ID: nht92-4.44

DATE: August 7, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Eugene Welker

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/22/82 (should be 6/22/92) from Eugene J. Welker to Jackson Rice (OCC 7434)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter about a mirror system designed to improve a driver's view of areas behind a motor vehicle. You explained that a 35" vertical post would be bolted near a vehicle's rear bumper. This would result in a mirror being located a few inches above the top rear window stop light and facing forward at a 45 degree angle. You asked whether such a device would be legal. The following discussion and the enclosed information sheet, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," explain your responsibility under NHTSA's regulation.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve, endorse, or certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Safety Act requires that these safety standards establish minimum levels of performance for vehicles or equipment. Once the performance level has been established, vehicle or equipment manufacturers are free to choose any means they wish to achieve the required level of performance.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish performance requirements for new vehicles in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR S571.111, copy enclosed). Standard No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors installed in any new vehicle. This means that the vehicle manufacturer must certify that each vehicle it manufactures complies with the specified requirements. Standard No. 111 requires that passenger cars be equipped with an inside rearview mirror and a driver's side outside rearview mirror that provide the field-of-view specified in S5.1.1. A passenger's side outside rearview mirror is required in situations where the inside rearview mirror does not provide the specified field-of-view. Additional requirements for other vehicle types are set forth in S6, S7, and S8.

No provision in the Standard specifies requirements for a mirror that attaches to the vehicle's rear bumper. Accordingly, a mirror like yours would not be prohibited from being installed on any vehicle by the current requirements in Standard No. 111. Accordingly such a mirror would be permitted, but only as a supplement to the required mirrors. In installing the mirror, one must take care to avoid obscuring the vehicle's lighting devices, including the center highmounted stop lamps (CHMSL).

Please be aware that NHTSA does not regulate vehicles while they are in use. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Washington Blvd, Arlington, VA 22203 may be able to advise you about the laws of the individual States related to the use of equipment such as your own.

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

ID: nht92-7.29

DATE: April 27, 1992

FROM: Frederick H. Grubbe -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TO: Wally Herger -- Member, U.S. House of Representatives

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/13/92 from Wally Herger to Nancy Bruce; Also attached to letter dated 2/28/92 from Bill Gaines to Wally Herger

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of Mr. Bill Gaines of Transfer Flow, Inc. Your letter has been referred to me for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for regulating motor vehicle safety. NHTSA issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, the subject of Mr. Gaines' concern.

Mr. Gaines, a manufacturer of fuel tanks and fuel systems, requested your assistance about his company's "inability to meet" FMVSS 301. Mr. Gaines is concerned about the "inflexibility of testing and high cost of performing (the FMVSS 301) test."

Before I address Mr. Gaines' concerns, I would like to provide some background information on our regulations and safety standards. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Each of the safety standards specifies test conditions and procedures that NHTSA will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard.

The purpose of FMVSS 301 is to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires that result from fuel spillage during and after motor vehicle crashes. It does this by limiting the amount of fuel spillage that can occur when a vehicle is subjected to specified front, rear, and lateral barrier impact tests.

FMVSS 301 has applied to passenger cars since 1968, to trucks, vans and buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less since 1976, and to school buses over 10,000 pounds since 1977. The standard applies to completed new motor vehicles, and not to components of fuel systems. Thus, the manufacturer of a vehicle that is equipped with Transfer Flow's fuel system must certify that the vehicle complies with Standard 301. Similarly, a person altering a new vehicle by replacing the original fuel system with a new one must certify that the vehicle continues to meet Standard 301.

With regard to Mr. Gaines' concern about flexibility, I note that the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or item of equipment complies with the requirements of the safety standards. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, computer simulations, and/or actual testing. The manufacturer need only ensure that its vehicles or equipment will meet the applicable FMVSS's when tested by

NHTSA according to the procedures specified in the Standards. We do not believe that the information provided by Mr. Gaines demonstrates any need to update FMVSS 301's requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-6.12

DATE: June 10, 1992

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael Love (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On April 3, 1992, I wrote to you requesting an interpretation of FMVSS 108 regarding center high mounted stop lamps. Your interpretation of the regulations with regard to our proposed design was not consistent with our interpretation. Therefore, we have come up with an alternate design which we believe will be consistent with your interpretation. Since this new design raises several questions, we are requesting another interpretation. The attached document contains that request.

