ID: nht90-3.99

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1990

FROM: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs, Nissan Research and Development, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-26-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Nishibori (A36; Std. 114); Also attached to Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 104, 5-30-90 Edition), pages 21868-21876 (text omitted)

TEXT:

On June 29, 1990, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. ("Nissan"), submitted to NHTSA petition for reconsideration regarding the May 30 amendments to FMVSS 114. In that petition, Nissan requested that NHTSA amend FMVSS 114 insofar as necessary to permit the continued use of three systems on vehicles that are equipped with automatic transmissions. These systems, as described in the petition, are a transmission shift lock override, an emergency key release, and a transmission park lock system.

Nissan filed its petition within 30 days of the issuance of the final rule, as required under 49 CFR 553.35, in order to preserve its right to request reconsideration of the rule. However, based on our review of the final rule and after demonstrating the Nissan systems to agency staff on July 13, it appears that the determination of whether these systems comply with the amended rule is not entirely clear. Therefore, we request your opinion as to whether the these systems are consistent with the requirements established in the May 30 notice.

Shift Lock Emergency Override

The shift lock emergency override system is operable by depressing a button on the lower, rear portion (as viewed by the driver) of the shift lever. By depressing the button, the transmission may be shifted out of "park," independent of the ignition key position or whether the key is in the ignition switch. Nissan considers this system to be necessary to necessary to permit the towing of a vehicle having an inoperative electrical system (e.g., with a battery that failed overnight). Without the device, the electrically powered transmission could not be shifted out of "PARK," thereby complicating the process of towing of the vehicle to a repair facility.

The compliance concern with respect to this system involves the new requirement that the "key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key." See section 4.2(b).

The Nissan system prevents removal of the key whenever the transmission is in a position other than "park," consistent with this provision; the key may be removed only when the transmission has been shifted into "park" (except when using the emergency key release, described below). When the transmission is shifted into "park" and the key is removed, the transmission remains locked in "park" until it is unlocked, either by

turning the ignition key to the "on" position and depressing the brake pedal or by operating the emergency shift release override. Thus, the Nissan system appears to be consistent with the language of section 4.2(b).

Please inform us whether this system complies with the recent amendments to FMVSS 114.

In our petition for reconsideration (section 1(b)), we described an alternative shift lock system, in which the manual override would be operable only after removing a cover over the override lever. We believe that this system would also comply with the amended rule, for the reasons set forth above, with respect to our current system. It should be noted that the alternative system would prevent shifting the transmission out of the "park" position when the ignition key has been removed, so long as the vehicle is in its normal (fully assembled) operating mode. Only after the cover over the override lever has been removed and the lever has been activated can the shift lever be moved in this situation. Please inform us as to whether this alternative system would comply with the amended rule.

Emergency Key Release

The second Nissan system facilitates removal of the ignition key in the event of an electrical system failure. In that event, the ignition key lock system would prevent removal of the key. Moving the transmission shift lever to the "park" position, if the failure occurs when the transmission is in a position other than "park," would not de-activate the electrically operated key-lock, due to the absence of electrical power. Nissan's emergency key release system permits overriding the ignition key lock in this situation, so that the ignition key can be removed from the vehicle and the driver can lock the vehicle and leave to seek assistance.

In the normal vehicle operating mode, the Nissan system clearly complies with section 4.2(b), since it prevents ignition key removal unless the transmission lever is in the "park" position. The emergency key release system permits key removal only after some disassembly and manipulation of the key lock have been performed. The emergency key release override is activated by first removing a cover over the ignition switch, by using a screw driver or similar tool. Next, a hidden lever that is located inside the exposed ignition switch compartment in the steering column must be manipulated, again using an object such as a screw driver.

We believe that the emergency key release system presents no safety or theft protection concerns. For example, it would be extremely difficult to activate the emergency override while the vehicle is in motion. Similarly, we believe that it is extremely unlikely that the override would encourage drivers to leave their ignition keys in their vehicles and thereby risk vehicle theft. The relative difficulty of the override process makes either of these circumstances quite unlikely.

It should be noted that virtually any key locking system can be overriden through some form of lock disassembly and associated procedures. Thus, the Nissan system differs from others in this regard at most as a matter

of degree.

