ID: nht89-2.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: R. YAMAUCHI -- SEAT BELT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT NIPPON SEIKO K.K.

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/02/88 FROM R. YAMAUCHI TO NHTSA, DUEL MODE RETRACTOR [ELR MODE AND ALR MODE RETRACTOR]

TEXT: Dear Mr. Yamauchi:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209). I regret the delay in responding. Your questions concerned a seat belt assembly that is designed with a dual mode retractor. The ret ractor for this system generally functions as an emergency locking retractor (ELR). However, the retractor can be converted to an automatic locking retractor (ALR) to facilitate securing a child restraint at that seating position. The retractor convert s from an ELR to an ALR when the webbing is completely extended. The retractor converts back to an ELR when most of the webbing has been retracted. You posed the following questions.

1. Is this retractor considered an ELR? If so, is it required to comply with the performance requirements for ELR's, or is it required to comply with the performance requirements for both ELR's and ALR's?

Response: Your letter did not provide sufficient information to allow us to answer this question. However, in a July 3, 1984 letter to Mr. Donald Schwentker, we explained the criteria we use to determine whether a dual mode retractor such as you describe d is considered an ELR or an ALR for the purposes of our safety standards. To briefly restate the criteria, section S4.1(g) of Standard No. 209 specifies adjustment requirements for all seat belt assemblies. We examine the functioning of the retractor d uring normal operation by occupants within the weights and dimensions set forth in S4.1(g)(3) of Standard No. 209. If 100 percent extension of the webbing is likely to occur during normal operation of the belt assembly by those occupants (thereby convert ing the retractor into an ALR), the retractor would be considered an ALR. If during normal operation of the belt assembly by the specified occupants the retractor would function exclusively as an ELR, the retractor would be considered an ELR.

Using these criteria, the length of the webbing used in the belt assembly will ultimately determine whether a dual mode retractor would be considered an ELR. If the webbing is long enough that a 95th percentile adult male would not extend the webbing 100 percent during normal operations (including fastening and unfastening the belt or leaning forward to adjust the radio or other controls on the instrument panel), the retractor would operate exclusively as an ELR and would be treated as such for the purp oses of our safety standards. If, on the other hand, normal operations by a 95th percentile adult male would result in 100 percent extension of the webbing, the retractor would be considered an ALR for the purposes of our standards. Your letter did not provide any information about the length of the webbing to be used in the belt assembly, so we cannot offer any opinion about whether the retractor for the belt assembly would be considered an ELR or an ALR.

2. You noted that section S5.2(k) of Standard No. 209 requires that ELRs be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension. You stated if dual mode retractors were treated as ELRs, thi s requirement would present serious problems, since 100 percent webbing extension would convert the retractor to an ALR and the subsequent retraction to 50 percent extension would not convert the retractor back to an ELR. Hence, when the webbing returne d to 50 percent extension after 100 percent extension, the retractor would be an ALR. In this mode, the retractor would lock the webbing at 50 percent extension and no further cycles would be possible. To avoid this problem, you asked if you could test the retractor by subjecting it to 45,000 additional cycles between 0 percent extension and 100 percent extension. You asserted that this testing should be permitted, because it is a more stringent test of the retractor.

Response: This question may reflect a misunderstanding of the differing responsibilities imposed on a manufacturer that is certifying compliance with a safety standard and on the agency when it is testing for compliance with a safety standard. You, as a manufacturer, are not required to conduct testing before certifying that your belt assemblies comply with Standard No. 209. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that you exercise "due care" in making such certifications. It is up to the manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that each of its products comply with all applicable safety standar ds.

If a manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, the manufacturer is free to modify any or all parts of the test procedure specified in the standard, provided that the manufacturer can show that the results obtained using these modified test procedures are sufficient to satisfy the "due care" standard. You have the responsibility in the first instance to decide whether the substitution of an alternative test is sufficient to establish due care in making certifications based on this modification of the sta ndard. This determination involves assessing whether the results

of the alternative test procedure are good predictors of the results of the test procedure specified in the standard.

