ID: nht72-4.3

DATE: 09/20/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Docket 69-7

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: Interpretation of Dummy Placement for Crash Test Requirements of S4.1.2.3.1(d) and (e).

A Ford Motor Company representative has informally noted that Docket 69-7, Notice 16, published February 24, 1972, does not clearly indicate whether, in S4.1.2.3.1(d) and (e), three dummies are simultaneously placed in all front seating positions for a single crash test, or whether two separate crashes are conducted, with two dummies in the outboard front seats for a S4.1.2.3.1(d) crash and a single dummy in the center front seat for a S4.1.2.3.1(e) crash.

Although a manufacturer may choose, for reasons of convenience, to conduct a combined crash test or individual crash tests for S4.1.2.3.1(d) and (e), the test intended by S4.1.2.3.1 is a combined test and the NHTSA will therefore conduct its compliance tests with dummies simultaneously placed in all front seating positions.

ID: aiam5068

"Dear Ms. Wall: This responds to your letter to the Department o Transportation seeking a copy of the federal law regulating student transportation in general, and as it specifically relates to multiple passenger vans. I assume that your use of the term multiple passenger vans refers to vans with seats to the rear of the driver. I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify Federal law as it relates to school buses. By way of background information, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. Under NHTSA's regulations, passenger vans are generally classified as either multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) or buses. The MPV category includes passenger vans which carry ten persons or less, passenger vans which carry more than ten persons are buses. Under the agency's definitions, a 'school bus' is a type of bus sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. All MPV's and buses are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, in the legislative history of the School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress stated that school transportation should be held to the highest level of safety. Accordingly, NHTSA has issued special Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new school buses. Like all safety standards, NHTSA's school bus standards impose obligations on the manufacturers and sellers of new motor vehicles, not upon the subsequent users of these vehicles. It is a violation of Federal law for any person to sell any new vehicle that does not comply with all school bus safety standards if the vehicle capacity is more than 10 persons, and if the seller is aware that the purchaser intends to use the vehicle as a school bus. On the other hand, without violating any provision of Federal law, a school may use a vehicle which does not comply with Federal school bus regulations to transport school children. This is so because the individual States, not the Federal government, have authority over the use of vehicles. However, I would like to call your attention to a guideline that NHTSA has issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966. That Act authorizes the agency to issue guidelines for states to use in developing their highway safety programs. NHTSA issued Highway Safety Program Guideline 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, to provide recommendations to the states on various operational aspects of their school bus and pupil transportation safety programs. Guideline 17 recommends that any vehicle designed for carrying more than ten persons which is used as a school bus comply with all safety standards applicable to school buses at the time the vehicle was manufactured. A copy of Guideline 17 is enclosed. In conclusion, it is not a violation of Federal law for your school to use vans for transportation of school children, however, use of these vehicles may be restricted by Texas law. I must emphasize NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. I strongly recommend that you give your most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting school children in vehicles that do not comply with those standards. I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht81-2.44

DATE: 07/07/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Burlington Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehcile Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR @ 571.117). Specifically, you asked if the addition of "edger fabric strips", pursuant to a process covered by U.S. Patent 4,196,764, would violate the prohibition in section S5.2.2(b) of Standard No. 117 against adding belts to retreaded passenger car tires.

The described process is prohibited by section S5,2.2(b), because it is clearly adding a belt to the tire.

In the abstract of the subject patent, which you included in your request for an interpretation, is the following statement: "The invention relates to the use of reinforcing cords associated with the pneumatic tire . . ., and the method of applying such reinforcing cords woven in a warp and weft relationship cut in a bias shape to form a belt . . . ." Similarly, in the Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments section of the patent, Section 3 begins, "The essence of my invention is achieved by providing an extra belt . . . ." Hence, the patent itself states that this process involves the addition of a belt to retread tires. Such an addition is expressly forbidden by section S5.2.2(b) of Stanard 117; "No retreaded tire shall be manufactured with a casing on which a belt or ply, or part thereof, is added or replaced during processing."

Your letter stated that this edger fabric should not be considered a belt for purposes of the Standard, because the addition of the edger makes a retreaded tire safer and longer lasting. While you may be correct concerning the performance of "edger fabric," the Standard as currently written does not permit its use. If you wish, however, you may file a petition for rulemaking requesting this agency to amend Standard 117 to permit the addition of a belt such as edger fabric by following the requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). If you choose to do so, please include all data showing that the addition of this extra belt makes the retreaded tire safer, and that the edger fabric belt would be compatable with the existing cords of the casing that is used.

