system, the door loc ks are mechanically inhibited. In this mode, the door plungers cannot be moved from their lowered position, and neither an outside nor inside handle, nor a locking plunger can be used to deactivate the theft system - it can only be deactivated by using t he key in a front door lock. This prevents use of a slimjim, or slipping in a wire to lift a plunger, and prevents opening a door by breaking a window and reaching in to use a door handle or plunger.

SYSTEM COMPLIES WITH STANDARD AND ITS INTENT

FMVSS 206, 54.1.3 requires each door to have a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 defines the function of the operating means to be the engaging of the locking mechanism by requiring the front door locking mechanism to make the outside door handle inoperative. From the disengaged condition, the BMW door lock can be engaged at all times, thus locking the outside door handle as required by S4.1.3.1.; the double-lock feature, then, in no way interferes with the lock's capability of being engaged at any time.

The stated purpose, "S1 ... to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact.", shows that the standard was not intended to ensure occupant egress, but to prevent the occupant from being ejected from the vehicle under certain circumstances. Further support for this is provided by NHTSA's May 10, 1974 letter of interpretation to the City of Philadelphia, wherein it is stated that FMVSS 206 does not require inside door handles, and that no federal standard requir es window handles.

The entire history of this rulemaking points toward this objective. In 34FR158 of Aug. 19, 1969 the Agency stated the standard's purpose succinctly, "... retaining the driver and passengers in case of collision...", and in 36FR1913 of Feb. 3, 1971, "... intended to afford protection against ejection through side doors ...". The agency thus has demonstrated that FMVSS 206 does not address egress from the vehicle, but rather the prevention of being thrown from the vehicle during an accident. NHTSA has not in the intervening 12 years since provided otherwise by amending this standard.

Our lock fully complies with this intention. In the engaged position, the BMW door lock disables the outer door handle to prevent occupants from being ejected during impact and the double-lock in no way interferes with the lock's capability of being enga ged to make the outside door handle inoperative.

Also, the requirement of the standard to have an operating means inside the vehicle presupposes that there is someone inside the vehicle to operate this means. Our door lock system complies with that requirement of FMVSS 206. When a vehicle is parked and left unattended, the driver may activate, in addition to the vehicle's normal locking mechanism, a vehicle anti-theft system. This system, which has an integrated double-lock feature, is not used when the vehicle is occupied. The Owner's Handbook will c aution the vehicle operator to activate the anti-theft system only when the vehicle is parked and left unattended, much the same as the Handbook warns against removal of the ignition key when the vehicle is in motion, because the anti-theft steering lock would be engaged and the vehicle rendered unsteerable.

It is further our position that the double-lock is an additional feature that does not prevent the primary lock from complying, much like the child safety lock, which, although it does not interfere with the operation of the locking mechanism per se, pre vents the opening of the door. In that respect the child safety lock has greater egress consequences, since it is intended to be in operation when the vehicle is occupied.

GUARDED AGAINST ENTRAPMENT

The operating means of the anti-theft system also provides security against entrapment. In order to activate the anti-theft system from inside the vehicle, the ignition key is required. For the vehicle to be driven with the anti-theft system activated, t he driver would have to use the key to start the engine, open a window, turn off the engine, remove the key from the ignition switch, open,and close the door, reach through the open window, insert the key in an outside door lock, turn the key past the de tent to the 90 degree position, remove the key, and reinsert it in the ignition switch and restart the engine - A MOST IMPROBABLE SCENARIO.

Further when the engine is running, or the key is in the accessory position, the doors cannot be double-locked, even if a second key is used in a door lock cylinder. The double-lock system cannot be engaged until the key is removed from the ignition and the driver's door is then opened and reclosed.

The lock inhibit position can only be achieved by inserting the ignition key in the outside keyhole of a front door and rotating the key past the detent through 90 degrees. In this condition, for anti-theft purposes, all plungers are lowered, and plunger s and inside and outside door handles are locked in position, and no door can be opened. Standing at the side of the car while locking the door with the key. a person can easily see the entire inside of the vehicle, including any person inside and a blin king warning light on top of the dashboard indicating that the anti-theft system is engaged. Thus, the probability of a person accidently being locked inside is virtually nil.

Because a passerby can also see into the passenger compartment, intentional entrapment in the passenger compartment is equally unlikely considering the availability of the car's trunk for that purpose. In this connection, we note that in 49FR47276 of Dec ember 3, 1984, NHTSA denied a petition for rulemaking that would have required a handle on the inside of a car's trunk lid, on the basis that entrapment is extremely unlikely. We submit that entrapment inside the passenger compartment is even less likely and therefore not a real concern.

DOUBLE-LOCK SYSTEM WILL SAVE LIVES

In the letter of interpretation of December 15, 1978 to Congressman Bud Shuster, NHTSA conceded that there are competing safety considerations involved with front door locks.

During the rulemaking process for FMVSS 114, Theft Protection, NHTSA made the point that stolen cars are much more likely to be involved in accidents than unstolen cars. In 43FR18578 of May 1, 1978, and again in 45FR85450 of December 29, 1980, NHTSA stat es that stolen cars are 47 to 200 times more likely to be in an accident.

There is no question that the double-lock system will make it extremely difficult for an unauthorized entry into the vehicle and therefore will significantly reduce auto theft. Based on NHTSA's own accident analysis of stolen vs. unstolen vehicles, we ca n only conclude that the BMW door lock system will save more lives than a vehicle without such a feature. Further, this anti-theft device has received no objection in Europe, Japan, Australia and other countries having a type-approval procedure and we st rongly believe that the effectiveness of the system together with the overall safety benefit it provides, due to the reduced theft rate, should not be compromised for some perceived negative impact the system might have in the unlikely event of misuse.

Since this is such an important issue to us, we ask you to hold our petition in abeyance if you still have concern.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Environmental Engineering

See 5/10/74 letter from Lawrence R. Schneider to City of Philadelphia and 12/15/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr. to Bud Shuster.