We request your opinion as to whether the Nissan emergency key release system complies with FMVSS 114.

Park Lock System

Nissan's park lock system prevents drivers from inadvertently depressing the accelerator pedal rather than the brake pedal when shifting a vehicle out of "park." The transmission shift lever can be moved from the "park" position only if two conditions are met:

1) the ignition key is in the "on" position; and

2) the brake pedal is depressed.

If the transmission is placed in "park," the shift lever locks in that position when the ignition key is turned to the "off" position.

Nissan was initially concerned that this system might not comply with section 4.3 of FMVSS 114 since, as noted above, the ignition key activates the transmission shift lock. However, under the wording adopted in NHTSA's final rule, it is only the "key-locking system described in section 4.2(b)" that may not be activated by turning "off" the ignition key. Section 4.2(b) now appears to apply only to the steering column lock and the key removal lock features (which are not activated by turning "off" the ignition), not the transmission shift lock. Therefore, we now believe that the park lock system complies with section 4.3.

It is our understanding that the agency's intent in establishing section 4.3 was to prevent the potentially dangerous situation that could result if the ignition key of a moving vehicle were turned to the "off" position and the steering column then became locked. In that situation, it would be impossible to steer the vehicle. The Nissan park lock system presents no concern of this sort.

Please inform us whether our current understanding on this matter is correct.

To the extent that you conclude that the three Nissan systems comply with the FMVSS 114 amendments, the requests made in our petition for reconsideration would become moot. For any of these systems that you determine to comply with the standard, as amended, please consider the relevant portion of our petition to be withdrawn. If you determine that any of the systems do not comply, Nissan requests that you consider the applicable portions of the petition and amend the standard to permit the use of the systems.

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Kazuo Iwasaki of my staff, at 466-5284.

ID: nht90-4.1

ID: nht90-4.10

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 17, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Samson Helfgott -- Esq., Helfgott & Karas, P.C.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-11-90 from S. Helfgott to S.P. Wood (OCC 4890)

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of June 11, 1990 (Your file CAIN 8877), with respect to the permissibility under Standard No. 108 of the use of amber lamps on the rear of motor vehicles.

You have referenced our letter to you of March 30, 1989, on the use of a single amber lamp adjacent to, but separate from, the center highmounted stop lamp. Your client wishes to utilize the amber center lamp in conjunction with rear amber turn signal l amps to provide an amber triangular array on the rear. The array would be activated when the ignition is turned on, and remain activated except when the stop lamps were activated (which, with the red center lamp, provide a red triangular array). With r espect to the triangular amber lamp array you have asked the following four questions:

"1. The possibility of utilizing the amber turn signals as tail lights, instead of the red tail lamps. This is the same as is now in effect on the front of all vehicles."

Standard No. 108 requires that the color of taillamps be red. Therefore amber turn signal lamps could not serve as substitutes for taillamps. Your comment about frontal lighting is not exactly in point. A turn signal lamp may be combined with a parking lamp (provided the requirements for each are met) but Standard No. 108 requires that both be amber in color.

"2. The possibility of supplementing existing tail lamps with the presence of the amber lamps."

We do not regard this as a true supplement because the color of the array differs from that of the taillamps required by Standard No. 108. However, like taillamps, the array is intended to indicate the presence of a vehicle. The question is, whether an array of three amber lamps would impair the effectiveness of the required two red taillamps. As we advised in our letter of March 30, 1989, additional lighting equipment is permissible as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equ ipment that the standard requires. We cautioned that you should consider whether steady-burning amber lamps might confuse following drivers, who would probably be unused to seeing steady burning amber lamps on the rear of a vehicle. Because you have no t informed us as to the intended candela of the array, we cannot advise with any assurance whether the amber array would impair the effectiveness of the required red taillamps. Certainly if the candela of the triple amber arrray exceeded that of the red taillamps a basis would appear to exist for a judgment of impairment.

"3. The possibility of using the amber lamps as daytime running lamps on the rear of a vehicle.

Under this scenario, the amber array would function as daytime presence lamps, a function not provided by any rear lighting system required by Standard No. 108. The question therefore is whether such a system would impair the effectiveness of the signal lamps required by Standard No. 108. These are hazard warning signals, turn signals, and stop lamps.