Finally, let me point out that Standard 117 applies only to retreaded passenger car tires. There is no safety standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and the use of this patented process on those tires would not violate any requirements of this agency.

Mr. Hugh Oates of my staff sends his regards.

ENC.

May 1, 1981

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration Attention: Stephen Kratzke

Re: NHTSA Standard No. 117 - Retreaded Pneumatic Tires

Dear Sirs:

Upon suggestion by Mr. Stephen Kratzke, I am writing to request an interpretation of NHTSA Standard No. 117 relating to retreaded pneumatic passenger car tires. In particular I would appreciate a written opinion as to whether S 5.2.2(b) of the Standard would apply to a retreading process by which the tire was stripped and a recap containing "edger" fabric molded therein then bonded to the carcass. For your better understanding, please note that "edger" fabric is a narrow strip of fabric positioned on each side or shoulder of the recap around the entire perimeter of the tire. The strips are intended and believed to aid in the prevention of steel belts "turning up" and rendering the recapped tire unsafe.

A careful reading of Standard No. 117 convinces me that "edger" fabric strips which are molded into the retread prior to the retread being secured to the casing is not addition or replacement of a belt or ply to the casing as contemplated by Standard 117. In fact, the purpose of the "edger" fabric is entirely consistent with the purpose of Standard 117 in that it is intended to make a retreaded steel belted tire safer and longer lasting than if the fabric were not incorporated into the recap. To hold that the "edger" fabric falls within the language and intended scope of Standard 117 would therefore run counter to the purpose and policy considerations behind the Standard.

In order that you may more fully understand the nature of the recapping process utilizing an "edger" fabric incorporated into the recap, I have attached hereto a copy of a U.S. patent generally directed to the process and highlighted some of the more pertinent portions. I hope that the above is sufficient for full understanding of our request, but please do not hesitate to call me at (919) 379-4517 if I may offer further explanation.

We respectfully solicit an expeditious opinion on this matter and thank you for your assistance to us.

Richard E. Jenkins Assistant Patent Counsel

ATTCH.

ID: nht92-3.38

DATE: 09/29/92

FROM: DONALD G. MCGUIGAN -- FORD MOTOR COMPANY, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

TO: KENNETH N. WEINSTEIN, ESQ. -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL, LITIGATION DIVISION, NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-20-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO DONALD G. MCGUIGAN (A40; STD. 114)

TEXT: This letter requests NHTSA's concurrence in our interpretation of how compliance with the newly-effective amendment to Section 4.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 appropriately may be demonstrated. Our associated company, Mazda Motor Corporation, informs us that in designing the key-locking and shift control mechanisms for the Ford-built 1993 Escort and Tracer vehicles, as well as for certain Mazda vehicles, it understood that compliance with the "key-locking system" requirement of the recently-amended FMVSS 114 was to be demonstrated by attempting to remove the ignition key with the transmission shift lever in each of the available gear selector positioning detents. When so tested, the key-locking systems of 1993 Escort and Tracers "prevent removal of the key" except when the transmission shift lever is locked in the "Park" detent.

We have become aware of speculation that it would be appropriate to test compliance with S4.2's "key-locking system" requirements by deliberately placing the transmission shift lever at various points between the "Reverse" and "Park" position gear selector detents while attempting to remove the ignition key. When so tested, the shift control system on at least a large proportion of 1993 Escorts and Tracers can be manipulated to one or another spot -- varying from vehicle to vehicle -- at which the key can be removed while the selector lever is held short of engaging the "Park" positioning detent. (Because the parking pawl will be engaged in or abutted on the park gear, the vehicles will not be free to roll more than a matter of inches). We are informed and believe that it may be possible to induce key removal while the selector lever is mispositioned between gears in vehicles produced by other manufacturers, too.

Ford respectfully submits that a compliance test involving mispositioning of the shift control lever between gear positions would be inappropriate in light of the revised standard's purpose and history. Such a test would be premised on an assumption that a substantive purpose of the recent amendment to FMVSS 114 is to prevent shifting errors (i.e., to ensure that drivers attempting to shift into "Park" fully engage the park mechanism on the vehicle). Of course, the rulemaking record regarding the FMVSS 114 amendment to S4.2 repeatedly indicates that the primary purpose of the FMVSS 114 amendments is to ensure that children or other occupants of a vehicle parked on a slanted surface with the ignition off and the key removed will not be able to move the transmission shift lever out of the "Park" detent, thereby placing the transmission in a neutral mode and creating the potential for a rollaway accident.

