ID: nht92-6.29

DATE: May 28, 1992

FROM: Christian Hammarskjold -- Vice President, USSC Group, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Dan Cohen

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/28/92 from Christian Hammarskjold to Paul J. Rice; Also attached to letter dated 8/10/92 from Paul J. Rice (signed by John Womack) to Christian Hammarskjold (A39; Std. 207; Std. 208)

TEXT:

On a separate issue, USSC requests clarification on when, if ever, shoulder belts (3 point systems) will be required on suspension seats.

ID: nht95-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 3, 1995

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Exec. Dir., NYSBDA

TO: Walter Myers -- Counsel Staff, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/13/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO RICHARD KREUTLIGER (A43; STD. 217; PART 571.3)

TEXT: I MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR RETURNING MY TELEPHONE CALL THIS DATE.

THE QUESTION AS POSED TO YOU ON THE TELEPHONE RELATING TO THE AMENDED FMVSS 217 PERTAINS DIRECTLY WITH THE PROTRUSION OF THE "FLIP" SEAT THAT IS POSITIONED DIRECTLY TO THE REAR OF THE LEFT SIDE (CENTER) EMERGENCY DOOR.

AS NOTED ON THE FOLLOWING DRAWING - THE BOTTOM OF THE FRAMEWORK OF THE "FLIP" SEAT DOES EXTEND BEYOND THE "DOOR OPENING". THE EXTENSION VARIES UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 3/4 INCH. EVEN WITH THIS "INVASION" OF THE DOOR OPENING THERE IS NO OBSTRUCTION TO THE DOOR LATCH MECHANISM - AND A DIMENSION OF 11.75" OF CLEAR "AISLE" SPACE IS PROVIDED. THIS AISLE SPACE IS CLEAR TO THE LONGITUDINAL BODY CENTER LINE.

THE DIMENSION IS ACQUIRED THRU THE LOCATION OF THE FORWARD SEAT, IN ACTUAL PRODUCTION THE SEAT AT THE FORWARD EDGE OF THE LEFT SIDE (CENTER) EMERGENCY DOOR IS LOCATED MORE FORWARD THAN THAT AS DEPICTED FROM THE FMVSS DRAWING.

AS PER OUR VERBAL CONVERSATION - AND YOUR UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME OF THAT VERBAL CONVERSATION OF THE "QUESTION" YOU COMMENTED THAT "AS LONG AS THERE WAS 30 CENTIMETERS (11.7 +") THERE SHOULD BE NO SERIOUS PROBLEM OR OBJECTION".

HOPE THE WRITTEN QUESTION IS PRESENTED PROPERLY AND THAT THE FOLLOWING DRAWING IS ACCEPTABLE - THAT I CAN ASSUME TO HEAR FROM YOU WITH WRITTEN CONFIRMATION PROMPTLY.

THANK YOU.