When the agency conducts its compliance testing, however, it is required to follow the compliance tests specified in the applicable standard. Thus, the agency would not substitute cycles between 0 and 100 percent extension for the cycles between 50 and 100 percent extension that are specified in Standard No. 209. If this retractor were treated as an ELR for purposes of Standard No. 209, applying the criteria set forth above in response to your first question, we would test the retractor solely as an E LR. To do this, we would disengage or disconnect the features that convert the retractor to an ALR at 100 percent webbing extension. The retractor would then be tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in S5.2(k) of Standard No. 209.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

ID: 1872y

AIR MAIL

Mr. R. Yamauchi Seat Belt Engineering Department Nippon Seiko K.K. 12, Kirihara-cho Fujisawa, JAPAN

Dear Mr. Yamauchi:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209). I regret the delay in responding. Your questions concerned a seat belt assembly that is designed with a dual mode retractor. The retractor for this system generally functions as an emergency locking retractor (ELR). However, the retractor can be converted to an automatic locking retractor (ALR) to facilitate securing a child restraint at that seating position. The retractor converts from an ELR to an ALR when the webbing is completely extended. The retractor converts back to an ELR when most of the webbing has been retracted. You posed the following questions.

1. Is this retractor considered an ELR? If so, is it required to comply with the performance requirements for ELR's, or is it required to comply with the performance requirements for both ELR's and ALR's?

Response: Your letter did not provide sufficient information to allow us to answer this question. However, in a July 3, 1984 letter to Mr. Donald Schwentker, we explained the criteria we use to determine whether a dual mode retractor such as you described is considered an ELR or an ALR for the purposes of our safety standards. To briefly restate the criteria, section S4.1(g) of Standard No. 209 specifies adjustment requirements for all seat belt assemblies. We examine the functioning of the retractor during normal operation by occupants within the weights and dimensions set forth in S4.1(g)(3) of Standard No. 209. If 100 percent extension of the webbing is likely to occur during normal operation of the belt assembly by those occupants (thereby converting the retractor into an ALR), the retractor would be considered an ALR. If during normal operation of the belt assembly by the specified occupants the retractor would function exclusively as an ELR, the retractor would be considered an ELR.

Using these criteria, the length of the webbing used in the belt assembly will ultimately determine whether a dual mode retractor would be considered an ELR. If the webbing is long enough that a 95th percentile adult male would not extend the webbing 100 percent during normal operations (including fastening and unfastening the belt or leaning forward to adjust the radio or other controls on the instrument panel), the retractor would operate exclusively as an ELR and would be treated as such for the purposes of our safety standards. If, on the other hand, normal operations by a 95th percentile adult male would result in 100 percent extension of the webbing, the retractor would be considered an ALR for the purposes of our standards. Your letter did not provide any information about the length of the webbing to be used in the belt assembly, so we cannot offer any opinion about whether the retractor for the belt assembly would be considered an ELR or an ALR.

2. You noted that section S5.2(k) of Standard No. 209 requires that ELRs be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension. You stated if dual mode retractors were treated as ELRs, this requirement would present serious problems, since 100 percent webbing extension would convert the retractor to an ALR and the subsequent retraction to 50 percent extension would not convert the retractor back to an ELR. Hence, when the webbing returned to 50 percent extension after 100 percent extension, the retractor would be an ALR. In this mode, the retractor would lock the webbing at 50 percent extension and no further cycles would be possible. To avoid this problem, you asked if you could test the retractor by subjecting it to 45,000 additional cycles between 0 percent extension and 100 percent extension. You asserted that this testing should be permitted, because it is a more stringent test of the retractor.

Response: This question may reflect a misunderstanding of the differing responsibilities imposed on a manufacturer that is certifying compliance with a safety standard and on the agency when it is testing for compliance with a safety standard. You, as a manufacturer, are not required to conduct testing before certifying that your belt assemblies comply with Standard No. 209. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that you exercise "due care" in making such certifications. It is up to the manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that each of its products comply with all applicable safety standards.

If a manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, the manufacturer is free to modify any or all parts of the test procedure specified in the standard, provided that the manufacturer can show that the results obtained using these modified test procedures are sufficient to satisfy the "due care" standard. You have the responsibility in the first instance to decide whether the substitution of an alternative test is sufficient to establish due care in making certifications based on this modification of the standard. This determination involves assessing whether the results of the alternative test procedure are good predictors of the results of the test procedure specified in the standard.