There is no indication in the rulemaking history that the revisions of FMVSS 114 are intended to address shifting errors. Indeed, shortly after issuance of the amendment to FMVSS 114 in question, the agency appropriately concluded in another context that the potential for "inadvertent vehicle movement" incidents because of shift control mispositioning is "relatively small" and did not justify beginning a rulemaking proceeding. See, W. A. Barr, 55 Fed. Reg. 25340 (June 21, 1990).

A test based upon mispositioning the shift control lever also seems inappropriate for the additional reason that no peculiar hazard arises because the transmission shift lever may have been left in-between the "Reverse" and "Park" detents. In assessing any safety implications related to an unattended child in a parked vehicle, it must be remebered that NHTSA had permitted manufacturers to have until September 1, 1993 to install covers that would "childproof" the key-lock system override button. Thus, at least in vehicles produced before September 1, 1993, a child who pushed the override button could move the transmission shift lever in a parked vehicle with the key removed, regardless of whether or not the transmission shift lever had been properly positioned in the "Park" detent.

More importantly, since the key-locking system requirement of FMVSS 114 only covers the situation where the ignition has been turned off by removal of the key, the possibility of vehicle movement addressed by the standard involves only unpowered rollaway, and arises only if the vehicle has been parked on a slanted surface without the parking brake having been set. Thus, the scenario envisioned by the revised standard involves even smaller potential for injuries due to inadvertent vehicle movement than the scenarios assessed by NHTSA when it evaluated the Barr petition which included, among other things, powered movement of unattended vehicles.

We hope that you are in agreement with our view of the appropriate approach to FMVSS 114 compliance testing. Assuming this to be the case, we would appreciate your confirming this by return correspondence. We are available to discuss this matter with you at your convenience.

ID: Sealing_screen000519

Ms. Erika Z. Jones
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
1909 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-1101




Dear Ms. Jones:

This responds to your January 7, 2005, letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. You ask if a sealing screen attached to an exterior door panel would be subject to FMVSS No. 302. Our answer is no.

In your letter, you state that the sealing screen is installed between the door trim panel and the exterior door panel. It does not adhere to the door trim panel at any point, and is physically attached only to the exterior door panel. You state that the sealing screen serves the purpose of protecting the space behind the exterior door panel from moisture leaks and is not designed to absorb energy from an occupant in a crash. The sealing screen is within 13 millimeters (mm) of the occupant compartment air space.

FMVSS No. 302 applies to new motor vehicles, and specifies burn resistance requirements for particular components, listed in S4.1 of the standard, used in the vehicle occupant compartment. Of those components, any portion of a single or composite material which is within 13 mm of the occupant compartment air space must meet the burn limit requirements of S4.3 of the standard. The components listed in S4.1 are:

Seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts, headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, mattress covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash-deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash.

The question presented by your letter is whether we would consider the screen you described as a "trim panel, including door, front, rear, and side panels". Our answer is no. The screen is attached solely to the exterior door

panel and is not incorporated into the interior door trim panel. We therefore conclude that it is not part of a "trim panel". Since the screen would not be part of a component listed in S4.1, it is excluded from FMVSS No. 302.

If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:302
d.2/24/05

ID: nht92-7.32

DATE: April 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark A. Sedlack -- Product Design Manager, Century Products Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/11/92 from Mark A. Sedlack to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7079)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). More specifically, you asked how compliance testing would be conducted for a rear-facing child restraint labeled for use by children weighing up to 25 pounds.

The initial question we must address is what size test dummy would be used for compliance testing. S7.1 of Standard No. 213 provides that the six-month-old dummy is used for testing a child restraint system that is recommended by its manufacturer for use by children in a weight range that includes children weighing not more than 20 pounds. S7.2 of Standard No. 213 provides that the three-year-old dummy is used for testing a child restraint system that is recommended by its manufacturer for use by children in a weight range that includes children weighing more than 20 pounds. Since the rear-facing child restraint in your example is recommended for use both by children weighing less than and more than 20 pounds, either the six-month-old or the three-year-old dummy could be used in the agency's compliance testing, as provided in S6.1.2.3 of the standard.

Your letter stated that you understood that this rear-facing child restraint would be subject to testing using the three-year-old dummy. However, you indicated that neither your company nor a testing facility understood how the three-year-old dummy could be installed in a rear-facing child restraint. You asked for clarification of how the three-year-old dummy could be installed.

