ID: 24384.drn

Susanne Krg, Account Manager
Lemfrder Corporation
Schaltungssysteme GmbH
Technical Center
15811 Centennial Drive
Northville, MI 48167

Dear Ms. Krg:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. You wish to know whether a motor vehicle that includes several proposed shift-by-wire shift patterns would meet Standard No. 102.

You included with your request ten pages of drawings, each of which is stamped "CONFIDENTIAL." We agree these drawings are entitled to confidential treatment as the disclosure of the depictions contained within them is likely to cause competitive harm. In the future, a request for confidential treatment consistent with Part 512 of the Agencys regulations should be included with any such submissions.

With your letter, you show 16 proposed configurations of shift-by-wire shift patterns (not counting the shift pattern of the BMW 7 Series). We assume that the shift patterns are intended to be used in motor vehicles with automatic transmissions. In a telephone conversation with Ms. Nakama, you explained that the shifting would be done by means of a joy stick, which, after being shifted, would return to a default position designated as the "X" position. You further explained that the joy stick may be moved straight up, straight down, and to the right and left (i.e., imagining the face of a clock, to the 12 oclock, 3 oclock, 6 oclock and 9 oclock positions) only. Diagonal movements such as to the one oclock or two oclock positions would not be permitted. I note that most of the shift patterns have two neutral positions. In all of the shift patterns depicted, before it may go into "drive" or "reverse," the joy stick must first be moved to "neutral." Thus, for example, to go into reverse, one moves the joy stick straight up (to go to neutral) and then to the left (to reverse).

Shifting from "Neutral" to "Drive" or "Reverse"

Requirements for shift patterns are specified at paragraph S3.1.1 of Standard No 102, which states in part:

A neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions . . . If the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, it shall be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position.

All of your proposed shift patterns meet the requirement that "a neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions." Since nothing in S3.1.1 specifies that only one neutral position is to be provided, your patterns that would include two neutral positions are not prohibited by S3.1.1.

Shift Patterns with a "Park" Position

The second quoted sentence in S3.1.1 specifies that the "if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, it shall be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position." Two of your shift patterns (Pattern Number Six on the fourth page, Pattern Number Fourteen, on the tenth page) depict the joy stick as going directly from "X," the default position, to "park." If in fact the park position is part of the shift pattern, a vehicle with a joy stick that goes directly from "X" to "park" would not meet S3.1.1. If it is provided as part of the shift lever sequence, the park position must be located at the end, adjacent to the reverse drive position.

The park position requirement in S3.1.1 was addressed by this office in a letter of September 25, 1998, to BMW of North America, Inc. (BMW). In that letter, we stated in part:

Paragraph S3.1.1 explicitly limits the requirement to those park positions included within the Ashift lever sequence.@ It is our interpretation that if park is not selected by the movement of the shift lever, then the park control is not part of the shift lever sequence. In this case, the sentence quoted above does not apply, and the park control does not have to be located at the end, adjacent to reverse.

The park position described in BMWs letter was not in the shift lever sequence. It was selected not by the movement of the shift lever but by pushing on a push-button control mounted on the end of the transmission shift lever. For this reason, we determined that BMW=s vehicle with the park position control (as described in BMWs incoming letter to NHTSA) need not meet the park position requirement in S3.1.1 of Standard No. 102.

Patterns Depicting Functions Other Than Park, Reverse, Neutral and Drive

The fundamental shift patterns (reverse-neutral-drive) of both Pattern Number Nine (page six) and Pattern Number Sixteen (page ten) would meet S3.1.1 of Standard No. 102. However, both Pattern Number Nine and Pattern Number Sixteen each depict at least two additional functions that are not park, reverse, neutral, or drive. Without more specific information about these functions, including what these functions are and how many of them are to be provided, we are unable to provide an opinion whether a motor vehicle with these functions would meet Standard No. 102.

Standard No. 102s Identification of Shift Lever Position Requirements

Unlike traditional transmission shift levers that stay in the gear position selected by the driver, the joy stick in your design defaults to the "X" position after the gear is selected. As a result, a visual display other than the joystick must inform the driver of the current gear selection.