ID: aiam5045

"Dear Mr. Marks: This responds to your letter asking how the laws an regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you intend to market. According to your letter, this device is 'a new adjustable attachment to seat belts which allows the user to lower the level so that it will no longer cut them in the neck and yet give them the safety of the belt.' I am pleased to provide the following information. It is not entirely clear how your proposed device would work. However, we have explained how our regulations apply to several different types of belt positioning devices. One such device is a 'comfort clip,' which is attached to the safety belt and can be positioned by an occupant to introduce and maintain slack in the belt system by physically preventing the belt slack from being taken in 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 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). Yet another device is a covered foam pad that is fastened around the belt. We have explained how our regulations apply to these devices in a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven (copy enclosed). Since your device would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment,' within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, I have also enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment. This information sheet also explains how to get copies of our regulations. As you will see from reviewing the enclosed letters, aftermarket sales and installation by individual vehicle owners of devices to reposition belts are not prohibited by any Federal statutory or regulatory requirements. Nevertheless, the use of such devices could raise serious safety concerns if the devices inadvertently reduce the safety protection afforded by the original equipment safety belts. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 86-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/13/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert R. Gregg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 13, 1986 Mr. Robert R. Gregg Metzeler Motorcycle Tire Agent Gregg, Inc. 144 Railroad Avenue Suite 215 Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Gregg: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR Part 571.119). Specifically, you asked if a motorcycle could have its maximum load capacity labeled on the sidewall as follows: At 60 MPH Max load lbs. at psi cold. Such labeling would violate Standard No. 119, as explained below. Section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewall of all tires to which the standard applies. Section S6.5(d) requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure to appear on all motorcycle tires as follows: Max load lbs at psi cold. No speed rating or restriction may be given in conjunction with the maximum load rating on the sidewall of the tire. That rating, as its name implies, is intended to alert consumers to the tire's maximum capabilities. A manufacturer may label a speed restriction on its tires to alert consumers to the tire's maximum speed if that maximum is 55 miles per hour (mph) or less. Section S6.5(e) permits speed restrictions of 55 mph or less to be labeled on the sidewall of the tire as follows: Max speed mph. However, this provision of Standard No. 119 would not allow you to assign a speed restriction of 60 mph to these motorcycle tires. First, no speed restriction in excess of 55mph may be assigned to any tires; see Table III in Standard No. 119. Second, all motorcycle tires are subject to the high speed test, regardless of any speed restrictions; see S6.3 of Standard No. 119. During the high speed test, the tire is subjected to speeds up to and including 85 mph. Parenthetically, I should add that even if speed restrictions of more than 55 mph were allowed, this particular tire would not be a candidate for a speed restriction of 60 mph. You stated in your letter that these tires actually are assigned an H speed rating. Under the speed rating system used in Europe, an H speed rating on a motorcycle tire means the tire is capable of being used at speeds up to 130 mph. Assuming you have used the speed rating accurately, there is no basis for implying that these tires are not capable of speeds greater than 60 mph.

As stated above, the purpose of the maximum load ratings is to alert consumers to the tire's maximum capabilities. The agency knows that the maximum load that can safely be carried by a tire varies with the speed at which the tire is driven. Allowing tire manufacturers to specify a maximum load based on an artificial speed restriction of 60 mph would result in the tires being overloaded if the consumer were to exceed 60 mph. Overloaded tires are substantially more likely to experience a tire failure than properly loaded tires. Since the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 119 is to provide consumers with technical information necessary for the safe operation of the tires, the standard does not permit tire manufacturers to provide information that will result in the tires being overloaded whenever an artificial speed restriction is exceeded. If you have any further questions or need more information in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: GF003447

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff asking whether your companys "Keyless System" would satisfy certain requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (FMVSS No. 114). Specifically, you ask whether this "Keyless System" complies with the requirements of S4.2.1(a), S.4.3, and S.4.5. Further, you ask whether an engine "Stop" button is permissible under FMVSS No. 114. The issues raised in your letter are addressed below.

Before I address your questions, I note that you requested confidential treatment for the identity of your company and for yourself. I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [      ] will be kept confidential from the public. You have provided a redacted set of documents (without any information identifying you or your company), in which you described your "Keyless System" and posed questions regarding the system and FMVSS No. 114. This redacted set of documents will be made publicly available.

Your letter discusses an electronically coded "transceiver" which functions as a key. The "transceiver" is not engaged in any device, and simply remains in the drivers possession. When the "transceiver" is inside the passenger compartment of the vehicle, the vehicle can be started and operated by virtue of an authentication process under which an electronic code from the "transceiver" is transmitted and stored in the electronic control module. You ask us whether this "Keyless System" satisfies certain requirements of FMVSS No. 114.

In previous interpretation letters, we stated that FMVSS No. 114 would permit a keyless entry system activated by an electronically coded card (similar to your companys "Keyless System"). We have followed those interpretation letters in addressing the four questions raised in your letter.

Requirements of S4.2.1(a).

According to your letter and subsequent phone conversation with George Feygin, removal of the "key" ("transceiver" code stored in the electronic control module) can be accomplished only when the transmission gear lever becomes locked in the "park" position. You ask whether the "Keyless System" described in your letter satisfies the requirements of S4.2.1(a). Our answer is yes.