At the outset, I must note that it is impossible for me to offer any guidance for how to install the test dummy in your particular rear-facing child restraint because I do not know the details of your design. I can offer general guidance that you should be able to apply to your particular design.

The procedures to be followed in positioning the three-year-old dummy in any child restraint other than a car bed are set forth in S6.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 213. If the rear-facing child restraint does not physically permit the three-year-old dummy to be positioned in accordance with S6.1.2.3.1, then that rear-facing child restraint cannot be recommended by its manufacturer for use in the rear-facing position by children weighing more than 20 pounds. This conclusion is similar to the agency conclusion announced in a July 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Donald Friedman that an infant restraint so small it cannot accommodate the six-month-old test dummy cannot be certified as complying with Standard No. 213.

In our letter to Mr. Friedman, the agency indicated that rulemaking could be initiated to sanction the use of an additional test dummy to evaluate the performance of a child restraint. However, that rulemaking would have to

include an agency determination that this additional test dummy is a reliable surrogate for measuring the system's performance in an actual crash. We can make the same statements with regard to the situation described in your letter. You stated in your letter that you have tested your company's existing convertible seats in the rear-facing position "with a CAMI dummy modified to 25 pounds with satisfactory results." If you have any information or test data showing that the CAMI dummy so modified is a reliable surrogate for measuring the performance of your convertible systems in the rear-facing position, such information might be helpful to this agency in deciding whether to initiate rulemaking in this area. Until such a rulemaking action were completed and amended provisions in effect, however, you cannot recommend that a child restraint be used for children weighing more than 20 pounds if that child restraint cannot accommodate the three-year-old test dummy.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.19

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 13, 1990

FROM: J.P. Ravier -- R&D Director, Valeo; Guy Dorleans -- Regulatory Affairs Manager, Valeo

TO: P.J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Ref: 861 M 90

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-13-90 to M.J.P. Ravier from Paul Jackson Rice (A36; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 7-30-90 to J.P. Ravier from Kathleen DeMeter

TEXT:

Valeo Lighting, manufacturer of car headlamps, hereby submits this request for an interpretation relating to the replaceable bulb headlamp aiming provisions in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, " Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipmen t."

In its issue of May 9th 1989, the Federal Register Vol. 54 No 88 in paragraph S.7.7.5.2. allows the use of a Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device for lamps with moving reflectors. This possibility is an important step in the direction of world harmonization, since this concept is widely used in Europe and in Japan. Valeo lighting is determined to use this possibility as soon as possible, and in this purpose has studied the:

" Aiming concept for headlamps. Solution 2." The attached documents explain how our engineers have solved the problems of providing the aiming feature on each lamp, and summarize the instructions which will be written in the maintenance book of each car.

We would greatly appreciate if you would kindly treat all the drawings as confidential, because they involve our own idea for development of on-vehicle aiming which has something related to a patent application.

After our demonstration of a working prototype to NHTSA personnel on June 29th, we would ask you to provide us with your confirmation of our interpretation of Standard 108.

Upon your kind review to this matter, your promptly reply would be greatly appreciated.

Enclosure

July 13th, 1990

Aiming concept for Headlamps. Solution 2. 1) Description of the headlamp.

The lamp is composed of a lens with no aiming pads, a housing bolted on the car body and a reflector which moves independently inside the housing. The lens has a clear area which allows to observe a bubble spirit level fixed on the reflector. This cyli nder has its axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

The horizontal aiming feature consists in two combined coaxial screws and nut, hereafter referred to as AH and BH. The cap which gives access to the AH screw can be removed by using simple tools. The clearly legible outer surface of BH has graduations representing less than .38 degrees and a total amplitude of .76 degrees to the left and .76 degrees to the right.

2) Vertical reaim.

On the assembly lines of the lamp manufacturer, each lamp is individually aimed thanks to photometric means. The car manufacturer, on its assembly lines, also aims each lamp with photometric means. The position of the seating plane of the housing is ch ecked carefully, and each bubble vial is set to zero and then blocked for life in this position by the lamp manufacturer. To reaim vertically:

2 1) Check the car fulfills the specifications of SAE J 599 May '81. 2 2) Measure the longitudinal angular value of the floor slope. Note the figure and its orientation, positive or negative. 2 3) Operate the aiming control until the bubble has slid by an equal number of fiducial marks in the appropriate direction. 2 4) Do the same for both lamps.