When the agency conducts its compliance testing, however, it is required to follow the compliance tests specified in the applicable standard. Thus, the agency would not substitute cycles between 0 and 100 percent extension for the cycles between 50 and 100 percent extension that are specified in Standard No. 209. If this retractor were treated as an ELR for purposes of Standard No. 209, applying the criteria set forth above in response to your first question, we would test the retractor solely as an ELR. To do this, we would disengage or disconnect the features that convert the retractor to an ALR at 100 percent webbing extension. The retractor would then be tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in S5.2(k) of Standard No. 209.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /ref:209 d:6/l9/89

ID: 2967yy

Mr. Howard "Mac" Dashney
Pupil Transportation Consultant
Michigan Department of Education
P.O. Box 30008
Lansing, Michigan 48909

Dear Mr. Dashney:

This responds to your letter of February 19, 1991. In your letter you asked several questions regarding the purchase, sale, and use of motor vehicles used to transport students to and from school and related events. Where two or more questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response.

Question 1: Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 5: Are there FMVSS's in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events?

The answer to both questions is yes. NHTSA has issued FMVSS covering all of the types of motor vehicles mentioned in your questions. The application section of each FMVSS indicates which types of motor vehicles are required to comply with its provisions.

The motor vehicles you refer to in Question 1 are considered "schoolbuses" by this agency. A "school bus" is a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school and school-related events (49 CFR 571.3). New school buses must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for "buses" and also those for "school buses." The following is a list of the FMVSS that include requirements for school buses:

Standards No. 101 through No. 104; Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 106 through No. 108; Standards No. 111 through 113; Standard No. 115; Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standard No. 119; Standard No. 120; Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems); Standard No. 124; Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 205; Standards No. 207 through No. 210; Standard No. 212 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 217; Standard No. 219 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 220; Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); and Standards No. 222, 301, and 302.

These standards are part of 49 CFR 571. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the FMVSS.

Regarding the motor vehicles mentioned in Question 5, definitions of other motor vehicle types are also found in 49 CFR 571.3. For instance, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation" (49 CFR 571.3(b)). "Passenger car" is defined as " a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (49 CFR 571.3(b)).

Question 2: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 6: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events?

Assuming that the particular vehicle manufactured or sold complies with all FMVSS that apply to that type of vehicle, the answer to your question is yes. Note however, that unlike other motor vehicle types, a school bus is defined by both the vehicle's seating capacity and its intended use. If a manufacturer or dealer is aware that the intended use of a vehicle is to transport students to and from school and related events, it is a violation of Federal law to sell a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more persons, including the driver, unless the vehicle complies with all FMVSS applicable to school buses.

Question 3: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 4: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 7: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it purchases sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 8: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it uses sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Liability risk is a question of state, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how these issues would be resolved under Michigan law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Michigan for an opinion on the application of Michigan law to these situations. You may also wish to consult your agency's attorney and insurance company for more information.

I must emphasize, however, NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. In addition, I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles other than school buses.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:VSA#571.3 "school bus" d:4/l2/9l

ID: nht91-3.19

DATE: April 12, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Howard "Mac" Dashney -- Pupil Transportation Consultant, Michigan Department of Education

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-19-91 from Howard "Mac" Dashney to Paul J. Rice (OCC 5739)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 19, 1991. In your letter you asked several questions regarding the purchase, sale, and use of motor vehicles used to transport students to and from school and related events. Where two or more questions concern a common issue, they are addressed by a single response.

Question 1: Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 5: Are there FMVSS's in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events?

The answer to both questions is yes. NHTSA has issued FMVSS covering all of the types of motor vehicles mentioned in your questions. The application section of each FMVSS indicates which types of motor vehicles are required to comply with its provisions.

The motor vehicles you refer to in Question 1 are considered "schoolbuses" by this agency. A "school bus" is a motor vehicle designed to carry 11 or more persons, including a driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school and school-related events (49 CFR S571.3). New school buses must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for "buses" and also those for "school buses." The following is a list of the FMVSS that include requirements for school buses:

Standards No. 101 through No. 104; Standard No. 105 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standards No. 106 through No. 108; Standards No. 111 through 113; Standard No. 115; Standard No. 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brake systems); Standard No. 119; Standard No. 120; Standard No. 121 (school buses with air brake systems); Standard No. 124; Standards No. 201 through No. 204 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 205; Standards No. 207 through No. 210;

Standard No. 212 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 217; Standard No. 219 (school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less); Standard No. 220; Standard No. 221 (school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds); and Standards No. 222, 301, and 302.