S4.2.1(a) of Standard No. 114 states that (with certain exceptions not relevant here) the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall, when tested under the procedures in S5.2, 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 company's "Keyless System" would be permitted by S4.2.1(a) because the "transceiver" code cannot be removed unless the transmission gear lever becomes locked in "park" position as the direct result of removing the "transceiver" code. According to your statements, the transmission lever becomes locked in park as a direct result of "transceiver" code removal, which occurs only after (a) the transmission lever is engaged in park and (b) engines "Stop" button is depressed. Until the gear lever is locked in "park," the "transceiver" code remains stored in the electronic control module the same way a conventional key would remain in the ignition switch. Therefore, your system satisfies the requirements of S4.2.1(a) because the key cannot be removed unless the transmission lever becomes locked in "park" position as the direct result of removing the key.

Requirements of S4.3.

In your letter, you state that when the "transceiver" code remains in the electronic control module, the steering column lock and the immobilizer system cannot be activated. You ask whether the "Keyless System" described in your letter satisfies the requirements of S.4.3. Our answer is yes.

S4.3 states that, except when an automatic transmission vehicle is in "park," the means for deactivating the vehicles engine or motor shall not activate any device installed pursuant to S4.2(b) to prevent the vehicles steering or forward self-mobility or both. The purpose of this provision is to assure that the drivers action of turning the engine off does not create an unsafe condition by locking the steering (otherwise known as "steering lock-up") or the wheels while the vehicle is in motion.

In the present case, the means for deactivating the vehicles engine is a "Stop" button. As previously discussed, when the engine is switched off but the gear lever is not in park, the "transceiver" code remains in the electronic control module. Because the "transceiver" code remains in the electronic control module, the steering column lock and the immobilizer system cannot be activated. Accordingly, your companys "Keyless System" would be permitted by S4.3.

Driver Warning Requirements of S4.5.

You ask whether your systems acoustical warning and dashboard alert to the driver satisfy the requirements of S.4.5. Our answer is yes.

S4.5 of Standard No. 114 states that a warning to the driver shall be activated whenever the "key" required by S4.2 has been left in the locking system and the drivers door is opened, except: (a) after the key has been manually withdrawn to a position from which it may not be turned; (b) when the key-locking system is in the "on" or "start" position; or (c) after the key has been inserted in the locking system and before it has been turned.

As previously stated, in the event the engine is turned off and the transmission lever is not in the "park" position, the "transceiver" code remains in the electronic control module. This is analogous to the situation in which a conventional key is left in the "off" position of the ignition switch, and S4.5 requires activation of the warning if the drivers door is opened. In the present case, if the drivers door is open, your "Keyless System" provides for an acoustical warning, as well as a yet unspecified message on the dashboard, alerting the vehicle operator to place the transmission lever in the "park position." Accordingly, your companys "Keyless System" would be permitted by S4.5.

In previous letters, we have observed that if a device similar to a transceiver remained in the car, e.g., in the pocket of a jacket laying on the seat, any person would only need to depress the brake pedal and depress the "Start" button to start the engine. In the absence of some kind of additional warning, there appears to be a greater likelihood of drivers inadvertently leaving transceiver-type devices in the car, as compared to a traditional key. This is because the driver must physically touch a traditional key, unlike the transceiver-type device, as part of turning off the engine. You may wish to consider whether there are any practicable means of reducing the possibility of drivers inadvertently leaving their transceiver devices in the car.

Engine "Stop" button.

You state that your "Keyless System" permits the engine to be turned off via a "Stop" button while the vehicle is in motion. This feature allows the driver to interrupt motive power and fuel supply in emergency situations. This feature can be used only if the service brakes are activated and vehicle speed is less than 6 mph. You ask whether an engine "Stop" button is permissible under FMVSS No. 114. Our answer is yes.

Please note that Standard No. 114 does not regulate the method of engine deactivation while the vehicle is in motion. However, we encourage you to carefully consider all available safety precautions to ensure that the driver or other vehicle occupants including children do not inadvertently misuse this emergency deactivation feature.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:114
d.7/17/03

ID: nht90-3.29

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; signature by Stephen P. Wood TO: William Waltz -- Wagner Division, Cooper Industries, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Letter dated 4-12-90 to Stephen P. Wood from William Waltz

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1990, stating that Wagner Division "would like to petition N.H.T.S.A. for a 'Determination of Inconsequentiality' for non-compliance."

