ID: aiam5480

"Dear Dr. Kallieris: This responds to your FAX to Dr. Rolf Eppinger o NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of the requirements specified in Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting. The answers to your two questions are provided below. Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for a vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicles that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery. You stated that you have conducted 30 m.p.h. crash tests of motor vehicles with freshly adhered windshields. In the test vehicle, two Hybrid III dummies were placed in the front driver and passenger positions. Each dummy was restrained 'by a three-point belt and air bag.' Your first question asked whether the vehicle is subject to the requirements of S5.1 for 'vehicles equipped with passive restraints,' or S5.2 for 'vehicles not equipped with passive restraints.' The answer to your question depends on whether the restraint system in the tested vehicle meets the definition of 'passive restraint system' set forth in S4 of the standard. That term is defined as: a system meeting the occupant crash protection requirements of S5. of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Section S5 of Standard No. 208 sets occupant protection requirements that must be met in frontal, lateral and rollover crashes. You did not provide much information about the vehicle in question. We assume it is a passenger car. Standard No. 208 (S4.1.4) requires the following of current production passenger cars: (a) At each front outboard designated seating position, each vehicle must meet the standard's frontal crash protection requirements (S5.1) by means that require no action by vehicle occupants (e.g., by means of an air bag or automatic restraints), (b) at the front center designated seating position and at each rear seating position, have a type 1 (lap) or type 2 (lap/shoulder) belt assembly that meet specified requirements, and (c) either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, or at each front outboard designated seating position, have a type 1 or type 2 belt assembly that meets the requirements of S5.1 with front test dummies restrained by the type 1 or type 2 assembly in addition to the means that require no action by the vehicle occupant. We assume that the 'three-point belt and air bag' to which you refer were installed in the front outboard seating positions pursuant to these occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. NHTSA's longstanding position is that a vehicle equipped with a type 2 belt assembly and an air bag in those seating positions is equipped with a 'passive restraint system,' and is thus subject to the requirement of S5.1 that 50 percent of the windshield periphery must be retained. (See, e.g., August 18, 1986 letter to Volvo, copy enclosed.) As discussed in the enclosed letter, one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles was because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield, and incidental contact between an air bag-restrained test dummy and the windshield. The Standard No. 208 requirements listed above mean that a vehicle with passive restraints must meet the Standard No. 208 performance critera using only the passive restraints (air bag or automatic seat belt), and using both the passive and manual restraints. This would also be the case for Standard No. 212. The windshield retention would have to be at least 50 percent with the dummies restrained by only the passive restraint, and with the dummies restrained by both the passive and manual restraints. Therefore, your test (which appeared to have been conducted using both the air bag and the type 2 belt assembly) may not have been the worst case situation. Your second question asked whether the windshield displacements described in S5.1 and S5.2 are measured dynamically (i.e., during the crash), or statically (i.e., after the crash). NHTSA determines the portion of the windshield periphery that is retained by the vehicle after the dynamic crash test specified in the standard. I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX no. is (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam4665