With respect to the hazard warning signals, these operate through the turn signal lamps, and, although operable when the vehicle is in motion, they are designed to operate when the ignition is not on (i.e., when the triple array would be deactivated). T herefore, we do not believe that the triple array would impair the effectiveness of the hazard warning signals.

As for impairment of the turn signals, we must distinguish between those that are amber and those that are red. Again, we raise the possibility that confusion could exist if the candela of the triple array exceeds that of an amber turn signal system. I t is imperative that following drivers understand without hesitation the signals provided by other vehicles in front of them. Confusion may be less likely to exist if the required signal lamp and the triple array differ in color.

Concerning the stop lamps, you have informed us that the triple array is deactivated when the stop lamps come on. In this event, there would be appear to be no impairment of the stop signals.

"4. The possibility of utilizing the 'amber triangular array' as described above."

In our view, no specific Federal rulemaking appears required for your client to offer its system for installation on motor vehicles, subject to the constraints expressed in this letter and the letter of March 30, 1989. As the earlier letter explains, the determination of whether there is impairment is initially made by a manufacturer who wishes to offer the system as new vehicle equipment. In the aftermarket, installation of the system must not, in effect, result in impairment of required lighting equi pment, but nevertheless the system is subject to State and local lighting laws.

We have forwarded a copy of your letter and our response to the agency's Office of Research and Development for their information. We appreciate your client's interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: nht90-4.100

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 17, 1990

FROM: Paul Rice Jackson -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dean J. Long -- Design Engineer, VDO-YAZAKI Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-90 from Dean J. Long (OCC 5100)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about requirements concerning two proposed automotive instrument panel telltale warnings. I apologize for the delay in this response.

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

Your first proposed telltale design is for "4 wheel antilock brake application." The design would include a picture of a skidding car and the letters "4W ABS." You asked whether this telltale would fulfill applicable requirements or whether the ISO "ABS" symbol must be used.

Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, requires that new vehicles with any display listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such display. In addition, certain other standards, including Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, include requirements relating to vehicle displays.

Standards No. 101 and No. 105 include several requirements for telltales indicating malfunction in an antilock brake system. Copies of these standards are enclosed for your convenience. Among other things, these standards specify the following identifying words or abbreviation for an antilock malfunction telltale: "Antilock, Anti-lock or ABS." The standards also permit additional words or symbols to be used for the purpose of clarity. See section S5.2.3 of Standard No. 101 and section S5.3.5(a) of Standard No. 105.

It is unclear from your letter whether your proposed telltale would indicate "malfunction" in an antilock brake system, since you describe it as indicating "4 wheel antilock brake application." If the telltale is for antilock malfunction, it would appear to meet the requirements specified in Standards No. 101 and No. 105 for identifying words or symbols, since it includes the abbreviation "ABS," and the other words/symbols can be considered to be for the purpose of clarity. Of course, the telltale would also need to meet the other requirements specified in those standards, e.g., size of letters, color, etc.

If the telltale does not indicate antilock malfunction, e.g., it only indicates when the antilock system is activated during braking, no requirements would apply to the telltale. Unless a particular telltale is

listed in Standard No. 101 (or is covered by another standard), no requirements apply to such telltale. If the telltale does not indicate antilock malfunction, however, I would suggest that you consider whether drivers would confuse the telltale with the required telltale for antilock malfunction.

Your second proposed telltale is for warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. Your design would include an outline of an engine and the word "CHECK." You asked whether the word "CHECK" is necessary, and whether the engine outline is an approved ISO symbol.

NHTSA does not have any requirements for a telltale warning against hazardous emissions from the vehicle. However, we suggest that you check with the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board as to whether they have any requirements (or are developing requirements) concerning such a telltale. You may contact those agencies at the following addresses:

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Mobile Sources Certification Branch 2565 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

Air Resources Board Certification Section 9528 Telstar Avenue El Monte, California 91731

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht90-4.11

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 17, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William T. Mullen -- Undersheriff of McHenry County, Illinois

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-25-89 from S.P. Wood to H. Reid; Also attached to letter dated 7-29-85 from J.R. Miller to F. Browne (Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 8-7-90 from W.T. Mullen to Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 5082)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for safety belts in police cars. Specifically, you asked if your police department could legally remove the automatic belts that are installed and replace them with manual lap/shoulder safet y belts. You stated that the reasons for making such a substitution would be to alleviate two problems your police officers have experienced with the automatic belts that were not present in older models that had manual lap/shoulder belts at the front s eating positions. First, you said that the automatic belts result in a blind spot on the driver's left side. Second, you said that the automatic belts "prevent left arm movements" of your taller officers. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to yo ur concerns.