3) Horizontal reaim.

On the assembly lines of the car manufacturer, provisions are taken so that the zero position of the BH nut coincides with the specified aim. To reaim horizontally: Rotate the BH nuts until their fiducial mark coincides with the zero of their body counterparts.

4) Vertical reaim after accident dammage.

This procedure is not part of the normal maintenance of the car. It involves tools which are normally owned by dealers or repair shops. The floor of their premices must be rigid, flat and substantially horizontal.

4 1) Rotate the vertical aiming control until the bubble comes to the zero position. If, after severe dammage, the bubble can not reach the origin of the scale because the stroke of the aiming screw is too small, place shims between the body panel and t he housing.

5) Horizontal reaim after accident dammage.

The remarks of the preceeding paragraph also apply.

5 1) Set to zero the fiducial mark on BH, right hand side. 5 2) Remove the bulb service bonnets, and attach the string aimer to the reflector, as shown on section AA of attached documents. No mispositionning can happen, because the aimer for t he left hand lamp cannot fit into the right hand lamp.

5 3) Unroll the string from its right hand reel and affix it to the opposite string aimer. 5 4) Tightly prevent the BH nut from rotating, remove the cap 5 5) Operate the right hand screw AH until the string comes to the zero of

the fiducial marking on the right hand aimer. 5 6) Symetrizing the instructions, do the same for the left hand lamp, remove aimers, reinstall the bonnets.

It is important to note that this example does not exclude the use of conventionnal means, like the aiming screen or even the more modern fractionnal balance aiming machines. Like for vertical reaim after dammage, shims may be necessary if the stroke of the AH screw does not suffice.

Attachments

Drawing of string aimer left hand unit solution 2. (Graphics omitted.)

Drawing of horizontal aiming feature solution 2. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht75-4.44

DATE: 08/14/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wenger Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 10, 1975, question whether an air-braked trailer which was begun before the effective date of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, can be completed after the effective date of the Standard without complying with the requirements of the standard.

Section 571.7 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, establishes the point at which the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to the manufacture of motor vehicles and states in part: ". . . each standard . . . applies according to its terms to all motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment the manufacture of which is completed on or after the effective date of the standard." Therefore, the trailer you describe must conform to the requirements of Standard No. 121 if it is completed after January 1, 1975.

I have enclosed a copy of a Federal Register notice that concerns the manufacture of air-braked trailers, and which explains that a trailer may be certified as conforming as a completed vehicle when it is substantially completed. You should be able to determine if the trailer in question was substantially completed prior to January 1, 1975, for purposes of certification.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

July 10, 1975

National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration -- U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

I am writing in an effort to clarify a point I have regarding FMVSS 121 covering trailer air brake standards.

I am faced with the following situation. In February of 1972, we commenced work on manufacturing a 5th wheel mobile stage trailer which we sell to park and recreation systems across the country. Previous to that point in time, we manufactured these units utilizing a ball and hitch towing arrangement with electric brakes. However, this new design called for a 5th wheel towing arrangement with brakes. In November of that same year, we shelved the project indefinitely. At that point in time, we had completely assembled the frame, super-structure, axles, and brake system. We are presently thinking about re-opening this project and completing the unit.

Since the project was begun prior to the March 1, 1975, effective date for FMVSS 121 but will not be completed until well after that date, my question is, do I need to incorporate the new safety brake standards on this unit?

Your prompt reply to this inquiry will be greatly appreciated since your answer to this will have some bearing upon whether or not we decide to go ahead with this project.

Thanking you in advance, I remain,

Sincerely yours,

Richard A. Fisher -- Traffic Manager, WENGER CORP.