Please contact me at 702/348-3198 if you should have any questions.

Attachment

PORSCHE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

Porsche is considering a new design of center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) for its 911 Carrera model. In order to accommodate a moveable rear spoiler, the CHMSL would consist of two separate lamps: Lamp A would be mounted on the front edge of the moveable spoiler; Lamp B would be mounted on the rear edge of the moveable spoiler. Both lamps are on the center line of the car. This dual light system would function as follows:

From 0 to 50+/-5mph the spoiler would be in the down position. The CHMSL Lamp A would function (when the brakes were engaged). CHMSL Lamp B would not function.

At 5O+/-5mph when the spoiler is rising, Lamp A would function until the spoiler is approximately 35% up. At this point Lamp B would begin functioning and Lamp A would be disabled.

Above 50+/-5mph the spoiler would be in the up position and Lamp B would function (when the brakes were engaged).

As the speed drops below 5O+/-5mph the Spoiler would remain in the up position until approximately 9+/-3mph and Lamp B would function.

At 9+/-3mph when the spoiler is lowering, Lamp B would function until the spoiler reached the 35% up position. At this point Lamp A would begin functioning and Lamp B would be disabled.

With this design we expect that all photometric and height requirements of FMVSS 108 will be met with switching from Lamp A to Lamp B while the spoiler is moving. It is possible that it will be necessary to have both Lamp A and Lamp B functioning together for a short period of time in order to fulfill photometric requirements.

We have identified the following issues and request NHTSA's views on them:

The switching from Lamp A to Lamp B does not violate the "steady burning" requirement of FMVSS 108.

There is no problem with having two separate CHMSLs as long as they fulfill the requirements of FMVSS 108 while they are capable of functioning, either separately or together.

Having Lamp B drop below the height requirement of FMVSS 108 is not a problem if it is not capable of functioning while below that level (i.e.: If it is no longer capable of functioning (lighting), then it is no longer a lamp by definition).

ID: nht95-7.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Shapiro -- Manager, Regulatory Compliance and Consumer Affairs, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 10/16/95 letter from William Shapiro to John Womack (occ 11298)

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 16, 1995, to John Womack, requesting that we confirm your interpretation of certain provisions in the Bumper Standard, 49 CFR Part 581. As described in your letter, Volvo is contemplating attaching a device to the bumper face bar of its vehicles that will be used for purposes other than mitigating the effects of a low speed collision. In a telephone conversation on November 22, 1995, Steven Kraitz of your Office informed Coleman Sachs of my staff that the device will be some form of radar equipment, and that Volvo has yet to decide whether it will be offered as optional or as standard equipment on its vehicles.

You are of the opinion that even though this device could be damaged or destroyed in a low speed collision, the vehicles on which it is installed will still be in compliance with the Bumper Standard because it is not one of the components or systems that are specified in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(1) through (6) as having to remain operational after Bumper Standard compliance testing is performed. You further characterize this device as being "part of the bumper face bar" for the purposes of 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8). That section provides:

The exterior surfaces shall have no separations of surface materials, paint, polymeric coatings, or other covering materials from the surface to which they are bonded, and no permanent deviations from their original contours . . . except where such damage occurs to the bumper face bar and the components and associated fasteners that directly attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame.

We disagree with your opinion that the radar device that Volvo is considering for its vehicles is either an integral part of the bumper face bar, or a component that is needed to attach the bumper face bar to the chassis frame. Consequently, the device would not fall within the exception in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8) quoted above.