Specifically, Wagner wishes to manufacture round sealed beam headlamps (not "bulbs" as you call it) for Lectric Limited, a small parts business geared towards the antique automobile hobby. The headlamps are intended for use on "antique automobiles". We understand that term to mean any automobile manufactured in 1940 and subsequent model years that was originally equipped with round sealed beam headlamps. Although the headlamps would be designed to conform to current specifications, those of SAE Stand ard J579c, the word "top" would be used on the 7-inch diameter headlamp instead of the designation "2CI" (you mean "2Dl"), the numeral "1" for "1C1" on the single beam 5 3/4-inch diameter headlamp, and the numeral "2" for "2C1" on the dual beam 5 3/4-inc h diameter headlamp. The lamps would not bear "DOT" identification. Lectric Limited is willing to "ink stamp" DOT, 2D1, 1C1, and 2C1 "on either the face and or the rear" of each headlamp so that they would not be mistaken for, those conforming to SAE J 579a, and to print instructions for purchasers explaining the difference. Lectric Limited is also willing to insure that the headlamps are marketed only through antique auto specialty retailers.

First, let me explain that your request cannot be considered as one for a determination of inconsequentiality. These determinations are made after-the-fact in order to determine whether a manufacturer must fulfill statutory obligations which include rep lacement, repurchase, or repair of the already-manufactured noncompliant product. What you seek is permission to produce motor vehicle equipment that fails to comply with labeling requirements. Unfortunately, the agency has no exemption provisions whic h can address this issue. We have authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicles from compliance for a temporary period, but we have no authority to exempt manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, on either a temporary or permanent basis. Further , we cannot waive the marking requirements of sections S7.2 and S7.3 of standard No. 108, even for the limited purpose and subject to the restrictions you discuss.

After due consideration of the matter, we believe that you have no choice other than to conform to the marking requirements of Standard No. 108. Although neither the marking nor the performance of J579c headlamps replicates that of J579a headlamps, I hop e that auto enthusiasts will be willing to accept the marking that goes with the improved performance.

ID: 23564-3.drn

[          ]

Dear [          ]:




This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. You asked about the standard in connection with your companys keyless entry system ("Smart-Key"). I apologize for the delay in our response. Your "Smart-Key" system, and the system you describe as the "similar system," will be discussed in light of Standard No. 114s requirements.

Before I address your questions, I note that in e-mail messages and a telephone conversation, you requested confidential treatment for the identity of your company and for yourself. I agree to keep your name and the name of your company confidential. All information in bold brackets [      ] will be kept confidential from the public. You have provided a two page e-mail attachment (without any information identifying you or your company), in which you described your keyless entry system and posed questions regarding the system and Standard No. 114. This two page attachment will be made publicly available.

Please note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations (NHTSAs) procedure for submitting requests to treat business information as confidential is set forth at 49 CFR Part 512 Confidential Business Information. I request that, in the future, when you submit information that you consider to be confidential, you follow Part 512s procedures.

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 certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.I note that since Standard No. 114 applies to motor vehicles, it is the motor vehicle manufacturer, rather than the supplier of particular equipment, that must certify compliance with the standard. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter and in a March 13, 2002 telephone conversation with Edward Glancy and Dorothy Nakama of my staff. Our letter addresses some or all of the specific issues you raised as necessary to provide this interpretation. If we have not addressed an issue, you should not assume that we have concurred with a position you have expressed on that issue.

YOUR SYSTEM

Your companys "Smart Key" system

The following describes how your "Smart Key" system functions. It is based on the description you provided, and also reflects our telephone conversation. If any part of our understanding is incorrect, please let us know, because our letter is based on these facts.

The "Smart Key" is a small device, normally carried in the driver's pocket, which could be provided in credit-card format or some other specific shape. It is encoded with more than 1000 codes.

Access to the car

The vehicle electronics automatically unlock the doors when the key holder utilizes a handle-trigger on the door handle, if the key is located in an external detection area (1 to 2 meters around the car) on the same side as the triggered door, and if the key code is correctly identified. The car establishes with the "Smart Key" device a communication outside the car to identify the key code.