I have enclosed copies of two previous letters we have written on the subject of removing or replacing occupant protection features from police cars. The first of these is a July 29, 1985 letter to Corporal Frank Browne and the other is a May 25, 1989 l etter to Senator Harry Reid. These letters explain that new vehicles purchased by police departments must be certified as complying with the occupant crash protection standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208). All cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must provide automatic crash protection for front seat occupants. To date, manufacturers have provided automatic crash protection either by installing air bags or automatic safety belts. General Motors, the manufacturer of the po lice cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing automatic safety belts in these cars.

Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from replacing the automatic belts in these police cars with manual lap/shoulder belts. Thus, none of these commercial entities could make such a replacement o n behalf of the County without violating Federal law. However, Federal law does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from removing safety features from their own vehicles. Thus, McHenry County itself can replace the automatic belts in its own cars wit hout violating any Federal law, just as any resident of McHenry County can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating any Federal laws. Such actions may, however, violate the laws of the State of Illinois.

I recommend that you carefully consider the effects of replacing the automatic belts in your police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the County itself from making these modifications to its own vehicles. The automatic belts in these cars help to assure safety belt

use by police officers on the job. Particularly since the McHenry County police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe it is important that they use safety belts for effective protection in case o f a crash. If you decide to replace the automatic belts in these vehicles with manual lap/shoulder belts, we would urge you to take some actions to assure that the police officers will use the manual lap/shoulder belts every time they ride in the police cars.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know.

ID: nht90-4.12

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs, Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-28-90 from S. Nishibori to P.J. Rice (OCC 4943); Attached to drawing (graphics omitted)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter dated June 28, 1990 requesting an interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, would apply to two vehicle systems Nissan is considering using.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of th e manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter, and during a discussion between Kazuo Iwasaki of your staff and Mary V ersailles of my staff in our offices on July 13th.

I. Car Phone

Nissan is considering introducing a car phone in certain passenger cars which has five illuminated displays. The first display shows the number being dialed. The display is illuminated whether or not the phone is in use, and the number dialed continues to be displayed while the phone is in use.

The second display illuminates the push buttons. The display becomes illuminated when the first button is pushed, and remains illuminated for 10 seconds.

The remainder of the car phone displays are LED indicators. The first indicator (IU) is illuminated when the phone is "in use". The second indicator (NS) is illuminated when cellular phone service is not available. The third indicator (RM) is illumina ted when outside the system's local operating area if the system is able to lock onto an available phone line. It is our understanding that there will be times when none of these three LED's will be illuminated and times when more than one of the LEDS c ould be illuminated (for example, both the IU and RM indicators).

None of the car phone displays can be turned off while the ignition switch is in the "ON" position. The illumination is not variable in any display.

You asked whether the car phone displays are "telltales" or other "sources of illumination," within the meaning of section S5.3.5, and whether the system is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 101.

Based upon our understanding of their functioning, the three LED indicators (IU, NS, and RM) would appear to be telltales. Both the IU and RM displays "indicate the actuation of a device", while the NS display indicates "a failure to function". Because the displays are not listed in the standard, and because they are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5 because they are telltales, they are not subject to any illumination requirements.

The other displays are not telltales. The functions of both the first display ("number dialed") and the second display ("push button") are not among those listed in the definition of a telltale. The "number dialed" display provides information in much the same way as a fuel gauge. The illumination of the push buttons functions to facilitate dialing.

Because these displays are not among those listed in Standard No. 101, and because they are not telltales, they are subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. Therefore, these displays must "have either (1) light intensity which is manually or autom atically adjustable to provide at least two levels of brightness, (2) a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or (3) a means of being turned off." Based upon your description, none of these requirements are currently met.

II. Air-conditioning Indicator Light

In certain vehicles, Nissan uses an indicator light that is illuminated only if both the air-conditioning operating switch and the ignition switch are in the "ON" position. You indicate that you believe the indicator is a telltale, and that if it is a t elltale "it would appear to meet the requirements of section 5.3.4, since the display is bright enough to be visible in all ambient lighting conditions."