"Dear Mr. Hutchinson: Thank you for your letter to Administrator Curr inquiring about the status of Volkswagen's exemption from certain provisions relating to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. The Administrator has asked me to respond. Your letter requested NHTSA's position on the status of Volkswagen's exemption from the provisions of section 503(b)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C 1901 et seq.), and indicated that Volkswagen considers the exemption moot and terminated. As explained below, NHTSA considers the exemption terminated as of the beginning of model year (MY) 1989. In 1981 (46 FR 54453, November 2, 1981), NHTSA granted Volkswagen's petition seeking an exemption from the general statutory provision that a manufacturer's domestically manufactured passenger automobiles and non-domestically manufactured passenger automobiles be placed in separate fleets for purposes of determining compliance with CAFE standards. Such an exemption is authorized under section 503(b)(3)(A) of the statute. The statute prohibits a manufacturer so exempted from earning CAFE credits during the period of the exemption. At Volkswagen's request, NHTSA granted the exemption for the indefinite future, reserving the agency's right to reconsider its action if it appeared that the exemption was no longer consistent with the purposes of the Act. Your letter indicates that Volkswagen terminated the production of 'domestically manufactured' vehicles (i.e., vehicles whose domestic content exceeds 75 percent) on June 30, 1987, and that Volkswagen's U.S. production was terminated entirely effective July 14, 1988. You believe the exemption (including its prohibition on the accumulation of CAFE credits) should have ended on June 30, 1987, but in no event later than July 14, 1988. The primary legal issue raised by your letter is how exemptions can be terminated. Although the agency expects that exemptions will normally terminate only after affirmative agency action, automatic terminations are not precluded. However, we do not believe that an exemption terminates 'automatically' merely because a manufacturer terminates its production of vehicles with more than 75 percent domestic content or halts all U.S. production. To conclude otherwise could create confusion and result in exemptions being terminated in instances in which the exempted manufacturer wanted its exemption to continue. The possibility of such problems may be seen in a number of circumstances, e.g., if a manufacturer temporarily halts U.S. production and then resumes it, or if it permits domestic content to fall below 75 percent temporarily and then raises it. We note that, in situations in which a manufacturer allows the percent domestic content to fall below 75 percent and continues to produce vehicles in the U.S. with that level of domestic content, it is likely to be relatively easy for the manufacturer to raise the level back above 75 percent. There are circumstances in Volkswagen's case, however, that lead us to conclude its exemption terminated at the time Volkswagen's U.S. production terminated in its entirety (July 14, 1988). We believe it was evident at that time that Volkswagen was not merely halting U.S. production, but doing so with an intention to permanently abandon such production. We note, for example, that Volkswagen actively sought purchasers for its U.S. production facility in advance of its termination of U.S. production. While a manufacturer could change its mind after permanently abandoning U.S. production, resumption of U.S. production would be relatively difficult. Further, subsequent events, up to and including Volkswagen's February 1990 letter, have confirmed the appearances in 1988 of permanent termination of production. While it would have been preferable for those appearances to have been confirmed essentially contemporaneously, we conclude that Volkswagen terminated U.S. production with an intention to permanently abandon it, and that its exemption became moot at that time. Since Volkswagen could receive no benefit from the exemption, and clearly had no intention of resuming U.S. production, I conclude that the exemption should be considered terminated effective with the beginning of the first model year following the company's cessation of U.S. production, i.e., MY 1989. This decision is consistent with section 503(b)(3)(F) which provides that in any model year in which an exemption is effective, no credits may be earned. We interpret that section as requiring the bar to continue to the end of the model year in which the exemption terminated. Hence, the prohibition against earned credits is deemed to have ended with the beginning of the 1989 model year. I note that during MY 1989, Volkswagen accrued a CAFE credit excess of $28,798,575 for its passenger cars, and $56,310 for its light trucks. I hope you have found this information useful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning this matter. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5625