Conditions for Bumper Standard compliance tests are specified at 49 CFR 581.6. Paragraph (a)(5) of that section states that "[running] lights, fog lamps, and equipment mounted on the bumper face bar are removed from the vehicle if they are optional equipment." Therefore, if the radar device is to be offered as optional equipment, it must be removed from the test vehicle before Bumper Standard compliance testing is performed. In this circumstance, the vehicle's compliance with the Bumper Standard would not be affected if the device were unable to withstand low speed collisions. If the device is to be offered as standard equipment, however, it must remain on the vehicle while Bumper Standard compliance tests are performed, and must withstand those tests free of damage to meet the protective criteria specified in 49 CFR 581.5(c)(8).

If you have any further questions regarding this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Sachs at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5238.

ID: 77-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/16/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's February 8, 1977, petition for rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" and to add a new definition to 49 CFR Part 571.3 for "special purpose vehicle." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) denies your requested rulemaking.

Your petition requests an amendment of the term "unloaded vehicle weight" similar to that proposed by Chrysler's December 20, 1976, petition. Both petitions recommend that, for purposes of barrier crash testing of certain vehicles, the unloaded vehicle weight be the lesser of the weight of a completed comparable model vehicle from which the particular vehicle is derived or 5,500 pounds. Further, you request an additional definition of "special purpose vehicle" that would distinguish vehicles designed for a specific work function from other vehicles produced from the same chassis. We have determined that the effect of creating such a vehicle category as special purpose vehicle in conjunction with the establishment of arbitrary weights for vehicles when undergoing compliance testing would, in some situations, undermine the effectiveness of the motor vehicle safety standards. Vehicles falling into the category could, according to your suggested scheme, be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight as equipped.

In the case of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, such a result would possibly violate Congress order in the 1974 Amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 93-492) that the NHTSA not diminish the level of safety established at that time in the standard.

To allow certain vehicles to be tested at a weight which differs from their actual weight, would permit the operation of vehicles which, as equipped, could fail the requirements of the standard.

You should note that the agency intends to proceed with the rulemaking to amend the definition of "unloaded vehicle weight" as recommended in a petition from Chrysler dated November 20, 1976. This amendment will incorporate changes in the definition previously made by the NHTSA through interpretation.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC

February 8, 1977

Petition to Define "Special Purpose Vehicle" and Amend the Definition of "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" Part 571 Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The Truck Body and Equipment Association (TBEA) on behalf of nearly one thousand final and intermediate manufacturers of trucks, truck bodies and allied truck equipment wishes to petition the NHTSA to add the definition of "Special Purpose Vehicles" and to amend the definition "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" to Part 571 -- Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The existing term "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" (U.V.W.) is used in several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to establish the weight (mass) of a vehicle to be barrier crash tested.

In the past, barrier crashes were only specified for passenger cars, but with the (Illegible Word) of FMVSS 301 Fuel System Integrity, barrier testing was extended to include trucks of up to 10,000 pounds GVWR.

The majority of the vehicles produced by our industry now are subject to the requirements of FMVSS 301 including the requirement to be able to survive a 30 mph head on barrier crash without spillage of a significant amount of fuel.

This crash test alone has necessitated the review and often total redesign of the specialized equipment produced by our industry, i.e. ambulances, dump trucks, farm trucks, utility trucks and tow trucks.

The Truck Body and Equipment Industry does not object to the intent of a fuel system performance standard but we do object to the manner in which any FMVSS requiring crash test is applied to the many final stage manufacturers of multistage manufactured vehicle.

It is apparent that the latest series of FMVSS will be much more complex than those initially issued. Even though truck production will be regulated by these standards it appears that the present definitions are directed to the passenger cars and pickup trucks but not to multistage manufactured vehicles. Our objection to the present test requirements is based on the fact that the NHTSA views both the manufacturer of an automobile and the manufacturer of a tow truck as final stage manufacturers.

By definition a "Final Stage Manufacturer" is "any person who performs such manufacturing on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle".