These standards are part of 49 CFR S571. I have enclosed information on how you can obtain copies of the FMVSS.

Regarding the motor vehicles mentioned in Question 5, definitions of other motor vehicle types are also found in 49 CFR S571.3. For instance, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation" (49 CFR S571.3(b)). "Passenger car" is defined as " a motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less" (49 CFR S571.3(b)).

Question 2: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 6: Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events?

Assuming that the particular vehicle manufactured or sold complies with all FMVSS that apply to that type of vehicle, the answer to your question is yes. Note however, that unlike other motor vehicle types, a school bus is defined by both the vehicle's seating capacity and its intended use. If a manufacturer or dealer is aware that the intended use of a vehicle is to transport students to and from school and related events, it is a violation of Federal law to sell a vehicle with a capacity of 11 or more persons, including the driver, unless the vehicle complies with all FMVSS applicable to school buses.

Question 3: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 4: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 7: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Question 8: Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

Liability risk is a question of state, not Federal law. I am not qualified to offer an opinion on how these issues would be resolved under Michigan law. I suggest that you contact the Attorney General for the State of Michigan for an opinion on the application of Michigan law to these situations. You may also wish to consult your agency's attorney and insurance company for more information.

I must emphasize, however, NHTSA's position that a vehicle meeting Federal school bus regulations is the safest way to transport students. In addition, I encourage your school districts to give their most careful consideration to the possible consequences of transporting students in vehicles other than school buses.

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

ID: aiam5070

"Dear Mr. Owens: This responds to your letter requesting informatio regarding the legal aspects of school bus safety standards. Specifically, you requested a book or pamphlet containing the requested information. By way of background information, under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to promulgate Federal 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. In 1974 Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 which, by amending section 121 of the Safety Act, directed the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, applicable to all school buses. Those standards became effective on April 1, 1977 and are included, along with the rest of the agency's safety standards, in 49 CFR Part 571. The Safety Act defines a school bus as a vehicle that 'is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools.' NHTSA further defines a school bus as a motor vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more persons, including the driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. See 49 CFR 571.3. It is a violation of Federal law for any person knowingly to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. On the other hand, once a vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, it may be used to transport school children without violating Federal law, even though it may not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. That is because individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles. Therefore, to ascertain whether one may use noncomplying vehicles to transport school children, one must look to state law. It is this agency's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children. Please find enclosed a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Specifically, the following standards include requirements for school buses: Standards 101 through 104, Standard 105 (school buses with hydraulic brakes) Standards 106 through 108, Standards 111 through 113, Standard 115, Standard 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brakes), Standards 119 and 120, Standard 121 (school buses with air brakes), Standard 124, Standard 131 (effective September 1, 1992), Standards 201 through 204 (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard 205, Standards 207 through 210, Standard 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard 217, Standard 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less), Standard 220, Standard 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds), Standard 222, Standards 301 and 302. Some of the above-listed standards have unique requirements for school buses, including, but not necessarily limited to, Standards 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301. Other standards are applicable only to school buses, such as Standards 131, 220, 221, and 222. Standard 131 was promulgated on May 3, 1991 and may be found at 56 Federal Register 20370. It requires all school buses manufactured after September 1, 1992, to be equipped with stop signal arms. Standard 220 establishes requirements for school bus rollover protection. Standard 221 establishes strength requirements for school bus body panel joints. Standard 222 establishes minimum crash protection levels for occupants of school buses. Under the provisions of Standard 222, small school buses, that is those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must be equipped with lap belts. For large school buses, those with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through 'compartmentalization,' a concept which calls for strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. Should you wish copies of our safety standards, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet prepared by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations. I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam5616

"Dear Mr. Holmes: This responds to your letter asking about Federa 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";

ID: nht88-3.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: KUNIO SHIMAZU -- GENERAL MANAGER, U.S. OFFICE - TOYOTA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: FEBRUARY 26, 1988 LETTER FROM SHIMAZU TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). I apologize for the delay in this response. Specifically, you were concerned with the requirements for positioning automatic safet y belts on the test dummy prior to dynamic testing. You noted that, before conducting compliance testing of vehicles with automatic belt systems, section S10.5.2 of Standard No. 208 necessitates the following step: "Ensure that the upper torso belt lies flat on the test dummy's shoulder after the automatic belt has been placed on the test dummy." You asserted that this section does not clearly specify the belt path or how the belt is to be positioned on the dummy's shoulder. You further expressed your concern that, during the agency compliance testing, test personnel might believe that they are prohibited from adjusting the belt path on the dummy after the door has been shut for any reason other than the belt's failure to lie flat on the test dummy's shoulder. You asserted that, if NHTSA does not adjust the belt path as you have suggested for its compliance testing of vehicles with automatic belts, the compliance testing will be insufficiently representative of "real-world" performance of the automa tic belts.