"Dear Mr. Brester: This responds to your request for an interpretatio concerning how Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, affects the brake products you sell. According to your letter: Velvac Inc. manufactures and sells brake components and power braking systems for trailers and truck tag axles. These brake systems are not part of the primary vehicle braking system. In the case of a tag axle, our customers are retrofitting a standard vehicle with an additional axle to increase its load carrying capacity. In the case of a trailer, our system may be the only source of braking. The brake components Velvac supplies generally include control valving, brake boosters and various types of hoses and fittings. These items can be sold both as components and as complete power brake kits. (See attached catalogue drawings . . . .) You stated that Mr. Richard Carter of this agency advised you that different combinations of braking components may be used to achieve the braking performance requirements of Standard No. 105, and that the responsibility of certifying vehicles to Standard No. 105 lies in the hands of your customers. This information is correct. However, you should be aware that some of the components listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, and must be certified by their manufacturer as complying with that standard. A further discussion of the issues raised by your letter is provided below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to issue several vehicle and/or equipment standards related to braking performance. These standards include the aforementioned Standards No. 105 and No. 106, as well as ones on air brake systems, motorcycle brake systems, and motor vehicle brake fluids. You specifically asked about Standard No. 105. That standard specifies requirements for hydraulic service brake and associated parking brake systems, and applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses with hydraulic service brake systems. If your brake products are installed as original equipment on a new vehicle subject to Standard No. 105, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that, with the products installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of that standard (as well as all other applicable safety standards). If your brake products are added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an 'alterer' under our regulations, and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. If your products are installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a repair shop, the repair shop would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable safety standard, such as the hydraulic brake system. Assuming you do not manufacture or alter new vehicles, you do not have a responsibility to certify a vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 105. However, I note that some of the brake products listed in your catalogue are covered by Standard No. 106. That standard specifies requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, end fittings and assemblies. Standard No. 106 applies not only to new vehicles, as is the case with Standard No. 105, but also to brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies that are sold individually or in kit form. Manufacturers of these items must certify that the equipment complies with Standard No. 106, and persons selling these items must sell only certified items. NHTSA also has the authority to investigate safety-related defects. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment are subject to statutory requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your products are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer that fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes various responsibilities of motor vehicle manufacturers under our regulations, and information on how you can obtain copies of our standards. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam3076

Dear Mr. Cain: This responds to your May 7, 1979, letter asking whether any Federa law (statutes, standards, regulations or guidelines) prohibits a school district in the State of Mississippi from converting the gasoline fuel system in school buses which it owns to a butane or propane powered system. You specified that you would like this question answered both with respect to new school bus chassis equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system and older school bus chassis not equipped with such a system. As explained below, none of the laws we administer would prohibit converting any school bus, regardless of when it was manufactured.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended i 1974 ('the Act'), 15 U.S.C. *et seq.*, the agency has issued Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity* (49 CFR 571.301-75). This standard specifies performance requirements for the fuel system of certain new motor vehicles. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) schoolbuses with a (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds.; New vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold and delivere to a purchaser for purposes other than resale) manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 may be converted to propane or butane systems. Upon the conversion of the vehicles to types of fuel systems not covered by the standard, the vehicles would cease to be subject to the standard.; Similarly, used vehicles manufactured in accordance with the standar as well as used vehicles manufactured before the effective date of the standard may be converted. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) limits tampering with the fuel systems of vehicles manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75. It does not apply at all to vehicles manufactured before that standard's effective date. The section, in essence, prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment of elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. There is no prohibition against vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. Specifically, section 108(a)(2)(A) provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...<<<; There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection wit FMVSS 301-75 if one of the listed persons or entities converts a used gasoline powered vehicle into a propane powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another does not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems comply with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a gasoline-powered school bus to a propane or butane-powered school bus (a vehicle type not covered by the standard), the converter could not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to FMVSS 301-75 since that standard does not apply to propane or butane-powered school buses. FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F, and propane and butane reach their boiling points at a lower temperature.; This means that a school district in your state would not be prohibite from converting its gasoline-powered buses, regardless of their date of manufacture, to propane or butane-powered school buses. It also means that if the school district sought to have the conversion done by a motor vehicle repair business or some other person or entity listed in Section 108(a)(2)(A), that person or entity would not be prohibited from performing the work.; Please note, however, that if a propane or butane fuel system i installed in a new vehicle, the installer would be responsible for any safety defects in the manner in which the system is installed. Sections 151 *et seq.* of the Act provide that if vehicles are found to contain a safety defect, notification of the defect must be given and the defect must be remedied. Defects in the systems themselves would be the responsibility of the manufacturer of the systems, regardless of whether they are installed in new or used vehicles.; I hope that you will find this response helpful and you have not bee inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 10354

Dr. Dimitrios Kallieris
Associate Professor and Division Chief
Experimental and Forensic Biomechanics
Ruprecht-Karls-Universitat Heidelberg
Vossstrasse 2
69115 Heidelberg, Germany

Dear Dr. Kallieris:

This responds to your FAX to Dr. Rolf Eppinger of NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of the requirements specified in Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting. The answers to your two questions are provided below.

Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for a vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicles that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery.

You stated that you have conducted 30 m.p.h. crash tests of motor vehicles with freshly adhered windshields. In the test vehicle, two Hybrid III dummies were placed in the front driver and passenger positions. Each dummy was restrained "by a three-point belt and air bag."

Your first question asked whether the vehicle is subject to the requirements of S5.1 for "vehicles equipped with passive restraints," or S5.2 for "vehicles not equipped with passive restraints." The answer to your question depends on whether the restraint system in the tested vehicle meets the definition of "passive restraint system" set forth in S4 of the standard. That term is defined as:

a system meeting the occupant crash protection requirements of S5. of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants.

Section S5 of Standard No. 208 sets occupant protection requirements that must be met in frontal, lateral and rollover crashes.

You did not provide much information about the vehicle in question. We assume it is a passenger car. Standard No. 208 (S4.1.4) requires the following of current production passenger cars:

(a) At each front outboard designated seating position, each vehicle must meet the standard's frontal crash protection requirements (S5.1) by means that require no action by vehicle occupants (e.g., by means of an air bag or automatic restraints);

(b) at the front center designated seating position and at each rear seating position, have a type 1 (lap) or type 2 (lap/shoulder) belt assembly that meet specified requirements; and

(c) either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, or at each front outboard designated seating position, have a type 1 or type 2 belt assembly that meets the requirements of S5.1 with front test dummies restrained by the type 1 or type 2 assembly in addition to the means that require no action by the vehicle occupant.

We assume that the "three-point belt and air bag" to which you refer were installed in the front outboard seating positions pursuant to these occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. NHTSA's longstanding position is that a vehicle equipped with a type 2 belt assembly and an air bag in those seating positions is equipped with a "passive restraint system," and is thus subject to the requirement of S5.1 that 50 percent of the windshield periphery must be retained. (See, e.g., August 18, 1986 letter to Volvo, copy enclosed.) As discussed in the enclosed letter, one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles was because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield, and incidental contact between an air bag-restrained test dummy and the windshield.

The Standard No. 208 requirements listed above mean that a vehicle with passive restraints must meet the Standard No. 208 performance critera using only the passive restraints (air bag or automatic seat belt), and using both the passive and manual restraints. This would also be the case for Standard No. 212. The windshield retention would have to be at least 50 percent with the dummies restrained by only the passive restraint, and with the dummies restrained by both the passive and manual restraints. Therefore, your test (which appeared to have been conducted using both the air bag and the type 2 belt assembly) may not have been the worst case situation.

Your second question asked whether the windshield displacements described in S5.1 and S5.2 are measured dynamically (i.e., during the crash), or statically (i.e., after the crash). NHTSA determines the portion of the windshield periphery that is retained by the vehicle after the dynamic crash test specified in the standard.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX no. is (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:212 d:2/3/95

ID: 005738rbm

Mr. Paul Schockmel
Marketing Manager
International Electronics and Engineering S.A.
Zone Industrielle Findel
2b, route de Treves
L-2632 Luxembourg

Dear Mr. Schmockmel:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less. The phase-in for these new requirements begins September 1, 2003. That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance protection of small and mid-size adults. The requirements in S19, S21, and S23 are designed to minimize the risk that air bags pose to infants and small children. S19 provides manufacturers with two different options for complying with the standard (low risk deployment or automatic suppression), while S21 and S23 provide three options (low risk deployment, automatic suppression, or dynamic automatic suppression). Your questions are related to the interplay between the infant low risk deployment option and the infant automatic suppression option, particularly in light of the absence of a dynamic automatic suppression option for infants. I am pleased to provide a response.