To start the engine

If the "Smart Key" is inside the car, and recognized after a successful identification, the engine can be started by turning an ignition switch knob. At the same time, the locking device is unlocked (steering column and engine immobilizer are unlocked).

(In a similar system, if the "Smart Key" is inside the car, and recognized after a successful identification by the car, the engine can be started by pressing a push button with a pedal condition (i.e., clutch pedal or brake pedal pushed), or gear lever in park position.)

To stop the engine

The driver can switch off the engine without conditions, even if the gear lever is not in the park position. However, if the gear lever is not in the park position, the locking device (the steering column lock and the immobilizer system) remains unlocked.

(In a similar system, the engine can be stopped by pushing a push button if the gear lever is in the park position and with a car speed of zero.)

Locking of the locking device

The locking device locks (steering column lock and electronic immobilizer are locked and presumably the transmission is locked in the park position) after the engine is switched off when the driver turns the ignition switch to the stop position and if the gear lever is in the park position. The driver cannot turn to the stop position of the ignition switch knob if the gear lever is not in park. Removal of the electronic code is accomplished automatically by locking of the locking device.

(In a similar system, the locking device is locked after the engine is switched off.)

During driving

The removal of the "Smart Key" from the running vehicle would have no effect on the vehicle's operation until the engine is stopped. After the engine was stopped, it would be impossible to start up the engine without a key: either the "Smart Key" or "Traditional Key."

Buzzer

If the door is opened with the engine running, a warning buzzer does not sound. If the door is opened after stopping the engine and without locking of the locking device (without locking of the steering wheel) the buzzer warns the driver. If the door is opened after stopping the engine and locking of the locking device (locking of the steering wheel and presumably locking the transmission in park), the buzzer does not sound.

Traditional key

A traditional key (mechanical code plus transponder electronic code) can be used to unlock/lock the doors and to start up the engine instead of the "Smart Key" device.

DISCUSSION

In an interpretation letter of January 30, 1997, to an unnamed company, we stated that Standard No. 114 would permit a keyless entry system activated by an electronically coded card (similar to your companys system). We have followed that interpretation letter in addressing your keyless entry system, but have modified it with respect to the discussion of S4.5 of the standard.

Effect of Key Removal. At S4.2, Standard No. 114 states in part that each vehicle shall have a key-locking system which, whenever the key is removed, prevents (a) the normal activation of the vehicles engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. A vehicle with your companys system would be permitted by S4.2 because the absence of the "key" (the code) prevents normal activation of the engine and steering of the vehicle. This would also appear to be the case for the similar system you mention.

Locked in Park. S4.2.1(a) of Standard No. 114 states that (with certain exceptions not relevant here) the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position shall, when tested under the procedures in S5.2, 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 company's "Smart Key" system would be permitted by S4.2.1(a) because removal of the "key" (identification code in the system) is accomplished only when the locking device locks (steering column lock and immobilizer are locked), which happens only when the gear lever is in park, and presumably locks the transmission in park. This would also appear to be the case for the similar system you mention, assuming that removal of the "key" (identification code in the system) is accomplished only when the locking device locks. This is because the locking device only locks when the engine is switched off, and the engine can only be switched off if the gear lever is in park.

Consequences of Deactivating Engine or Motor.S4.3 states that, except when an automatic transmission vehicle is in "park," the means for deactivating the vehicles engine or motor shall not activate any device installed pursuant to S4.2(b) to prevent the vehicles steering or forward self-mobility or both. Your company's "Smart Key" system would be permitted by S4.3 because when the engine is switched off in situations where the gear lever is not in park, the locking device (the steering column lock and the immobilizer system) remains unlocked. The similar system you mention would also be permitted by S4.3, since the engine can only be switched off if the gear lever is in park. Thus, the similar system has no means for deactivating the vehicle's engine or motor except when the automatic transmission is in park.

Combinations. S4.4 of Standard No. 114 states that for each vehicle type manufactured by a manufacturer, the number of different combinations of the key-locking systems required by S4.2 shall be at least 1,000, or a number equal to the number of vehicles of that type manufactured by the manufacturer, whichever is less.Your letter indicates that your company's "Smart Key" device is encoded with more than 1000 codes.As such, a vehicle with your system would appear to satisfy S4.4.