Standard No. 208 does provide for adjustment of automatic belts only if the belt fails to lie flat on the test dummy's shoulder. Belt systems that require some additional deliberate actions by the vehicle occupant to provide effective crash protection f or the occupant are not automatic belt systems within the meaning of Standard No. 208, as explained below.

Standard No. 208 has always permitted manufacturers to comply with its requirement for automatic crash protection by any means that "requires no action by vehicle occupants." See 35 FR 14941; September 25, 1970. Automatic safety belts that require no ac tion by vehicle occupants are one means of satisfying the requirement for automatic crash protection. On April 25, 1974 (39 FR 14593), the agency issued an interpretation of this concept, in which the agency said that it would not consider a belt

system that had to be manually moved out of the way by the occupant to be an "automatic" system within the meaning of Standard No. 208. The following discussion also appeared, at 39 FR 14594:

The question of what constitutes "no action by vehicle occupants" in a vehicle equipped with (presumptively) passive belts is best considered in two stages: (1) Entry and exit from the vehicle, and (2) positioning of the belt for safety and comfort.

* * *

The second question relates to the usefulness of the system once the occupant has been seated. The essence of a passive system is that it provides at least the minimum level of protection without relying on occupant action to deploy the restraint. A t this stage, then, the question is whether an occupant who has seated himself without taking any "additional action" is in fact protected in a 30 mph impact. This can be measured by conducting the impact tests with the belt positioned on the test dummy in the orientation that results when a human occupant enters the vehicle according to the first test described above. It would not be required that the belt position itself for maximum comfort of the human occupant, if it met the safety requirements. For example, if the belt were to fall across the upper arm instead of the clavicle, but still passed the test, the system would be considered conforming.

After further consideration, the agency tentatively concluded that its interpretation might have been too stringent in suggesting that a belt system that had to be manually moved out of the way by an occupant to enter or exit the vehicle would not be con sidered an automatic belt system for purposes of Standard No. 208. The agency sought public comment on this tentative conclusion in an April 12, 1985 notice (50 FR 14580). The four commenters that responded to this request all concurred with the agency 's judgment that the 1974 interpretation was too stringent, and the agency revised its interpretation in a November 6, 1985 rule (50 FR 46056). The following discussion appears at 50 FR 46064:

. . . The concept of an occupant protection system which requires "no action by vehicle occupants," as that term is used in Standard No. 208, is intended to designate a system which will perform its protective restraining function after a normal proce ss of ingress or egress without separate deliberate actions by the vehicle occupants to deploy the restraint system. Thus, the agency considers an occupant protection system to be automatic if an occupant has to take no action to deploy the system but w ould normally slightly push the safety belt webbing aside when entering or exiting the vehicle or would normally make a slight adjustment in the webbing for comfort. . . . (Emphasis in original)

This interpretation was added to the end of Standard No. 208 to make clear that a belt system requires "no action by vehicle occupants" if the occupant must slightly push the webbing when entering or exiting the vehicle or if the occupant must make a sli ght adjustment to improve comfort. This interpretation neither said nor implied that a belt system

that must be adjusted to provide effective occupant protection would be considered an automatic belt system for the purposes of Standard No. 208. Indeed, since the vehicle occupant would have to take separate deliberate actions to deploy such a belt syst em, the interpretation makes clear that such a system would not be considered an automatic belt system.

The positioning procedures for automatic belts reflect this understanding of what constitutes an "automatic" belt system. Such procedures were added to Standard No. 208 in a September 5, 1986 final rule (51 FR 31765). The following discussion appeared in the preamble to that rule: In the agency's NCAP testing, the only adjustment NHTSA has made to an automatic belt once it has been deployed on the test dummy is to ensure that the belt is lying flat on the test dummy's shoulder when the belt is in its final position. The agency is adopting the same procedure for the Standard No. 208 compliance test. 51 FR 31766.