Section 3.1.4 specifies requirements for identification of shift lever positions as follows:

Vehicles with Park Positions- S3.1.4.1 specifies that except when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle, if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist: (a) the ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted; (b) the transmission is not in park.

Vehicles Without Park Positions - S3.1.4.2 specifies that except when the ignition is in a position that is used only to start the vehicle, if the transmission shift lever sequence does not include a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever the ignition is in a position in which the engine is capable of operation.

S3.1.4.4 specifies that the information required in S3.1.4.1 or S3.1.4.2 must be displayed in view of the driver in a single location. At the option of the manufacturer, redundant displays providing some or all of the information may be provided.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

ref:102

d.8/1/02

ID: aiam5308

"Dear Mr. Schlesinger: This responds to your letter addressed to Walte Myers of this office in which you posed certain questions relating to the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS), 49 CFR 575.104. Reference is also made to our letter to you dated February 23, 1993, in which we addressed certain other of your questions concerning the UTQGS. In your most recent letter, you set forth a very complicated factual scenario about certain events which occurred during 1990-91, and which involved three companies. At the end of the letter you asked, with respect to each company, whether the company was in violation of one or more provisions of 49 CFR Part 575. You also asked whether, in addition to the penalties for violation of the UTQGS as set forth in 109 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Act or Safety Act), there are 'additional sanctions requiring the manufacturer or brand name owner to recall unlawful product or notification procedures intended to identify unlawful product in the marketplace.' The purpose of our interpretation letters is to explain or clarify the meaning of our standards and regulations. Our letters are not intended to be adjudicative in nature. Given that the issues you raise about the three companies concern past conduct, involve complicated factual issues, and ultimately relate to whether a violation of the UTQGS has occurred, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to issue an interpretation letter concerning them. It would be appropriate, however, to clarify a statement made in our February 23, 1993, letter. The second paragraph from the bottom of page 2 of that letter states: Although both the Act and the UTQGS are silent as to whether tires can be imported or distributed without the UTQGS information, there would be no point in doing so since the tires cannot legally be sold without that information. Please note that 102(5) of the Safety Act defines 'manufacturer' as including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Therefore, an importation of non-complying tires would be considered a manufacture of non- complying tires under the Act. Thus, if a tire is required to be manufactured with certain information molded into or onto the tire sidewall, it may not be imported without such molded information. Any person doing so would be in violation of 108(a) of the Act. Should you wish this agency to investigate whether there has been a violation of the UTQGS, you may write to Mr. William A. Boehly, this agency's Associate Administrator for Enforcement, at this address, providing all relevant facts in detail. If you wish to discuss enforcement policies with this office, you may contact Kenneth Weinstein, Esq., our Assistant Chief Counsel for Litigation, at this address or at (202) 366-5263. With respect to your last question, we assume you are referring to Part B of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1411, et seq., which requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and items of replacement equipment to provide notification of, and a remedy for, safety-related defects and noncompliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards prescribed pursuant to 103 of the Act. Those provisions do not apply to tires that fail to comply with the UTQGS, since the UTQGS were not 'prescribed pursuant to section 103.' Rather, they were prescribed as consumer information regulations pursuant to 203 and 112(d) of the Safety Act. I hope this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3262