You first request an interpretation of the requirement set forth in S19, and the test procedure provided in S20.4, relating to the low risk deployment option for infants. Specifically, you ask whether a system that is certified to the low risk deployment option for infants can suppress the air bag when the applicable child restraint is in the rear-facing mode, and either suppress or deploy when the restraint is placed in the forward-facing mode. The answer to the first part of this question is no. Under the low risk deployment option, one or more stages of the air bag must deploy when the restraint is rear-facing. The answer to the second part of your question is yes. If a system is certified to the low risk deployment option for infants, we will deploy the air bag as specified in S20.4. Thus, injury measurements are only recorded when the child restraint is in the rear-facing mode.

The requirements for the infant low risk deployment option are found at S19.3, which states that "each vehicle shall meet the injury criteria specified in S19.4 of this standard when the passenger air bag is deployed in accordance with the procedures specified in S20.4." The low risk deployment option is designed to address injuries that can result when an infant is very close to the air bag.

S20.4 specifies several conditions for testing the deploying air bag. First, the manufacturer must assure compliance to S19.3 using any child restraint listed in subparts B and C of Appendix A to the standard. For purposes of S19.3, the air bag is only tested with the child restraints in their rear-facing condition. Under the specified test conditions, the vehicle seat is moved as far forward as possible, while avoiding contact with the vehicle interior. This is done to ensure that the dummy's head is placed as close to the deploying air bag as possible. The air bag is only tested with the child restraint in a belted condition.

The air bag is deployed at whatever level of force and combination of stages that would deploy in any rigid barrier crash up to 64 km/h (40 mph) when a test dummy is positioned in a restraint as specified in the test procedure, except that the vehicle seat may be at any seat track position. This level is determined by running an indicant test, as described in S20.4.9, at impact speeds up to 40 mph with a dummy-occupied restraint installed in the passenger seat.

When NHTSA runs a compliance test on a vehicle certified to S19.3, it will only deploy the air bag at the level and, if equipped with a multi-stage inflator, with the combination of stages, that would deploy in the specified indicant test. Manufacturers may not use suppression technology to ensure that there will be no air bag deployment in the indicant test if they are certifying to the low risk deployment option.

Your second question relates to the absence of a dynamic automatic suppression option in S19. Specifically, you ask whether a manufacturer may use a system whereby the air bag is suppressed in all but the forward-facing mode, where a benign deployment strategy would be used. This option is not currently allowed under S19. This is because such a system would not meet either the low risk deployment option or the automatic suppression option. Should the agency add a third, dynamic suppression option to S19, such a compliance strategy would be allowed as long as all the criteria of that option were met in full.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.10/7/03

ID: 10629

Courtney M. Price, Esq.
Reid & Priest
701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Ms. Price:

This responds to your questions about how this agency's regulations apply to a product known as a Brake Locker that is manufactured by your client, Maatzorit. You requested this agency to confirm your understanding that installation of the Brake Locker is not precluded by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses, or Section 108(a)(2)(A) of what you refer to as the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act.").

According to your letter, the Brake Locker prevents the theft of a parked vehicle by locking its brakes, without affecting brake usage while the vehicle is driven by an authorized driver. You stated that the Brake Locker is installed in the engine compartment on the brake fluid line between the brakes and the brake pump. An electronic coded transmitter is used to activate a motor which in turn activates a check valve, thereby preventing the release of the brakes by restricting the flow of brake fluid. When the check valve is activated, you state that "every press on the brake pedal causes the brakes to be locked."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the United States Code to issue FMVSSs that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Nothing in FMVSS No. 105 nor FMVSS No. 106 precludes the inclusion of a hydraulic brake lock, nor does NHTSA have any other regulations specifically covering such a product. Therefore, Maatzorit, as the device's manufacturer, would not have any certification responsibilities. Nevertheless, the requirements of FMVSS No. 105 are relevant to a hydraulic brake lock. That standard specifies a number of brake performance requirements to which the vehicle manufacturer must certify compliance. Since the installation of a hydraulic brake lock requires the installation of a check valve on the brake fluid line between the foundation brakes and the brake pump, it is possible that the installation of such a device could affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 105.