An adjustment to ensure that the belt webbing is not twisted on the test dummy's shoulder is the sort of adjustment that would normally be made by a vehicle occupant for comfort. Hence, this type of adjustment in compliance testing is consistent with th e November 6, 1985 interpretation of automatic belt systems for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

NHTSA intentionally did not provide for any further adjustments of automatic belts prior to Standard No. 208 compliance testing, because automatic belts require no action by vehicle occupants. Any belt systems that need some further adjustments to offer effective occupant protection require some action by vehicle occupants, and therefore are not automatic belt systems for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

ID: nht76-5.75

DATE: JULY 14, 1976

FROM: WILLIAM K. ROSENBERRY -- ATTORNEY AT LAW

TO: GEORGE SHIFFLETT -- OFFICE OF STANDARDS, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED AUGUST 19, 1978 FROM FRANK BERNDT, NHTSA, TO WILLIAM K. ROSENBERRY

TEXT: It is my understanding that you are responsible for enforcement of the standards promulgated by the Department of Transportation pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The purpose in my writing is to request information concerning the standards promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation.

I have a client which is anticipating the formation of a business in which new pick-up trucks would be purchased from manufacturers and re-outfitted in the cab area by providing a different seat, new carpeting, and headliners, and then sold through dealers to the general public. It is my understanding that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to a company in the position of my client, and in particular, Standard #302 relating to flammability of materials and Standard #207 relating to seating requirements.

I would appreciate knowing if a company in the position of my client which is remodeling new automobiles may rely on the warranty of a fabric manufacturer that the fabric sold meets the requirements of Section #302. A fabric supplier has recently stated that they are required under Federal Regulations to test each lot of fabric for flammability purposes before certification can be given. Please advise whether in fact such certification per lot is necessary by a fabric supplier. I would also appreciate being placed on any mailing list which your Department may keep in order that I may be informed of any future standards or changes which relate to this Act and the standards promulgated by the Secretary of Transportation.

ID: nht73-1.5

DATE: 02/22/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd. USA Rep. Ofc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 8, 1973 concerning the operating point of a hand-operating parking system (Standard No. 105a).

We intend to specify an operating point in the response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard No. 105a. This notice should be published not later than May 1, 1973.

Yours truly,

Richard B Dyson -- Assistant Chief Councel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator U.S. Government of Transportation

Dear Mr. Dyson

Re; Operating Point of Hand Parking System

Would you inform us your opinion regarded with 90 lb force applied to hand-operated parking system in MVSS 105A Docket No. 70-27 Notice 5 Section 5.2.

In this regulation we cannot find the operating point.

We would like to consider it on the middle finger in following figure.

Your kind reply will be high appreciated,

Sincerely yours,

ID: nht94-7.30

DATE: March 22, 1994

FROM: Gerald J. Gannon -- Attorney, GM Legal Staff

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; Stanley Scheiner - Office of Market Incentives; Barbara A. Gray - Office of Market Incentives; Charles W. Babcock, Esq. - General Motors Legal Staff; Milford R. Bennett - General Motors Safety Center; Richard F. Humphrey - General Motors Safety Center; Lorenzo B. Perkins - General Motors Safety Center

TITLE: FMVSS 114 - Automatic Transmission Park-Lock Override

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9-16-94 letter from John Womack to Gerald Gannon (A42; STD. 114)

TEXT: This letter requests the opinion of the Chief Counsel's Office on this question: did the agency intend to require that vehicles with an automatic transmission with a "park" provision must prevent steering after removal of the key in order to have an ignition key-operated transmission shift override device? Uncertainty results from provisions added to FMVSS 114 on March 26, 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 12464, 12469) that were basically continued on January 17, 1992 (57 Fed. Reg. 2039).

BACKGROUND

May 30, 1990

The agency amended FMVSS 114 to require vehicles with an automatic transmission with a "park" position to have a key-locking system that prevents 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. "The amendment is intended to reduce the potential for accidents caused by shifting the transmission lever on parked vehicles with automatic transmissions.", by children (55 Fed. Reg. 21868). In the Preamble the agency approved of an ignition key-operated manual override device:

"The agency has decided that a superior approach is to permit a manual override to the electrical shift system, but only if such an override has to be operated by the key used to control the vehicle." (emphasis added)

(Id. at 21873, left column)

Use of such a key-operated override device was not limited to a vehicle whose steering is prevented after removal of the key.