Dear Mr. Stefano: This responds to your letter of January 7, 1980, in which you describ an automotive, electronic display device being designed by TRW and asked for a legal opinion as to its potential compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 127, *Speedometers and Odometers*. You noted that, upon installation in a motor vehicle, TRW's device would continuously display vehicle and engine speed readings in the form of a bargraph. In potentially hazardous situations requiring the driver to take extra caution or to shut down the vehicle's engine, the TRW device would intermittently interrupt the display of vehicle and engine speeds with sequences of verbal messages. In light of this, you asked whether the fact that TRW's device would not display the vehicle speed during every moment of vehicle operation would prevent it from complying with Safety Standard No. 127.; Based on our understanding of your design, it appears that alternatin the display of speed and verbal messages would not violate the standard. Although the future development of electronic digital speedometers was considered in the development of Safety Standard No. 127, the specific type of device described in your letter was not contemplated. The agency had expected that all speedometers would continuously display vehicle speed. While the intermittent display feature would apparently not violate Safety Standard No. 127 as it is now written, we are concerned about the possible adverse impact upon traffic safety that this feature might have. In particular, we have in mind the effects of a driver's(sic) being unable to determine vehicle speed when he or she is approaching or negotiating a curve or exit ramp. Rapid deceleration to a particular speed is typically necessary in such situations.; In the case of a speedometer which periodically does not displa vehicle speed for periods of 5 seconds, a vehicle traveling at 55 mph would cover approximately 400 feet in that interval and a vehicle traveling at 40 mph, approximately 300 feet. Although your alternative mode of operation would reduce this interval through flashing the speed for periods of 0.10 seconds, we question whether such a short period would be sufficient to enable drivers to read their speedometers. We solicit any test or research that TRW has done on the safety side effects of your design. A member of the agency's accident avoidance division will contact you to discuss this issue further.; In looking at your design, we noted several aspects of it that woul apparently not comply with Safety Standard No. 127. The design does not appear to be graduated in both miles and kilometers per hour as required by section 4.1.2. Further, the design neither has the numeral 55 nor highlights either that numeral of the point at which vehicle speed equals 55 mph as required by section 4.1.5.; Finally, I would emphasize that this letter represents only th agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter. The NHTSA does not formally render judgement on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the law to determine whether its vehicle or equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicles in accordance with that determination.; I hope that your will find this response helpful and have not bee inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to your.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2510

Dear Mr. Milby: This responds to your December 20, 1976, request for confirmation tha the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intends to test the leg protection zone in Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, in such a manner as to ensure that the entire knee form will contact with the seat back or restraining barrier and will not extend beyond them.; The knee form contact area measurement required by Standard No. 222 wa intended to measure the distribution of forces over an adequate area of the knee in an impact situation. The measurement is meaningful, therefore, only when the contact area is tested in a manner that provides opportunity for the knee form to contact with the seat back or restraining barrier to the fullest extent possible. In accordance with the intent of the standard the agency will not test the contact area in any configuration where the hemispherical surface of the knee form testing device extends beyond the test surface.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-4.17

DATE: 07/17/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Distributors Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 30, 1974, asking whether a final-stage manufacturer or vehicle alterer may use the incomplete vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating on the certification label when he adds a third axle. You point out that the manufacturer thereby increases the vehicle's actual capacity and could increase the vehicle's gross vehicle weight rating if he so desired, but he does not do so because the vehicle may not conform to applicable standards (mentioning specifically Standard No. 121) at the higher weight rating. It does conform, however, at the weight rating of the incomplete vehicle.

Although, as you point out, gross vehicle weight rating is established by the manufacturer, it must be based on a good faith attempt on the part of the manufacturer to conform to its definition. Gross vehicle weight rating is defined as " . . . the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." A manufacturer is generally free to rate his vehicle at less than full loaded weight, and we would support such a policy where the purpose is to provide a reasonable safety margin. However, we would not consider as made in good faith a gross vehicle or axle weight rating that is so unrelated to vehicle capacity that it suggests a motive such as avoidance of an applicable standard. If it could be shown that this was the manufacturer's intent, he could be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions provided in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for the issuance of a false and misleading certification, and to the responsibilities incident to a finding of a safety-related defect.

ID: aiam2927

Dear Mr. Shapiro: Please excuse the delay in responding to your letter of October 25 1978. You asked whether a webbing guide you are planning for the rear seat belt in station wagon vehicles would have to comply with the strength requirements of Safety Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*.; The agency has examined the drawings included in your letter an discussed this new webbing guide with Volvo engineers. We have concluded that the webbing guide would not qualify as an 'anchorage' and, therefore, would not have to comply with the Standard 210 requirements for anchorages. The standard defines 'anchorage' as a device that transfers seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure. Your proposed webbing guide is not intended to transfer loads to the vehicle structure, and will only be added to increase the comfort of the assembly. As you indicated, the device marked 'B' on your drawings would qualify as an anchorage and would have to meet the strength requirements of the standard.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-2.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/10/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: STEPHEN BORKOWSKI

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 06/24/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM STEPHEN BORKOWSKI, OCC - 2243