Driver Warning. S4.5 of Standard No. 114 states that a warning to the driver shall be activated whenever the "key" required by S4.2 has been left in the locking system and the drivers door is opened, except: (a) after the key has been manually withdrawn to a position from which it may not be turned; (b) when the key-locking system is in the "on" or "start" position; or (c) after the key has been inserted in the locking system and before it has been turned.

You state that if the engine is stopped by switching to a position that does not engage the locking devices, a warning buzzer sounds if the drivers door is opened. This is analogous to the situation in which a conventional key is left in the "off" position of the ignition switch, and S4.5 requires activation of the warning if the drivers door is opened.

You further state that, for a vehicle equipped with your system, if the door is opened after stopping the engine and locking of the locking device (locking of the steering wheel) the key code is removed automatically, and the buzzer does not sound. This is analogous to the removal of the conventional key from the "lock" position and the buzzer need not sound. To the extent this interpretation is inconsistent with the January 30, 1997 interpretation letter, the earlier letter is superseded.

We observe that if the "Smart Key" device remained in the car, e.g., in the pocket of a jacket laying on the seat, a person would need only turn the ignition switch knob to start the engine. It appears to us that, with systems of this kind, there would be, in the absence of some kind of a warning, a greater likelihood of drivers inadvertently leaving a "Smart Key" device in the car than with a traditional key. This is because the driver must physically touch a traditional key, unlike the "Smart Key" device, as part of turning off the engine. You and/or the vehicle manufacturer may wish to consider whether there are any practicable means of reducing the possibility of drivers inadvertently leaving their "Smart Key" devices in the car.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:114
d.8/15/02

ID: 24423-2

Alvaro Ughini Junior
Marcopolo SA
Unidade Ana Rech
Av. Rio Branco, 4889
Caixa Postal 238
95060-650 Caxias do Sul - RS / Brazil

Dear Mr. Ughini:

This responds to your e-mail of May 10, 2002, in which you ask several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, "Flammability of Interior Materials." Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Vehicle manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to follow the compliance test procedures set forth in the applicable standard. The standards specify the procedures NHTSA would use in compliance testing. However, vehicle manufacturers must exercise reasonable care in certifying that their products meet applicable standards. It may be simplest for a 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 using modified test procedures if the manufacturer could demonstrate that the modifications were not likely to have had a significant impact on the test results. In addition, it might be possible to show "reasonable care" using engineering analyses, computer simulations, and the like.

Standard No. 302, like other standards, specifies the procedure NHTSA would use in compliance testing. The agency may test any material subject to Standard No. 302 in any way specified by the standard.

If NHTSA testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the agency asks the manufacturer to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or item of equipment complies with Standard No. 302. If there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer must conduct a recall campaign to remedy the problem, without charge.

In addition, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised reasonable care in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with Standard No. 302. Please note that, while the exercise of "reasonable care" may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to discontinue sales of vehicles or notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards.

I will now address your specific questions.

Complex Surfaces

You asked:

Should the test specimen be made by cutting the component itself in the dimensions required? If so, how can we proceed when dealing with a complex surface or "amorphous" solid, since the test specimen must be as flat as possible?

The test specimen is made by cutting the component itself into the specified dimensions. S5.2.2 of Standard No. 302 specifies: "The specimen is produced by cutting the material in the direction that provides the most adverse test results." S5.2.1 specifies that the test specimen be 102 mm wide by 356 mm long by 13 mm thick, wherever possible. S5.2.1 also specifies: "Where it is not possible to obtain a flat specimen because of surface curvature, the specimen is cut to not more than 13 mm in thickness at any point." Thus, when dealing with a "complex" surface, the specimen is cut, wherever possible, so that it is 102 mm wide, 356 mm long, and not more than 13 mm thick at any point.

Rubber, PVC, and PS Profiles

You asked:

When dealing with rubber, PVC and PS profiles, how is the test specimen supposed to be made? If it is simply cutted (sic), in what position shall it be installed in the test equipment? If we must extrude a flat sample, what thickness should we consider, since the profile has a variable thickness along the transversal section?