In the truck manufacturing industry, this procedure is commonly referred to as taking a chassis (an incomplete vehicle) and making it "road ready". The process by which an incomplete vehicle is made "road ready" may vary from mounting a farm (Illegible Words) lights, to modifying a chassis cab into a complex piece of fire fighting equipments.

The network of truck manufacturers is immense, beginning with a handful of chassis manufacturers and extending outwards through thousands of final manufacturers. The most common type of final manufacturer is the truck body and equipment distributor. A distributor takes a chassis cab and installs a body or a piece of equipment on it and certifies that this completed vehicle complies with all existing federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time of manufacture. These small businesses (averaging less than 24 employees) are not in a position to do extensive engineering studies on each of their various types of vehicles. In order to comply with the numerous stands relating to their product, they rely heavily on support data from the chassis manufacturers. This component certification insures the distributor that when assembled the completed vehicle will comply with all applicable standards.

The back bone of the completed vehicle is the truck chassis. It is through this component, that the final manufacturer complies with many of the FMVSS. The chassis itself is extremely flexible allowing hundreds of body and equipment combinations to be installed on a single chassis type.

The light duty truck chassis, under 10,000 pounds GVWR, is an off shoot from the mass produced pick-up truck. Less than one in ten light trucks is scheduled for production as a truck chassis or incomplete vehicle. These low production numbers do not justify individual testing of each vocational type of truck produced, thus all available certification data is based on the pick-up truck. This is the point at which the (Illegible Word) "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" impedes our certification program.

The NHTSA defines "Unloaded Vehicle Weight" as:

The weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants.

This term therefore results in low test weights based on the light pick-up body weight. As an example, a typical well equipped pick-up chassis with a 10,000 pound GVWR may weigh 4,400 pounds and its body may weigh 500 pounds for a total unloaded vehicle weight of 4,900 pounds. The truck chassis manufacturer would most likely test this vehicle at 5,000 pounds to insure S301 compliance.

Although the pick-up truck in this example is equipped with a vocational body designed to transport a cargo, many of the special purpose vehicles manufactured by our industry are designed to transport a piece of equipment such as an ambulance, a cherry picker, or a wrecker. These special purpose vehicles have a much higher unloaded vehicle weight. An example of one of our special purpose vehicles would be a utility vehicle equipped with a cherry picker or manlift. The same 10,000 pound GVWR chassis used for the pick-up at 4,000 pounds would be completed with an 1,900 pound utility body and a 2,500 pound aerial device for a total UVW of 8,800 pounds.

The higher UW causes a potential problem when considering any type of barrier (Illegible Word) test. When any vehicle is impacted into a stationary barrier, the vehicles entire energy or motion must be disipated through structural deformation, or crash.

The amount of crush realized during a barrier crash is proportional to the vehicles weight (mass) therefore two identical chassis with bodies of different weight, will receive different amounts of crush, the heavier the vehicle the more the crash. With the increase of crush, the chance of (Illegible Word) or separating some parts of the fuel system also increases. At some increases test weight, compliance with the barrier test requirements becomes questionable. This break point falls somewhere between 1.500 and 8.500 pounds for the present generation of pick-up chassis. In other words a chassis loaded to 7.000 pounds and crashed into a wall at 30 mph will most likely pass a 301 test where as a chassis loaded to 9.000 pounds won't.

Again, our objection to the barrier test is not with the intent, but with the procedure. In the real world condition, the pick-up truck loaded with a cargo of 3.900 pounds will react in the same manner as a utility vehicle when subjected to an actual accident.

Several years ago, the chassis manufacturers successfully demonstrated to NHTSA that carrier crashing of pick-up type vehicles at their GVWR's was questionable if not impossible. By the use of the present UVW definition, the NHTSA is requiring the many small final manufacturers within our industry, to assume the responsibility for certifying a completed vehicle to a performance level already questioned by the Agency and the chassis manufacturers.

At present, our only solution to the crash problem is to go to a larger chassis, above the 10.000 GVWR limit. This next step in chassis size may mean an increase of several thousand dollars per vehicle, not including the 10% Federal Excise Tax that then becomes effective.