Because the indicator light indicates actuation of a device, i.e., the air conditioner, you are correct that it is a telltale. NHTSA would like to clarify that, with the exception of the requirements of section S5.3.5, FMVSS 101 regulates only controls and displays listed in the standard. Since the air-conditioning indicator light you describe is not listed in the standard, and because telltales are exempt from the requirements of section S5.3.5, there are no illumination requirements.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.13

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Nelson Behar -- National Marketing Director, LooPo

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to NHTSA information sheet dated 9-85 entitled Where To Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations (text omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-11-90 from N. Behar to S. Kratzke

TEXT:

This responds to your fax to Steve Kratzke of my staff, in which you asked whether LooPo, which you described as "a seatbelt slacking device," complies with current regulatory and statutory requirements. I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide you with the following information.

It is not entirely clear how your company's "slacking device" would work. One type of "slacking device" is the comfort clip, in which a device is attached to the safety belt and can be positioned by an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the safe ty belt system by physically preventing the belt slack from being taken up by the belt's retractor. We have explained how our regulations apply to comfort clips in a February 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Lewis Quetel (copy enclosed). Another type of "slacking device" is one that clips the shoulder belt to the lap belt nearer the middle of the wearer's abdomen. We have explained how our regulations apply to these belt positioning devices in a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin (copy enclosed). I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, such as this product.

As our previous letters explain, aftermarket sales and installation of these devices by individual vehicle owners are not prohibited by any Federal statutory or regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, the use of these devices raises some serious safety c oncerns if the devices result in the introduction of excess slack into the shoulder belt or otherwise reduce the safety protection afforded by the safety belts.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 18, 1990

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- Mayer, Brown & Platt

TO: Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Fidelity Tire notification

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-6-90 to E.Z. Jones from S.P. Wood (A36; Std.119)

TEXT:

This letter confirms our telephone conversation of today in which you advised me that NHTSA is in receipt of notification dated January 5, 1990 from Fidelity Tire Manufacturing Company of Natchez, Mississippi regarding their manufacture of a tire, size P 155/8ODl3 Load Range C (41 psi and 1047 lb. load carrying capacity), with a specified wheel rim of 4 1/2 JB, 13". You advised me that the notification from Fidelity contains all the information necessary to comply with the notification requirements of Fe deral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 (S.5) for tires and rims not listed in the publication of a recognized tire and rim association.

Please advise me as soon as possible if my understanding of our conversation is not correct, as our client who has purchased these tires from Fidelity, will be proceeding to offer for sale a product employing these tires in reliance on our understanding that the notification requirements have been satisfied.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

ID: nht90-4.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Martin E. Simms -- Chartered Consulting Engineer

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to instruction sheet dated 9-85 entitled Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Standards and Regulations (text omitted)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter on behalf of an Australian client who is proposing to construct, in conjunction with an American company, vehicles for sale in both Australia and the United States. You asked a number of questions about the substantive and procedural requirements of the safety standards. I will answer your questions in order.

1. What standards currently apply in America to 4 wheel drive vehicles (of about the same size as your Ford F350)? Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards still the current standards?

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are still the applicable standards. The FMVSS may be found in Part 571 of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR Part 571). Each standard states the classes of motor vehicles to which it applies. Examples of classes of vehicles are passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Definitions of those terms may be found in the definitions section of the FMVSS (49 CFR S571.3).

2. Where can those standards be purchased and at what cost?

The FMVSS may be obtained from: Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Phone: (202) 783-3238 Prices must be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents since they are subject to periodic change. For further information, please refer to the information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" that is encl osed with this letter.

3. What is the procedure for proving compliance with American Federal standards and how long does it take to obtain approval (from time of application) to be able to market a vehicle?

The United States does not have an approval process similar to that of some other nations. In the United States, a manufacturer of motor vehicles must certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards. The manufacturer's certificati on need not be based on actual tests, but may, in appropriate situations, be based on engineering judgment or computer simulations. The manufacturer is required to exercise due care in making the certification. The requirements concerning certification may be found at 49 CFR Part 567.