March 26, 1991

Responding to petitions for reconsideration of the Final Rule, the agency amended the above Final Rule primarily to permit certain key-less override devices so that in the event of electrical failure the ignition key can be removed or the transmission shifted out of "park". This was done because in the event of a battery failure certain vehicle designs would not permit removal of the key from the ignition or shifting the transmission from "park" to facilitate towing. At the same time the agency attempted to add to the regulation permission to use the previously approved ignition key-operated override device (56 Fed. Reg. 12464).

The Preamble to that response states:

One way to prevent access by children and thus vehicle roll-away is to permit an override that is operable only by the vehicle's key because this typically ensures that the override is being activated by an authorized user. The preamble to the final rule explained that such a key-operated override was permissible. Based on the apparent confusion caused by not expressly stating this in the regulatory text, upon reconsideration, the agency has modified Standard No. 114 so that section S4.2.2(b) now states that the means for activating the override device may be operable by the key, as defined in S3 of the standard.

...

The agency emphasizes that the amendment permits a key-less emergency override only if theft protection is ensured by a steering lock. (emphasis added)

(Id at 12466, 12467)

S4.2.2(b) was added to permit moving the automatic transmission shift lever from "park" after removal of the key from the ignition by activating an emergency override device. If the device is activated by the key, as defined in S3, the device need not be covered. If there is a key-less device, the device must be "covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool."

The Preamble to that Final Rule suggests the phrase "provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed" was inadvertently placed as shown below:

(b) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified herein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed. The means for activating the device may be operable by the key, as defined in S3. The device may be operable by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool. (emphasis added)

(Supra at 12469)

However, to be consistent with the Preamble concern about theft protection for only a key-less override device, the phrase should have been located as shown below:

(b) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified herein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key. The means for activating the device may be operable by the key, as defined in S3. Provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed, the device may be operable by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool. (emphasis added)

January 17, 1992

In response to Toyota and Honda's petitions for reconsideration of the March 1991 rule the agency stated "the notice further amends the requirements to provide manufacturers appropriate flexibility while continuing to meet the need for safety" and delayed until September 1, 1993 "the requirement for inaccessibility for the emergency release button on the transmission shift override device". The increased flexibility expressly allows releasing a key in any gear shift position in the event of battery failure. The delay of the requirement to cover a key-less transmission shift override device was intended to help manufacturers unable to meet the September 1, 1992 effective point. (57 Fed. Reg. 2039-40)

At that time the agency reiterated:

The May 1990 final rule permitted only key-based override systems. In response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA also decided to permit key-less overrides that are not visible and are "child-proof". . . . Accordingly, the agency decided to permit key-less override devices only if they are covered by a non-transparent device which, when in place, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool.

(Supra at 2040)

With respect to transmission shift override devices the Final Rule resulting from that rulemaking states:

S4.2.2(b) is revised to read as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or by another means which, when installed, is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

(Supra at 2043 - emphasis added))

OUR INTERPRETATION

We believe that the agency intended to continue to permit use of an ignition key-operated shift override device in all vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" provision. We do not believe that the agency for the first time intended, without comment, to limit a shift override device "operated by the key used to control the vehicle" only to vehicles whose steering is prevented when the key is removed from the ignition. Although the steering prevention concern expressed in the Preamble was confined to key-less shift override devices, the Final Rule might be interpreted to limit even an override device operable by the ignition key to a vehicle whose steering is prevented when the key is removed. However, since an ignition key-operated shift override device requires use of that key, it could also be argued that the key is no longer removed from the vehicle, and is required to be used by someone who is authorized and therefore steering need not be prevented.

SUGGESTION

In the event that the agency concurs with my interpretation, in some future rulemaking the agency may also wish to clarify the regulation as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after removal of the key.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or, provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed, by another means which, when installed, is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

CONCLUSION

General Motors would like the flexibility to offer automatic transmission-equipped vehicles with a "park" position and an ignition key-operated shift override device in vehicles that would only prevent forward self-mobility after key removal as allowed by FMVSS 114 S4.2(b). Repeated Preamble comments regarding such a key-operated override device would permit this design. Your concurrence with this interpretation would be appreciated.

As always, we are prepared to discuss this matter further with you. If there are any questions, please contact me at (313) 974-1610.