We are concerned that in order to legally produce a vehicle with the same inherent safety qualities as a loaded pick-up, we are forced to purchase a larger chassis. pay 10% FET on the entire unit and still end up with a pre 301 vehicle. Why should a utility company be forced to purchase a $ 20,000 aerial device when the same piece of equipment could be produced for $ 15,000?

In an effort to alleviate this inequity place on our industry, we request that the Agency barrier test vehicles for standard compliance with weights more closely allied to the basic pick-up trucks.

This change could be accomplished by adopting a new definition for "Special Purpose Vehicles" and adopting Chryslers proposed definition for "Unloaded Vehicle Weight".

Special Purpose Vehicle -- means a motor vehicle of less than 10,000 pounds GVWR, designed to perform a specific work function, manufactured in two or more stages, and whose incomplete vehicle portion is derived from a truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Unloaded Vehicle Weight -- means the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use. For purposes of barrier impact testing special purpose vehicles which are derived from multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks or buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, the unloaded vehicle weight shall be either that of the completed comparable model vehicle from which the special purpose vehicle is derived or 5,000 pounds, whichever is less.

The Truck Body and Equipment Industry has always demonstrated concern when considering the design and production of road safe vehicles.

The adoption of this amended definition would allow the many conscientious final manufacturers of trucks and related truck equipment to utilize test data already available through the chassis manufacturer.

It is also our contention that the adoption of this amended definition will pose no diminished level of motor vehicle safety.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: 10008

Ms. Eileen Jones
17 Ballinger Court
Burtonsville, MD 20866

Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your faxed letter of May 19, 1994. As you explained in your letter:

My three month old son has a physical condition whereby the formula that he drinks refluxes back into his throat causing him to choke and become unable to breathe. Due to this condition, I cannot keep his infant seat in the back of the car where I will be unable to reach him and thus prevent him from choking.

My problem lies in that I have a passenger as well as a driver's side air bag in our 1993 Ford Taurus Wagon. Due to the danger of having an infant's seat in the front of a car with a passenger air bag, I have contacted local Ford dealers as well as the overall Ford customer service people and have been told each time that they will not disable my car air bags for me as it is against federal law.

You requested "a waiver of a portion of the federal guidelines regarding air bags in automobiles."

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement.

The removal or deactivation of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the act under Standard No. 208 was issued. That section provides that--

(n)o manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or

element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "render inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. This is to advise you that we would regard a temporary deactivation of the passenger- side air bag in your car in the same way. Based on the results of recent agency research, NHTSA has concluded that rear-facing infant restraints should not be placed in the front seat of a vehicle with a passenger-side air bag. NHTSA would consider the special medical needs of your child as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that temporarily deactivates the air bag to accommodate your child.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "render inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, our willingness to permit this deactivation is conditioned on the reactivation of the air bag by the dealer as soon as your son can use a forward-facing child restraint. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that other passengers in this seating position use their safety belts while the air bag is disconnected.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:6/13/94

ID: 10499

Ms. Barbara Kise
124 Dormar Drive
North Syracuse, NY 13212-2708

Dear Ms. Kise:

This responds to your letter of November 11, 1994 asking whether the air bag in your 1994 Oldsmobile can be disconnected. You explained that you use oxygen for emphysema and chronic bronchitis and are concerned that your lungs might not be able to tolerate the powder ejected if the air bag deploys in a crash.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. The removal or deactivation of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is prohibited by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. '30122. The provision 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 or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

NHTSA has previously stated that chemical and medical tests indicate that an air bag inflation poses no respiratory system hazard, even for persons who are highly susceptible to airborne particles. However, one recent test series of persons with an asthmatic condition revealed that prolonged exposure (20 minutes with the windows rolled up) to the atmosphere inside a vehicle after both the driver and passenger air bags have deployed can induce significant asthmatic reactions in some persons. Please note that these were worst case test conditions unlikely to be found in a real world crash situation.