If the Brake Locker is installed as original equipment on new vehicles prior to the first sale of the vehicle to a consumer, then the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that with the Brake Locker installed, the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS No. 105 and FMVSS No. 106. A vehicle manufacturer's specific certification responsibilities depend on when the brake locker is installed and are set forth in 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. For instance, if a vehicle has already been certified by the vehicle manufacturer but has not yet been sold to the consumer, then the person doing the installation after that time would be considered to be an "alterer" who would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

If the Brake Locker is installed after the first consumer purchase, then 49 U.S.C. 30122 is relevant to your client's product. That section provides that

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

This provision would prohibit any of the named commercial entities from installing a Brake Locker, if such installation makes inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, such as FMVSS No. 105. For example, if the Brake Locker, caused the vehicle to no longer comply with the parking brake or service brake requirements in FMVSS No. 105, then installation of the system would make inoperative compliance with that standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if such modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with safety standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Marvin Shaw at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:567#105 d:3/8/95 In 1994, Congress codified the Safety Act. The new citation for 108(a)(2)(A) is 49 U.S.C. 30122. In addition, please be aware that on February 3, 1994, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 135 Passenger Car Brake Systems that will eventually supersede FMVSS No. 105 with respect to passenger cars. Please note that your client's product will be subject to the same responsibilities, regardless of which FMVSS applies.

ID: 1985-01.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Andrew P. Kallman -- Kallman Marketing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/28/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Andrew P. Kallman (A32; Std. 205; Std. 212); 2/8/88 letter from Andrew P. Kallman to Erika Z. Jones and Susan Schruth (ACC 1569)

TEXT:

Mr. Andrew P. Kallman Kallman Marketing 205 W. Saginaw Lansing, MI 48933 Dear Mr. Kallman:

This responds to your letter of January 14, 1985, concerning what regulations affect a process you intend to market for new and used cars. The process consists of grinding two parallel grooves into the lower portion of the windshield. The grooves are 2mm wide, 0.1-0.3mm deep, and are 2mm from each other. You stated that the purpose of the grooves is to improve the efficiency of the wipers and increase their life expectancy. The following discussions address the effect of our regulations on the process you described.

First, let me explain how our regulations apply to a new vehicle or to a new windshield sold as an item of replacement equipment. Our agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new vehicles or sold as items of replacement equipment. I have enclosed a copy of the standard. If, before they are sold, the safety grooves are ground into either the windshield of a new vehicle or into a new windshield sold as an item of replacement of equipment, the person making the grooves would have to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205 for windshields. I note that the test results enclosed with your letter do not address whether the glazing would continue to comply with the requirements after it has had the safety grooves ground into it. In particular, we would urge you to determine whether the glazing would continue to comply with the requirements regarding impact and penetration resistance, optical deviation and visual distortion after the grooves have been ground into the windshield. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

If the safety grooves are ground into the windshield of a used vehicle, then Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act may apply. That section provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly grind the grooves into a vehicle's windshield if by so doing they would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

205 W. Saginaw Lansing, M 4d833 (517) 484-0699 TLX. 517360

January 14, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Please find enclosed a brochure, technical results, and other testimonials on a new Product called "Turvaura" in Finnish, which being translated means "saftey grooves". Safety grooves consist of two Parallel grooves ground into the windshield on the lower part of the windshield. The grooves are 2 mm wide, 0.1-0.3 mm deep and at a distance of 2 mm from each other.

In the enclosed literature you will find the following points expanded upon:

1. The saftey grooves are an acknowledged Finnish invention (Pat. No. 50229).

2. The saftey grooves increase the efficiency of the wipers improving the wiping result and reducing glare.

3. The saftey grooves reduce the scratching effect of dirt particles on the windscreen and also reduce the amount of washing liquid used due to the increased efficiency of the wiper blades.

4. The saftey grooves increase the wiper blade life expectancy.

5. The saftey grooves do not weaken the strength of the windshield. (See also the enclosed report from the Technical Research Centre of Finland).