As noted above, the test specimen is made by cutting the component itself into the required dimensions, wherever possible. The test specimen is then installed in the metal test cabinet according to the conditions and procedures specified in S5.1 through S5.3 of Standard No. 302. S5.1.3 specifies that the test specimen is inserted between two matching U-shaped frames of metal stock 25 mm wide and 10 mm high. S5.3(a) specifies that the test specimen is mounted so that both sides and one end are held up by the U-shaped frame, and one end is even with the open end of the frame. S5.3(b) specifies that the mounted test specimen is placed in a horizontal position, in the center of the test cabinet.

As noted above, if the material being tested has a variable thickness, the test specimen is cut so that it is not more than 13 mm thick at any point.

Same Material/Different Thickness and/or Same Material/Different Colors

You asked:

In the case where we work with many flat (or almost flat) covers extruded from the same ABS resin but with different thickness, may we test the lower thick sample only?

You also asked:

Must we consider that components made from the same raw-material but with different colors (pigmented resin not painted) need tests for each color, or can we test any one of the colors to certify that the resin complies with the requirements so this result will be applicable to every colors (sic).

As noted above, NHTSA may test in any way specified by Standard No. 302. The agency may test any sample of your flat covers that are extruded from ABS resin and/or any different colors of the same material.

I note that the agency has long stated that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute reasonable care in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. Thus, we cannot provide an opinion of the number or types of tests that you would need to conduct to ensure that you exercised reasonable care in certifying that your product complies with Standard No. 302. What constitutes reasonable care in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on Standard No. 302, please contact Mr. Dion Casey of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Ref:302
d.6/24/02

ID: 10151rop

Ms. Irene M. Thomas
1627 S. Ironton St.
Aurora, CO 80012

Dear Ms. Thomas:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a device you call a "CarMobile." The CarMobile is a type of strap to which three rings are sewn. The CarMobile attaches by "velcro" straps to the handrails located at the top of the interior rear car doors. You state that "Toys would be hung from the rings, so that babies and toddlers can play with them as they dangle in front of their carseats."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

In response to your question, there is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) that directly applies to the product you wish to manufacture. However, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, while it is unlikely that the CarMobile would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. '30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. NHTSA's safety standard for built-in child restraint systems (Standard 213) specifies requirements that ensure that the area surrounding a child in a built-in restraint is free from objects that could injure a child's head in a crash. If the CarMobile's cord and rings cause the vehicle with the built-in restraint to no longer comply with Standard 213, any of the aforementioned parties installing the CarMobile may have violated '30122.

The prohibition of '30122 does not apply to individual owners who install equipment in their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of their vehicles, and would discourage them from hanging toys or other objects in front of a seated child that could injure the child in a crash. We also wish to point out that any kind of ribbon or line that can wrap around the neck of a child in a crash poses a potential risk of strangulation in a crash. You should consider these and any other relevant safety concerns when designing the CarMobile and when instructing consumers how to use the device.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:8/26/94 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

ID: nht74-5.6

DATE: 02/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Douglas F. Welebir, Esq., Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of December 28, 1973, File No. 1041, requesting information on the Federal installation requirements for safety belts in a 1971 Toyota Land Cruiser.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (formerly titled "Seat belt installation"), required safety belts in all designated seating positions of all passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. Similar requirements were instituted for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured after July 1, 1971. The Toyota Land Cruiser is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. If it were manufactured before July 1, 1971, no installation requirement would have applied. It should be noted that seat belts were not factory-installed in some Land Cruisers, and we know of one Arizona dealer who failed to install seatbelts in a Land Cruiser built after that date.

In answer to your second question, the Land Cruiser did not have any exemption under 15 U.S.C. @ 1410 or any other section of the Act.

ENC.

December 28, 1973

Director National Highway Safety Bureau

I represent a young man injured in an automobile accident primarily because of the lack of seat belts in a 1971 Toyota Land Cruiser. Would it be possible to obtain a copy of the vehicle safety standards enacted pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 relating to the installation of seat belts in new automobiles.

I would also appreciate knowing whether or not Toyota Motor Company of the United States has been exempt from compliance with this Act under 15 USC 1410 or any other section.

I thank you for your assistance and helpfulness in this important matter.

DOUGLAS F. WELEBIR