However, given this test, we would recommend that you consult your doctor to determine whether any significant hazard could result if you were exposed to air bag deployment by-products. I have enclosed a report on this test for you to share with your doctor to assist in this determination. If you and your doctor decide that the risk to you offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of your air bag, and you wished to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against the person who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag be consulted on the safest way to disconnect the air bag.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, we urge that the air bag be reactivated prior to selling the vehicle. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle always uses his or her safety belt.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. 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 d:1/9/95 ref:VSA#208

ID: 11084

Mr. Charles Holmes
198 Holly Circle
Gulfport, MS 39501

Dear Mr. Holmes:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for door locks and handles on a 1989 truck with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 33,000 pounds. You state that you rented the truck from a rental company.

In your letter, you described an accident you had with the rented truck. You stated that your son fell out of the vehicle when one of its doors opened as you rounded a curve. You are sure that you had locked the door. (You also said you buckled your son in a seat belt, but believe that he had unbuckled the belt.) After the accident, your son told you he had his hand "over the door handle...[and] was tring [sic] to hold on and the door came open."

You ask several questions relating to requirements for "a safety lock" for the door of the truck. As explained below, our safety standards do not require trucks to have "safety locks."

Let me begin with some background information about our safety requirements. Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. One such standard is Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components (copy attached). Standard No. 206 establishes certain requirements for door latches, hinges, and locks for new passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, and new trucks of all weight ratings. Each new truck must meet Standard No. 206 when the vehicle is first sold at retail. With regard to the truck in question, this means that the truck had to meet the applicable door lock requirements of Standard No. 206 when it was sold "new" to the rental company.

Your first question asks whether we required the truck to have a "safety lock." Standard No. 206 requires each door on a new truck to be equipped with a lock, but without the features we believe you have in mind. When engaged, the lock has to

disable the outside door handle, but not the inside handle. Some manufacturers of passenger vehicles voluntarily install "child safety locks" on some doors, which when engaged, makes the inside door handle inoperative even when the lock is in the "unlocked" position. Child safety locks are not required by NHTSA.

Your next question asked whether the truck in question would be considered a passenger vehicle, since it is a "rental vehicle." The answer is no. A vehicle that is designed primarily for transporting property is a "truck" under our regulations, regardless of whether it is a rental vehicle.

Your third question asked what Federal case laws reverse or overrule our regulations. Although some of our regulations have been overruled or modified pursuant to court order, FMVSS No. 206 has not been affected by court action.

Your final question asked for the names and addresses of people injured in accidents similar to yours. We are unable to provide that information. Our data do not include instances in which occupants fall out of moving vehicles where there was no accident and where there were no fatalities or injuries.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions of need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:206 d:9/25/95

ID: 1978y

Mr. Larry P. Egley
109 Travelers Trail
St. Charles, MO 63303

Dear Mr. Egley:

This is in reply to your letters with respect to the Sudden Stop Flasher (SSF), your invention, now registered with the U.S. Patent Office. Your first letter is a "Request for Evaluation/Interpretation" of your invention; your second is "An Appeal for Variant Interpretation." I regret the delay in responding.

You have explained that the SSF operates as follows: when a vehicle reaches a certain high rate of deceleration, the SSF automatically flashes all three of the stop lamps on passenger cars at a rapid rate. If the vehicle has crashed, the SSF continues to flash until the ignition switch is recycled. You recognize that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires stop lamps to be steady burning. You nevertheless ask for a favorable interpretation because the SSF will be actuated only rarely, and "the concept of flashing tail lights to get the attention of drivers has already been approved in the hazard warning system." Because of the expense of developing the SSF, you state that you are not willing to undertake it "unless NHTSA would indicate at least tentative acceptance, subject to demonstration and testing of a working model."