6. The saftey grooves need no maintenance and are permanently grooved into the windshield.

Our corporation has obtained from the producer in Finland the national marketing rights for all of the U.S. for both the new and aftermarket applicatlon of these grooves. We would appreciate a response from you regarding the process necessary to obtain approval or waiver in respect to any vehicle saftey standards applicable to this product.

In advance, thank you for your assistance.

Very truly yours,

Andrew P. Kallman Director [Enclosures Omitted)

ID: nht87-1.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Dawn B. Brown

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dawn B. Brown Currier, Zall & Shepard 207 Main Street P. O. Box L Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-2938

Dear Ms. Brown:

This responds to your January 2, 1987 letter asking a number of questions concerning certain aspects of automatic transmissions. You ask first if there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) relating to the permissibility of a transmission de sign which allows a driver to remove the key from the ignition while the transmission is in drive. You state your belief that "Standard 114, 49 CFR 571.113 is relevant," and ask whether that standard ever has been interpreted for a purpose other than to prevent unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. (We assume that the citation of 571.113 instead of 571.114 was a typographical error.) You ask further if there are any Federal safety standards that address whether a vehicle should "jump from park to drive when left in park." Finally, you ask whether there are standards other then 114 "that govern these problems."

As it is currently written, Standard 114 requires a manufacturer to install a key-locking system that prevents starting a vehicle engine and also prevents either, steering a vehicle or moving a vehicle forward under its own power whenever the key is removed. Thus, the standard does not directly require that the vehicle be in park before a driver can remove the ignition key.

In 1968, when Standard 114 was adopted, the stated purpose was to "reduce the incidence of accidents resulting from unauthorized (motor vehicle) use." 33 Federal Register 6471, April 27, 1968. The agency based this goal on evidence showing that: "Cars operated by unauthorized persons are far more likely to cause unreasonable risk of accident, personal injury and death than those which are driven by authorized individuals." (See the preceding citation). Neither the Standard nor the language in the preamble to it states any other goal.

In 1980, this agency amended Standard 114 to prevent a driver from inadvertently locking the steering wheel of a moving vehicle by removing the ignition key or shutting off the engine (45 Federal Register 85450, December 29, 1980). However, after receivi ng petitions for reconsideration and studying the question further, NHTSA decided that while this kind of inadvertent activation might be a safety problem in certain vehicles, the problem did not then warrant requiring additional steps to protect against inadvertent ,lock-up. Therefore, the agency rescind the 1980 amendment. The agency stated that it would continue to monitor complaints on the subject, and infiltrate rulemaking should new data warrant it ( 46 Federal Register 32251, 32253, June 22, 1981 ).

Currently the agency is re-evaluating whether data warrants amending Standard 114 to improve key-locking systems by reducing the prospect of a driver's inadvertently locking the steering column while a motor vehicle is moving.

As to your question about the existence of a FMVSS which directly addresses the permissibility of a design which allows a car to jump from "park" to "drive" when a driver leaves the car in "park", the answer is there is no such standard. However, NHTSA h as received a number of letters complaining of this phenomenon and, using its authority not only to issue FMVSS but also require the recall and remedy of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects, has conducted investigations based on these comp laints. A listing of the defect investigations based on these complaints. A listing of the defect investigations can be obtained from: Technical Reference Division, NHTSA, Room 5108, 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SouthWest Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Dear Ms. Jones:

Dear Ms. Jones:

I would like to obtain some information about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. First, I would like to know if there are any federal motor vehicle safety standards governing whether a vehicle with an automatic transmission must be in park before th e driver should be able to get the keys out of the ignition. In other words, are there any standards regulating whether or not a driver should be able to pull the keys out of the ignition of a vehicle when it is in drive as opposed to being in park. Seco nd, I would like to know whether there are any federal safety standards which deal with whether or not a vehicle should be able to jump from park to drive when left in park.