TEXT: Dear Mr. Borkowski:

This is in reply to your letter of June 24, 1988, asking about the legality of your "Bimmer Dimmer Safety Stop Light Concept". The concept has as its goal to lessen the chance of rear end collisions, by governing "the intensity of brake light brightness to indicate the degree of braking being applied to a vehicle."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment governs the legality of your concept. SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970, has been incorporated by reference, and specifies appropriate photometric requirements. Paragraph S4.5.4 of Standard No. 108 requires in pertinent part that "the stoplamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes". We believe that this means that the lamp shall display the intensity that is designed into it to meet the photometrics of J586c. The photometrics are expressed in terms of a minimum for each test point and while there is not a corresponding maximum for each point, there is an overall maximum for the lamp. Thus, a lamp of variab le intensity could fall below the minimum at one or more test points or exceed the overall maximum. This, of course, would result in a noncompliance with Standard No. 108.

The agency examined the problem of rear end collisions and concluded that the most appropriate way to address it was through the center highmounted stoplamp, required equipment on passenger cars manufactured on and after September 1, 1985. This is inten ded not only to reduce the incidence of rear end collisions but also their severity. We are interested in the possibility of further reductions in rear end collisions. Because your concept may be of interest to that Office, I am forwarding a copy of yo ur letter to the agency's Associate Administrator for Research and Development for such further correspondence as may be warranted. We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

ID: nht92-7.1

DATE: May 18, 1992

FROM: Timber Dick -- General Manager, Safeline Children's Products Company

TO: Deirdre Fujita -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Michael Pyne -- NHTSA Enforcement; Kathleen Weber -- UMTRI

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/18/92 from Paul J. Rice to Timber Dick (A39; Std. 213)

TEXT:

We spoke on several occasions recently regarding Safeline's certification of the Sit'n'Stroll 2-in-1 Carseat/Stroller under FMVSS 213. In particular, our discussions focused on NHTSA's interpretation of the regulations, and whether a manufacturer could certify a rear-facing carseat at a weight greater than 20 lbs.

We were prompted to investigate certification at a higher weight than the standard 20-lb limit as a result of numerous safety studies (several of which are enclosed) which indicate that children are exposed to a lessened risk of cervical spine fractures, and consequent para- and quadriplegia, if they are rearward facing to a higher weight limit. I have a baby boy born with a 99%+ head circumference, and I've been afforded additional peace of mind by keeping him rear-facing in his Sit'n'Stroll as he has reached 25 lbs in body weight.

Safeline is committed to providing the highest degree of safety possible within practical and regulatory constraints. To this end, we recently tested the Sit'n'Stroll at the University of Michigan facility rear-facing using a 35 lb, NHTSA-approved dummy. FMVSS 213 positioning procedures were interpreted in a logical manner. The enclosed test results are a powerful testimony to the safety benefits afforded by use of the Sit'n'Stroll in this configuration.

Please note two important conclusions of the test. First, even with the 35-lb load, the test seat was well within the back angle limits imposed by FMVSS 213. Our maximum back angle was just 50 degrees, as compared to the maximum permissible of 70 degrees. Second, and in my eyes perhaps more compelling, our Head Injury Criteria was 289, a remarkably low figure as contrasted with the permissible 1000.

Safety experts across the nation have contacted Safeline to applaud our efforts to give parents of babies (like mine) with disproportionately large heads an safer way to transport their children. We submit that it is in the best interests of the taxpayers and their children to allow FMVSS 213 interpretations which would permit rear-facing carseats to be certified with 35-lb dummies to a weight higher than 20 pounds.

We sincerely appreciate your consideration of this matter.