cc: Erich Harfmann; Tom Springmeyer; Len Nordman; Vern Smith

ID: aiam4796

"Dear Mr. Nishibori: This responds to your request for a interpretation of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). You were uncertain whether your shift lock emergency override system, your emergency key release, and your transmission park lock system comply with S4.2 and S4.3, as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). On June 29, 1990, you submitted a petition for reconsideration which the agency is currently considering. Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that: '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.' As explained below, we have made the following interpretations concerning your systems based on our understanding of them from your petition for reconsideration, your July 25, 1990 letter, and your discussions with agency staff. 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. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not approve any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. 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. Shift Lock Emergency Override You explained that your shift lock emergency override system is operable by depressing a button on the lower, rear portion of the shift lever. By depressing the button, the transmission may be shifted out of 'park,' independent of the ignition key position or the key being in the ignition switch. You expressed your opinion that 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. This led you to conclude that your emergency shift override would be permissible under S4.2(b). We disagree with your suggested interpretation. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must 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. Given the presence of the emergency shift release override, we do not believe the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be 'locked' in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. Your alternative shift lock system in which the manual override would be operable only after removing a cover over the override lever would also not appear to comply with S4.2 because the presence of a cover would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. Emergency Key Release You explained that your emergency key release system facilitates removal of the ignition key in the event of an electrical system failure. That system permits overriding the ignition key lock, so that the ignition key can be removed from the vehicle and the driver can lock the vehicle. You explained that the emergency key release override is activated by removing a cover over the ignition switch and then using a screw driver to activate a hidden lever located inside the exposed ignition switch compartment. We do not concur with your suggested interpretation of S4.2. That requirement provides that 'the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park.' The regulatory text does not refer to alternative methods of key removal such as the procedure you describe. While you state that virtually any key locking system can be overriden through some form of lock disassembly and associated procedures, we do not consider the simple override you describe to be similar to lock disassembly. Therefore, an emergency key release system in which the key could be removed in a position other than 'park' would not comply with S4.2, regardless how the key could be removed. Nevertheless, such an emergency key release would be permissible if it were operable only while the transmission or transmission shift lever were locked in the 'park' position. You should be aware that we are evaluating such systems in our review of the petitions for reconsideration to the final rule. Park Lock System You explained that your park lock system prevents drivers from inadvertently depressing the accelerator pedal rather than the brake pedal when shifting out of 'park'. This is accomplished by permitting the transmission lever to be moved out of 'park' only if the ignition key is in the 'on' position and the brake pedal is depressed. You further explained that if the transmission is placed in 'park,' the shift lever locks in that position when the ignition key is turned to the 'off' position. You expressed your belief that your park lock system complies with S4.3, as amended. I agree that your park lock system appears to comply with S4.3. That provision requires that the prime means for deactivating the vehicle's engine or motor, typically the ignition key, shall not activate the key-locking system described in S4.2(b). Based on our understanding of your key-locking system, it appears to comply with S4.3 because that provision refers to the key-locking system and not a transmission shift lock. As you correctly note, the purpose of S4.3 is to prevent the potentially dangerous situation in which the ignition key of a moving vehicle is turned to the 'off' position causing the steering column to lock. You asked that we continue to consider your petition for reconsideration, if, as we have done, we concluded that some of your suggested interpretations were incorrect. We will notify you of our response to that petition as soon as we complete our review of it. I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: nht88-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/88

FROM: JUANITA P. DAVISON

TO: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE CRASH EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/22/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- HNTSA TO JUANITA P. DAVISON, REDBOOK A33(2), STANDARD 208

TEXT: Please advise me to whom I can make some input about the automatic type seat belts. I have a 1987 Toyota and have also seen this type seat belt used in Ford makes.

Please tell me for what purpose this design has been used. Is it to meet some safety regulation? Or is it some gimmick of the auto manufactuer?

This belt is a nuisance and most inconvenient. A person is not fully belted unless the lap belt is also pulled in place. How much simpler to make one move accomplish the process of being fully belted.

This shoulder belt takes away the roominess of the front. It is in the way when getting in the car with a handbag or briefcase or package which needs to be placed elsewhere in the car. I wear glasses on a chain and I have to always hold this out of the way when the shoulder belt in in position. Passengers not familiar with the action are startled and confused by it. To disengage the belt after stopping the motor and just sitting in the car, the door has to be opened. This shoulder belt requires a sp ecial unlocking mechanism in case of emergency after impact. What if that is damaged during a collision. It is much more complicated than the push button used to release the lap belt (and combined lap and shoulder belts in other cars).

This is a travesty imposed on the ones who were not aware of the inconvenience and the fallacy of "automatic seat belts". I still have to buckle the lap belt and then be ready for the shoulder belt to rivet in place when the motor is turned on. The rev erse process when leaving the car. There is so much lost motion besides all the inconvenience just fr the sake of having a shoulder belt forceably used. Of course all I have to do is take the shoulder belt and lift it back over my head if I don't want to use it while driving. But I do want to be fully belted and would like the one step method. Can I legally disengage the motorized mechanism with the shoulder belt in place so that I can just lift it over my head? This would eliminate some of the dra wbacks.

Juanita P. Davison

(P.S.) I have also been told it is not safe to wear a shoulder belt without the lap belt, because of possibility of choking!