4. What government costs/fees are associated with seeking approval to

market a vehicle in America?

As explained above, the United States does not have an approval system.

5. Is there a classification system for vehicle types under U.S. Federal standards?

There is a classification system for motor vehicle types. Examples of classifications are passenger cars, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. These terms are defined at 49 CFR S571.3.

6. In instances where our Australian design rule standards are based on FMVSS rules, would testing done in Australia to FMVSS standards be acceptable in America?

As discussed above, there is no requirement in the United States that manufacturers submit test data for approval. Instead, manufacturers must exercise due care in certifying their compliance with the FMVSS. In appropriate cases, manufacturers may be a ble to rely on testing done in Australia to certify compliance with some United States safety standards.

7. Is there any requirement for testing laboratories to meet specific standards for compliance with FMVSS standards?

There is no explicit requirement that testing laboratories meet specific standards. However, an element of the due care that manufacturers must exercise in certifying compliance with FMVSS would be to use appropriate testing laboratories.

8. What requirements exist for the retention and/or submission of test data to American Federal agencies?

As mentioned above, manufacturers are not required to submit test data to have their vehicles approved. However, manufacturers would be well advised to retain such data as evidence of their due care in certifying compliance with the FMVSS. In addition, manufacturers must retain records concerning nonconformity with the FMVSS and possible defects relating to motor vehicle safety. Requirements concerning record retention may be found at 49 CFR Part 576.

9. In Australia, compliance with certain FMVSS standards will be accepted as compliance with Australian standards in some instances (subject to actual test data being submitted to the Australian authorities). Does such an arrangement exist in America?

As discussed above, manufacturers are not required to submit test data as part of any vehicle approval process. Manufacturers, in their exercise of due care in certifying compliance with the FMVSS, may rely on compliance with Australian standards in app ropriate instances. This would be most appropriate when the Australian standard is identical to the FMVSS requirement.

You also asked if there is other information about which your client should be aware. Your client should know that all manufacturers

headquartered outside of the United States must designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders, and decisions. This designation is to be mailed to the Chief Counsel of NHTSA. In accordance with 49 CFR S551.45, the designation must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agency appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

7. The signature of one with authority to appoint the agency. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

I have enclosed, for your review, a designation letter which has been accepted by the agency.

In addition, your client should know that the Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers concerning safety-related defects and failures to comply with the FMVSS and to remedy such defects and noncompliances without charge. Please ref er to 49 CFR Parts 573, 577, and 579 for further details.

We are enclosing an information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." This document highlights the major regulatory provisions that may be applicable to your client.

I hope that you find this information useful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: nht90-4.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 19, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert Roden -- Roden & Hayes

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your questions about the requirements for key-locking systems in section S4.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). As explained below, the enclosed copy of the agency's recent final rul e amending this provision may be relevant to your inquiry (55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990).

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 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 Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000 for a related series of violations.

One such Federal safety standard is Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.

Your first question asked whether section S4.2(b) requires key locking systems to prevent removal of the ignition key except when the transmission is in the "park" position. Section S4.2(b) currently requires such vehicles to have a "key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent...(b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle, or both." However, the agency has recently amended section S4.2(b) to read as follows:

Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both.

For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

You should be aware that this amendment takes effect on September 1, 1992. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) merely requires that when the key is removed, the key-locking system must prevent steering or forward self-mobility, or both. This provision does not address the issue of the transmission's position at the time of key removal. In contrast, under the recent amendment applicable to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) requires automatic transmissi on vehicles to prevent removal of the key unless the

transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

Your second question asked whether a replacement key-locking system is required to comply with Standard No. 114. Because Standard No. 114 applies to new motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment, the standard does not in itself require aftermark et replacement systems to comply with its requirements. However, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly "rendering inopera tive," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard.

Your third question asked how long the key locking system is required to perform under S4.2(b) of the standard. The Vehicle Safety Act only requires manufacturers to assure that vehicles and equipment comply with applicable safety standards at the time of the first consumer purchase.

However, please note that if at any time a manufacturer or the agency determines that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, which could result from the failure of a system to operate properly, the manufacturer is required to no tify all product purchasers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge. See 15 U.S.C. SS 1411-1414.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

(Attached is a copy of 55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990 (text omitted))