You are correct that Standard No. l08 requires stop lamps to be steady burning, and hazard warning signal lamps to flash (generally through the turn signal lamps). The primary reason for the distinction is that stop lamps are intended to be operated while the vehicle is in motion, while the hazard warning lamps are intended to indicate that the vehicle is stopped. Each lamp is intended to convey a single, easily recognizable signal. If a lamp which is ordinarily steady burning begins to flash, the agency is concerned that the signal will prove confusing to motorists, thereby diluting its effectiveness.

Even if we did not have this reservation about the SSF, we could not change the steady burning requirement through interpretation. A change could be made through rulemaking only.

We do not currently have information indicating that a flashing signal would be superior to a steady burning one. The SSF is based upon the concept that a flashing lamp increases vehicle conspicuity, and hence should shorten the reaction time of following drivers. As you noted, "whether the SSF could significantly improve safety is the primary consideration." In research sponsored by this agency that led to the adoption of the center high-mounted stop lamp, a field study was conducted using 600 taxicabs in San Diego and Sacramento. The cabs were equipped with one of three kinds of center lamps, a steady-burning one, or one that flashed at 2.5 Hz, or one that flashed at either l.5, 2.5, 4.5, or 7.0 Hz depending on the degree of deceleration. The test fleet accumulated 4l million miles. The study found that there was no statistically significant differences among the lamps (Mortimer, R.G., Field test evaluation of rear lighting deceleration signals: II - Field test. Final Report, DOT-HS-806-125, 198l).

The agency would be unlikely to issue grants or fund research for the SSF, a proprietary device. Most of its vehicle safety research is devoted to obtaining data to support the development of standards that are more performance-oriented.

I am sorry that we cannot be more positive in our response, but we do appreciate your interest in reducing traffic accidents, and deaths and injuries associated with them.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ref:108 d:8/8/89

ID: 11246-2DRN

Mr. Mike Love
Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
100 West Liberty Street
P. O. Box 30911
Reno, NV 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. You asked how the requirement in S3.1.4 concerning display of shift lever positions would apply to the Porsche Tiptronic transmission in the event of a serious fault in the transmission. As explained below, the vehicle would not need to meet S3.1.4 when it detects a serious fault in the transmission.

In your letter and in a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the Tiptronic transmission has a default "limp-home" mode which is enabled whenever a serious fault is detected in the transmission control unit. In this mode, the vehicle automatically goes into fourth gear drive. This allows the driver to get the car to a dealership where the fault can be repaired. If the driver attempts to move the shift lever, the vehicle's transmission would not go out of fourth gear. However, the driver would be able to put the vehicle into "park." You stated that Porsche plans to indicate to the driver that the transmission has entered the limp- home mode by flashing alternately the gear position indicator and the gear number indicator.

S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102 states that:

[I]f the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, identification of shift lever positions, ... shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist:

(a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted.

(b) The transmission is not in park.

The question you raise is similar to one we addressed in a July 29, 1993 interpretation to Mazda (copy enclosed). In both situations, NHTSA is asked to address whether, in an abnormal functioning of the vehicle, the vehicle must continue to meet Standard No. 102. In the letter to Mazda, we stated that Standard No. 102 presumes a functioning vehicle with a functioning gear shift lever sequence. One of the purposes of Standard No. 102 is to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors. In the letter to Mazda, NHTSA went on to state:

In the event of a power failure in a vehicle incorporating electronic transmission gear shift sequence displays, the vehicle would not be capable of being driven, or of having its gears shifted. Therefore, since the standard did not contemplate driving or shifting gears in the event of a power failure, the standard was not intended to regulate the transmission shift display in the event of an electrical or other power failure, when the vehicle is taken out of the "park" position in order to be towed.

Similarly, in the event of a fault in Porsche's Tiptronic transmission, as you indicated to Ms. Nakama, the vehicle would not be capable of being driven above the fourth gear, or of having its gears shifted. Since Standard No. 102 presumes a normally functioning vehicle, in the event of a fault in the Tiptronic transmission, the vehicle need not meet Standard No. 102's requirement that the "identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be in view of the driver."

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:102 d:3/13/96