Please let me know whether there are any federal standards governing these questions. I am particularly interested in finding out whether Standard 114, 49 CFR 571.113 is relevent. I understand that the purpose of this particular standard is to prevent th e unauthorized use of motor vehicles, but I would like to know whether it has ever been interpreted for another purpose. I would also like to know whether there are other standards, besides Standard 114, that governs these problems. Any information you c an provide will be appreciated. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Dawn B. Brown

ID: nht87-1.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/04/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Paul Utans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Utans Vice President Government Affairs Subaru of America P.O. Box 6000 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1987, concerning the Pact 581 Bumper Standard. You asked whether a vehicle equipped with a suspension system whose height is adjustable by the driver is tested at the manufacturer's engine-on and engine-off nominal design height.

On May 6, 1986, I responded to a similar request that you made for an interpretation. My letter (copy enclosed) stated that it is our interpretation that a vehicle must be capable of meeting the standard" damage criteria at any height position to wh ich the suspension can be adjusted.

Your current request for an interpretation does not provide new arguments which indicate that our earlier interpretation was incorrect. Therefore, I must reaffirm that earlier opinion.

As we indicated in the May 6, 1986 letter, we appreciate your concern that the very reason that thy adjustable height is provided (increased ground clearance and ramp angle for special operations) is partially negated by requiring bumpers to extend lo w enough to provide Part 581 protection at the elevated settings. The letter stated, however, that if the agency were to consider establishing special provisions in Part 581 for vehicles with adjustable suspension height control systems, it would need to be done in rulemaking. See section 102(c)(1) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.

I would also note that in a meeting in March of this year, a member of my staff advised your representatives Chat your company could submit a petition for rulemaking requesting an amendment to Pact 581. The procedures for submitting a petition for rulema king are set forth at 49 CFR Pact 552. If You should submit a petition, the agency would decide whether to grant it in accordance with statutory criteria.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

April 21, 1987 Erika Z. Jones, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard

Dear Ms. Jones:

Subaru of America, Inc. (SOA) requests an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 581, Bumper Standard, with respect to the test conditions applicable to passenger motor vehicles other than multipurpose passenger vehicles that have a suspension system whose height is driver-controllable under certain limited operating conditions.

SOA would like confirmation of its interpretation that, because height of an adjustable suspension system is not specified as one of the conditions in S581.6, compliance with the Bumper Standard is demonstrated at the manufacturer'; engine-on and engine- off nominal design height.

The Subaru air suspension system (fitted only to top-of-the-line, four-wheel-drive vehicles) maintains constant ground clearance regardless of vehicle load by adjusting the volume in each of four air springs in accordance with a signal from a vehicle hei ght sensor installed in each air spring. For driving on poor or snow-covered roads, with four wheel drive engaged, the driver may activate a switch to select a "High" suspension position offering increased ground clearance. This "High" setting is intende d for use only in special circumstances where-extra ground clearance is desirable. Having to meet the Part 581 pendulum requirements at such setting would partially negate the increased clearance intended to be provided, particularly ramp angle. When the ignition is switched to the "off" position, the suspension returns to "normal" for parking to ensure that the bumpers provide proper protection. When the ignition is switched to the "on" position, "High" ground clearance must be reselected, if desired.

SOA has no indications that its present air suspension system vehicles are being operated in the "High" position under conditions other than those intended and recommended by Subaru. (Demographics of the owners of these vehicles show more of them to be m arried, older, better educated and affluent than those of competing vehicles.)

Although the standard does not take into account load variances that can result in changes in bumper height (and therefore the level of protection provided) the Subaru system is load-compensating and therefore offers the same protection at various condit ions of vehicle loading, as well as preserves headlamp aim.

Subaru is currently studying the feasibility of certifying its MPV's as passenger cars. However, testing at the "High" ground clearance position would make it literally impossible for four wheel drive MPV's with variable height air suspension systems to meet passenger car bumper standards, in spite of the 5 mph systems new for the 1987 model year.

Should you need further information about this request, please contact Mr. Alfred Gloddeck in SOA's Washington office, telephone (202) 295-4994.

Sincerely, SUBARU OF AMERICA INC. Paul Utans Vice President Government Affairs