ID: aiam1502

Gentlemen: This is in reply to your letter of May 13, 1974, asking fo interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*.; You have stated that 'a mark in the front of a line (-) between firs and second indicates the neutral position' and ask whether that is a 'neutral indicator' within the meaning of Standard No. 123. Since the purpose of the mark is to designate the neutral position between first and second gears, it is a 'neutral indicator' and must be illuminated by a green display lamp and identified by the word 'Neutral.'; You also express your opinion that the normal fuel shutoff valv positions should be 'fully clockwise' for 'off,' 'full counterclockwise' for 'reverse' with 'on' between the two, and operational along a transverse axis. This, of course, would not comply with the standard which requires that the control be forwarded when off, upward for reverse, and downward for 'on,' and operational along a longitudinal axis. As the agency commented in denying Japan AMA's petitions for reconsideration of these requirements of the standard (37 F.R. 17474) 'The NHTSA has determined that the control should be standardized by requiring its operation along a longitudinal rather than a transverse axis. In this location there is a greater likelihood that in the event of a crash, the control will be carried by inertia to the off position, thereby shutting of the fuel.' Therefore we do not intend to modify there requirements.; "Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant j Chief Counsel"

ID: aiam1367

Dear Mr. Gottfried: This is in reply to your letter dated November 29, 1973, requesting ou comments on your enclosed second-draft customer notification letter, on your second-draft press release, and on your proposed dealer notification letter.; Thank you for your prompt response to our previous suggestions. You present draft conforms to most of the requirements set forth in our Defect Notification regulation (49 CFR Part 577). However, several further changes appear necessary.; First, the second sentence of the fifth paragraph states incorrectl that failure may occur only in rear impact collisions causing loads in excess of eight or nine hundred pounds. Actually, failure is more likely to occur in frontal impacts than in side or rear impacts. Failure may occur whenever the load on the belts exceeds about eight hundred pounds. Such loading can result from impacts from any angle. Frontal impacts are more likely to produce such loads because the principal restraint provided by the belts is against the relative forward motion of the child which the vehicle deceleration of a frontal impact produces. In the case of a rear impact, belt loading results from 'rebound.' Consequently, belt loading at a given rear impact speed will be considerably lower. Side impacts, of course, produce both direct and indirect loading.; Second, paragraph two of your draft does not quite comply with 49 CF sections 577.4(b), 577.5, and 577.6. The first sentence of your second paragraph must read: 'The Rex-Stroll-O-Chair Mfg. Co. has determined that the car seat adapter portion of Stroll-O-Chair Model 71s manufactured before *(date)* does not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 213.' Because the wording of the statement is specified precisely, we must insist that it be followed as closely as the particular facts of each case allow.; The second sentence of the paragraph appears to follow sectio 577.4(b)(2). However, such a determination must have some basis other than your initial compliance testing, which we understand to be the only basis for your present statement. In our view, a section 577.4(b)(2) statement would be appropriate only if you had a firm basis for believing that some adapters are materially different from others. Passing results from your own compliance testing are not enough. Otherwise every defect notification letter would contain a section 577.4(b)(2) statement except where the manufacturer violated section 108(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, prohibiting false or misleading certification. Such cases are rare indeed compared to routine compliance test failures such as yours.; Third, the second (last) sentence of paragraph six of your draft may b misleading. We suggest adding the phrase 'manufactured after *(date)*' after 'all model No. 71 car seats' to make it apparent that everyone receiving a defect notification letter has the older rivet system.; Fourth, although the injuries which could occur in the event of adapte failure are many, and are readily apparent, section 577.4(d)(2) requires a general statement of the types of possible injury. One sentence which mentioned impact injuries from contact with the dashboard and other parts of the vehicle interior and which also noted the likelihood of ejection from the vehicle would suffice if placed at the end of paragraph five of your draft.; Fifth, you should probably include a reminder or suggestion that th customer have his small child use adult safety belts during the time he does not have the adapter. Even small children who should ride in approved car seats are better off belted than unbelted. Such a warning could be included in your final paragraph. We consider it a precautionary statement under section 577.4(c)(4).; Finally, section 577.4(e)(1) requires an estimate of the tim reasonably necessary to perform the labor to correct each noncompliance. Because you propose to have each adapter sent to your factory, either directly or through a dealer, it might also be helpful to estimate the total length of time the customer is likely to be without the seat adapter.; We have but two minor suggestions for the press release. First, you initial sentence should specify that the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard is 213. Second, you should include the date on which you made your production method change. This is especially important because the designation 'model No. 71' encompasses both complying and noncomplying seats. Our consumer information staff is now drafting our own complementary press release. We will contact you about a joint issuance date.; We have no objection to your distributor notification letter. Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel