ID: nht75-1.16

DATE: 07/15/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Toyota's June 9, 1975, request for confirmation that S5.3.2 of Standard No. 10575, Hydraulic brake systems, requires a check of the brake system indicator lamp function only when the transmission shift lever (in the case of vehicles with automatic transmission) is in the "P" (park) position or the "N" (neutral) position. S5.3.2 specifies:

S5.3.2 All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the "on" ("run") position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" ("run") and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.

The wording of S5.3.2 requires a check of lamp function without regard to the position of the transmission shift lever whenever the ignition switch is in one of the positions described. In the case of vehicles equipped with automatic transmission, this language does not reflect the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) intent that the check function occur during the process of starting the vehicle.

To incorporate the intended meaning of the requirement into the standard, the NHTSA will shortly issue an interpretative rule that modifies the language of S5.3.2 by limiting the check function to the park and neutral positions for vehicles with automatic transmission.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

June 9, 1975

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS No. 105-75

Dear Dr. Gregory:

We wish to request clarification of our interpretation of S5.3.2, Check of the Brake System Indicator Lamp Function, of FMVSS No. 105-75.

S5.3.2 reads as follows:

All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp function either when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the "on" ("run") position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between "on" ("run") and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position.

Our question is whether or not the indicator lamp must be activated in vehicles with automatic transmission when the neutral safety switch is open.

The neutral safety switch is installed on vehicles with automatic transmission and is designed to prevent engine starting when the transmission gear selector is in one of the positions other than P (Park) and N (Neutral).

We believe that this nonactivation of the indicator lamp when the engine cannot be started enables us to design a more reliable system without sacrificing any safety benefits.

We would very much appreciate your informing us of your opinion of our interpretation at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

K. Nakajima -- Director/General Manager, Factory Representative Office

ID: 7044

Stephen E. Selander, Esq.
Legal Staff
General Motors Corporation
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Boulevard
P. O. Box 33122
Detroit, Michigan 48232

Dear Mr. Selander:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, in connection with an electronic locking ignition system that you are developing. You asked whether an electronic code, which would be entered into the locking system by the vehicle operator to permit operation of the system, would be included within the standard's definition of "key." As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You described the operation of your planned locking ignition system as follows. When an electronic code is entered into the locking system by the operator, a match is made with an electronic code stored in the system's memory. When the correct match occurs, the operator may move the locking system out of the "lock" position to other positions such as "accessory", "off," "on", or "start", in order to activate the vehicle's engine, motor, or accessories.

You also stated that, with the locking system out of the "lock" position, the transmission can be shifted out of the "park" position in order to operate the vehicle. The transmission shift lever must be returned to the "park" position before the locking system may be put back into the "lock" position. Placement of the locking system back into the "lock" position would automatically cause removal of the electronic code from the system. At that time, re-entry of the electronic code would be necessary to operate the vehicle. Section S4.2 of Standard No. 114 requires each vehicle to have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent-- (a) normal activation of the vehicle's engine or other main source of motive power; and

(b) either steering, or forward self-mobility, or both.

The term "key" is defined in S3 of the standard to include "any other device designed and constructed to provide a method for operating a locking system which is designed and constructed to be operated by that device." We agree that an electronic code which is entered into a locking ignition system by the vehicle operator to permit operation of the system comes within this definition.

For GM's planned system, removal of the key would occur when the locking system is placed back into the "lock" position by the operator, since the electronic code is automatically removed from the system at that time and the vehicle will not operate unless the code is re-entered. Therefore, under section S4.2, placement of the locking system back into the "lock" position (i.e., removal of the key) must prevent normal activation of the vehicle's engine and either steering, or forward self-mobility, or both.

We note that section S4.5 of Standard No. 114 requires (except under limited specified circumstances) a warning to the driver to be activated whenever the key required by section S4.2 has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened. For GM's planned system, activation of the warning would be required (other than under the limited specified circumstances) if a driver opened the door without placing the locking system back into the "lock" position, since the electronic code (key) would remain in the locking system in that situation.

Standard No. 114 also has several other requirements related to keys. Of particular note is one set forth in a new section S4.2.1, which takes effect on September 1, 1992. Under that section, the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position must (except under limited specified circumstances) prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:114 d:5/22/92

ID: nht92-6.43

DATE: May 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stephen E. Selander -- GM Legal Staff

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/28/92 from Stephen E. Selander to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7044)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, in connection with an electronic locking ignition system that you are developing. You asked whether an electronic code, which would be entered into the locking system by the vehicle operator to permit operation of the system, would be included within the standard's definition of "key." As discussed below, the answer to your question is yes.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You described the operation of your planned locking ignition system as follows. When an electronic code is entered into the locking system by the operator, a match is made with an electronic code stored in the system's memory. When the correct match occurs, the operator may move the locking system out of the "lock" position to other positions such as "accessory", "off," "on", or "start", in order to activate the vehicle's engine, motor, or accessories.

You also stated that, with the locking system out of the "lock" position, the transmission can be shifted out of the "park" position in order to operate the vehicle. The transmission shift lever must be returned to the "park" position before the locking system may be put back into the "lock" position. Placement of the locking system back into the "lock" position would automatically cause removal of the electronic code from the system. At that time, re-entry of the electronic code would be necessary to operate the vehicle.

Section S4.2 of Standard No. 114 requires each vehicle to have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent --

(a) normal activation of the vehicle's engine or other main source of motive power; and

(b) either steering, or forward self-mobility, or both.

The term "key" is defined in S3 of the standard to include "any other device designed and constructed to provide a method for operating a locking system which is designed and constructed to be operated by that device." We agree that an electronic code which is entered into a locking ignition system by the vehicle operator to permit operation of the system comes within this definition.

For GM's planned system, removal of the key would occur when the locking system is placed back into the "lock" position by the operator, since the electronic code is automatically removed from the system at that time and the vehicle will not operate unless the code is re-entered. Therefore, under section S4.2, placement of the locking system back into the "lock" position (i.e., removal of the key) must prevent normal activation of the vehicle's engine and either steering, or forward self-mobility, or both.

We note that section S4.5 of Standard No. 114 requires (except under limited specified circumstances) a warning to the driver to be activated whenever the key required by section S4.2 has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened. For GM's planned system, activation of the warning would be required (other than under the limited specified circumstances) if a driver opened the door without placing the locking system back into the "lock" position, since the electronic code (key) would remain in the locking system in that situation.

Standard No. 114 also has several other requirements related to keys. Of particular note is one set forth in a new section S4.2.1, which takes effect on September 1, 1992. Under that section, the key-locking system required by S4.2 in each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position must (except under limited specified circumstances) prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht87-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 1987

FROM: JAN PETER KRYGER -- VICE PRESIDENT, QUICKWHEEL

TO: DEIRDE HOM -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/22/87 (EST) LETTER TO JAN PETER KRYGER, FROM ERIKA 2. JONES

TEXT: The information you gave me over the phone, on September 18th, was very helpful.

Let me give you some information about Quickwheel. Imagine it as a "roller skate", that can be placed under a flat tire in just a few seconds. The driver can go on to the nearest service station or even go home. Since it takes just a few seconds, Quic kwheel promotes traffic safety.

Quickwheel has been thoroughly tested by T.U.V. (THE authority in Germany) on the road and in traffic. In a letter to the "Bundesminister fur Verkehr" (the Secretary of Transportation in Germany) T.U.V. makes the following statement: the car equiped wit h Quickwheel handled speeds up to 45 miles flawlessly, even if the car had to come to a sudden stop or swerve to avoid an object.

Quickwheel, INC, has taken out a patent and is going to market Quickwheel in the U.S.A.

I have the following questions:

-What safety standards do apply to Quickwheel and its three little wheels?

-Do we need approval from the Department of Transportation and if so, what is the procedure?

-Could you explain the Code of Federal Regulations?

I am looking forward to your answer. Should you have any questions or suggestions, please let me know.

ID: nht69-1.25

DATE: 02/19/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Trico-Folberth, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 1, 1969, concerning your windsheild washer system.

Apparently our letter of October 3, 1968, to Mr. B. C. Johnson was misunderstood. In Mr. Johnson's inquiry of August 23, 1968, he stated "it is easy to deliver 15 cc's of fluid inside the three seconds specified." The wording of our reply acknowledged that this performance would be acceptable--it was not intended to be a literal interpretation of our requirements or the SAE Recommended Practice.

We learned that the SAE Windshield Wiping Subcommittee plans to revise J942, Passenger Car Windshield Washer Systems, to clarify the particular points you question. Meanwhile, we think the intent of Section S4.2 of Standard No. 104 is satisfied by the following interpretation of the referenced SAE Recommended Practice:

1. Paragraph 3.1 of J942 requires that 75% of the effective wiped area be cleared in 10 wiper cycle or less. Section S4.2.1 of Standard No. 104 requires that these areas be established in accordance with subparagraph S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 104.

2. The requirement to wipe 75% clear must also be not within 15 seconds as stipulated in paragraph 4.1.3(c) of J942.

3. A washer cycle is defined in paragraph 2.11 of J942 as "The system actuation sufficient to deliver approximately 15 cc of fluid to the windshield glazing surface." Note this definition does not actually define the number of actuation necessary to deliver the 15 cc, although the use of the word "actuation" appears to be singular. It is obvious that the intent of paragraph 4.1.3(c) is that this amount of fluid shall be delivered during the 15 second test period.

4. In paragraph 4.4.2(b) of J942 (under the durability test) the Recommended Practice requires: "For manual systems a single actuation shall consist of actuation of the control for a period not to exceed 3 seconds." It is important to note that this specifies the time required for the driver to operate the control--not the total time for the washer system to actuate. It appears this definition refers to a control actuation; whereas, the definition for "washer cycle" refers to a system actuation. This is borne out in paragraph 2.2 of J942 which defines "controls" as "A means for actuating and arresting the windshield washer system. The actuation may be coordinated or semicoordinated with components of the windshield wiper or may be fully independent."

5. Note that the following sentence in paragraph 4.4.2(b) states: "For automatic systems an actuation shall consist of one actuation of the control." This seems to indicate, by inference, that more than one control actuation is acceptable for manual systems.

6. Therefore, the intent of the referenced SAE Recommended Practice by Section S4.2 of Standard No. 104 is that manual washer systems may be actuated more than once to provide the 15 cc of fluid as long as it does not require the operator more than 3 seconds to operate the control for any single system actuation--and the washer system must deliver 15 cc of fluid to clear 75% of the wiped area within 10 cycles and within 15 seconds.

7. Note that any additional system actuations needed to meet the 15 cc requirement will also require that the manufacturer increase accordingly the total number of control actuations for the durability test in Table I, "Test Sequence" in J942.

We assume that your windshield washing system meets these requirements based upon your explanation of your manual system. However, we wish to point out our concern that the existing regulations do not adequately define washer system performance requirements, since it is possible under the current regulations for the driver to be needlessly occupied with the washer controls during a period of reduced visibility. Accordingly, we expect to up-grade the washer system performance requirements as soon as practicable.

ID: nht90-3.99

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 25, 1990

FROM: Satoshi Nishibori -- Vice President, Industry-Government Affairs, Nissan Research and Development, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-26-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Nishibori (A36; Std. 114); Also attached to Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 104, 5-30-90 Edition), pages 21868-21876 (text omitted)

TEXT:

On June 29, 1990, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. ("Nissan"), submitted to NHTSA petition for reconsideration regarding the May 30 amendments to FMVSS 114. In that petition, Nissan requested that NHTSA amend FMVSS 114 insofar as necessary to permit the continued use of three systems on vehicles that are equipped with automatic transmissions. These systems, as described in the petition, are a transmission shift lock override, an emergency key release, and a transmission park lock system.

Nissan filed its petition within 30 days of the issuance of the final rule, as required under 49 CFR 553.35, in order to preserve its right to request reconsideration of the rule. However, based on our review of the final rule and after demonstrating the Nissan systems to agency staff on July 13, it appears that the determination of whether these systems comply with the amended rule is not entirely clear. Therefore, we request your opinion as to whether the these systems are consistent with the requirements established in the May 30 notice.

Shift Lock Emergency Override

The shift lock emergency override system is operable by depressing a button on the lower, rear portion (as viewed by the driver) of the shift lever. By depressing the button, the transmission may be shifted out of "park," independent of the ignition key position or whether the key is in the ignition switch. Nissan considers this system to be necessary to necessary to permit the towing of a vehicle having an inoperative electrical system (e.g., with a battery that failed overnight). Without the device, the electrically powered transmission could not be shifted out of "PARK," thereby complicating the process of towing of the vehicle to a repair facility.

The compliance concern with respect to this system involves the new requirement that the "key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key." See section 4.2(b).

The Nissan system prevents removal of the key whenever the transmission is in a position other than "park," consistent with this provision; the key may be removed only when the transmission has been shifted into "park" (except when using the emergency key release, described below). When the transmission is shifted into "park" and the key is removed, the transmission remains locked in "park" until it is unlocked, either by

turning the ignition key to the "on" position and depressing the brake pedal or by operating the emergency shift release override. Thus, the Nissan system appears to be consistent with the language of section 4.2(b).

Please inform us whether this system complies with the recent amendments to FMVSS 114.

In our petition for reconsideration (section 1(b)), we described an alternative shift lock system, in which the manual override would be operable only after removing a cover over the override lever. We believe that this system would also comply with the amended rule, for the reasons set forth above, with respect to our current system. It should be noted that the alternative system would prevent shifting the transmission out of the "park" position when the ignition key has been removed, so long as the vehicle is in its normal (fully assembled) operating mode. Only after the cover over the override lever has been removed and the lever has been activated can the shift lever be moved in this situation. Please inform us as to whether this alternative system would comply with the amended rule.

Emergency Key Release

The second Nissan system facilitates removal of the ignition key in the event of an electrical system failure. In that event, the ignition key lock system would prevent removal of the key. Moving the transmission shift lever to the "park" position, if the failure occurs when the transmission is in a position other than "park," would not de-activate the electrically operated key-lock, due to the absence of electrical power. Nissan's emergency key release system permits overriding the ignition key lock in this situation, so that the ignition key can be removed from the vehicle and the driver can lock the vehicle and leave to seek assistance.

In the normal vehicle operating mode, the Nissan system clearly complies with section 4.2(b), since it prevents ignition key removal unless the transmission lever is in the "park" position. The emergency key release system permits key removal only after some disassembly and manipulation of the key lock have been performed. The emergency key release override is activated by first removing a cover over the ignition switch, by using a screw driver or similar tool. Next, a hidden lever that is located inside the exposed ignition switch compartment in the steering column must be manipulated, again using an object such as a screw driver.

We believe that the emergency key release system presents no safety or theft protection concerns. For example, it would be extremely difficult to activate the emergency override while the vehicle is in motion. Similarly, we believe that it is extremely unlikely that the override would encourage drivers to leave their ignition keys in their vehicles and thereby risk vehicle theft. The relative difficulty of the override process makes either of these circumstances quite unlikely.

It should be noted that virtually any key locking system can be overriden through some form of lock disassembly and associated procedures. Thus, the Nissan system differs from others in this regard at most as a matter

of degree.

We request your opinion as to whether the Nissan emergency key release system complies with FMVSS 114.

Park Lock System

Nissan's park lock system prevents drivers from inadvertently depressing the accelerator pedal rather than the brake pedal when shifting a vehicle out of "park." The transmission shift lever can be moved from the "park" position only if two conditions are met:

1) the ignition key is in the "on" position; and

2) the brake pedal is depressed.

If the transmission is placed in "park," the shift lever locks in that position when the ignition key is turned to the "off" position.

Nissan was initially concerned that this system might not comply with section 4.3 of FMVSS 114 since, as noted above, the ignition key activates the transmission shift lock. However, under the wording adopted in NHTSA's final rule, it is only the "key-locking system described in section 4.2(b)" that may not be activated by turning "off" the ignition key. Section 4.2(b) now appears to apply only to the steering column lock and the key removal lock features (which are not activated by turning "off" the ignition), not the transmission shift lock. Therefore, we now believe that the park lock system complies with section 4.3.

It is our understanding that the agency's intent in establishing section 4.3 was to prevent the potentially dangerous situation that could result if the ignition key of a moving vehicle were turned to the "off" position and the steering column then became locked. In that situation, it would be impossible to steer the vehicle. The Nissan park lock system presents no concern of this sort.

Please inform us whether our current understanding on this matter is correct.

To the extent that you conclude that the three Nissan systems comply with the FMVSS 114 amendments, the requests made in our petition for reconsideration would become moot. For any of these systems that you determine to comply with the standard, as amended, please consider the relevant portion of our petition to be withdrawn. If you determine that any of the systems do not comply, Nissan requests that you consider the applicable portions of the petition and amend the standard to permit the use of the systems.

If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Kazuo Iwasaki of my staff, at 466-5284.

ID: nht91-7.14

DATE: November 18, 1991

FROM: Eileen Mathews -- Industry Manager, Hose and Tubing, General Electric Company

TO: James Scapellato -- Director of Motor Carrier Standards, Federal Motor Carrier Highway Administration

COPYEE: Vernon Bloom; Ralph Ford; Mike Martin; Paul Brennan; Deirdre Fujita; Larry Minor

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/11/92 from Paul J. Rice to Eileen Mathews (A39; Std. 106)

TEXT:

GE Plastics is working with certain tube manufacturers to supply them with a high performance co-polyester engineering thermoplastic resin, under the tradename LOMOD resin, for use in the airbrake tubing. LOMOD resin would be sold to the tubing suppliers who would extrude the material and supply the brake tubing systems to the truck OEMs. GE Plastics is requesting an interpretation of Motor Carrier Specification 393.45 and DOT 571.106 in regards to GE Plastics ability to supply this market provided positive test results in accordance with DOT 571.106 and/or the SAE J844.

At this point in the airbrake program, GE Plastics has tested Type A 1 /4" tubing made from LOMOD resin per SAE J844 and DOT 571.106 (tubing tests but not assemblies). Tubing made from LOMOD resin has passed all relevant tests except that we have not yet tested UV with various colors. As GE Plastics commits money and resources to supply material to the airbrake tubing market, it is important that clarification is received on the following points:

The Motor Carrier Spec 393.45 refers to the SAE J844 Spec.

The SAE Spec includes a series of test requirements but also specifies tubing construction to be "a single wall extrusion of 100% virgin nylon (polyamide)". This material is sole sourced by one company, AtoChem. GE Plastics is interested in maintaining high performance standards, in the marketplace and believes that it has products which meet or exceed all current brake tubing performance standards, but GE Plastics does not supply virgin polyamide resin.

Question: Is it the Federal Highway Administrations intention that the regulations be interpreted as material specific and prohibit the use of resins other than "a single wall extrusion of 100% virgin nylon 11 polyamide" which may meet or exceed the performance requirements of the regulations? If not, will tubing be made of LOMOD copolyester material be in compliance with the Administration if all of the test requirements of SAE J844 are met (i.e. specification to read "J844 Tests" rather than "J844")?

The DOT Spec 571.106 makes reference to "coiled nylon tube assembly which meets the requirements of 393.45" in S7.3.6, S7.3.10 and S7.3.11. This reference or exemption with coiled tube is necessary for thermoplastic tubing (versus the original straight, rubber hoses) to meet the describe fitting pull-off tests.

Question: Does compliance with 571.106 require compliance with 393.45 and hence SAE J844? Is it necessary to call out "nylon" in S7.3.6 and S7.3.10?

Aside from exact material (polyamide resin) reference, the section detailing Construction in SAE J844 limits the make-up of the tubing by calling out "single wall extrusion".

Question: Does this prevent the supply of a co-extruded tubing (e.g. a possible VALOX polyester resin/LOMOD resin co-extruded tubing) which possesses the required I.D. and O.D. dimensions and which also passes all SAE J844 specification testing?

Our understanding is that the above questions will not to be addressed by SAE. The SAE Committee is a standardization committee which originates once a product is already on the market. It is likely that an SAE committee will write a new specification based on the new thermoplastic tubing passing the same testing criteria once that tubing is sold on the market. The new tubing, however, must be in compliance with DOT before it can be sold in the marketplace. Thus, unless Motor Carrier Spec 393.45, DOT 571.106 and the SAE J844 Spec are interpreted to allow the use of resins other than nylon, which also meet or exceed the performance requirements of those specifications, there does not seem to be a practical way to introduce a new competitive resin into the brake tubing application. We assume that it is not the intent of the regulators to restrict either the development of new technology or competition. Your clarification and response to this request will be appreciated.

ID: nht88-2.59

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; ERIKA Z. JONES; EAS-ASE

TO: IRVING GINGOLD, ATTORNEY AT LAW

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Irving Gingold, Esq. 529 Nassau Road Roosevelt, NY 11575

Dear Mr. Gingold,

This is in response to your letter of April 27, 1988, asking whether any of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to an airport baggage conveyor. The answer is no.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.), authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. Conversely, we have no authori ty to regulate vehicles that are not "motor vehicles" or equipment that is not "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(3) of the Safety Act (IS U.S.C. 1391(3) I defines a motor vehicle as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primar ily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Under this definition, any vehicle intended and sold solely for off-road use is not considered a motor vehicle under the Safety Act, even if it is operationally capable of highway travel. We have long offered "airport runway vehicles" as an example of ve hicles that are not motor vehicles, because they are sold solely for off-road use. NHTSA has specifically stated that an airport baggage trailer is not a motor vehicle, in a July 11, 1983 letter to D.F. Landers. Since the airport baggage conveyor to whic h you referred in your letter is not a "motor vehicle," none of our safety standards or other regulations would apply to the vehicle. We are not aware of any other Federal agency that has established safety standards applicable to airport baggage conveyo rs.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 27, 1988

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Jimmy Knight v. TWA et al My file #1422

Gentlemen:

I represent a client who was seriously injured while riding an airport baggage conveyor on October 9, 1984. I would appreciate it if you could forward to me any and all information pertaining to the safety standards that were applicable to conveyor type of vehicles as our client was operating.

Your cooperation would be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

IRVING GINGOLD

IG:pe

ID: aiam2910

Dear Mr. Millet: This is in response to your letter of 25 October 1978 concerning th requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201 as it applies to the instrument panel compartment door in the Saab 900. Your specific concern is the portion of S3.3 that provides, 'Additionally, any interior compartment door located in an instrument panel or seat back shall remain closed when the instrument panel or seat back is tested in accordance with S3.1 and S3.2.'; According to your letter, the hinges on the Saab 900 instrument pane compartment door are designed to deform to keep the compartment door closed if deformation resulting from the head impact requirements of S3.1 is great enough to open the compartment latch.; If the instrument panel compartment door remains closed during the hea impact tests of S3.1, the vehicle complies with that aspect of the requirements of S3.3 of Standard No. 201. The standard does not specify that the latch mechanism remain closed, only that the door 'shall remain closed.'; This interpretation should not be construed as an approval of Saab' instrument panel compartment door hinge system. Federal motor vehicle Safety standards are written primarily in terms of performance requirements which must be met in specified test, and a manufacturer is free to use any design it wishes to meet those performance requirements. Thus, this agency does not grant approval of specific systems or components in the vehicle. The manufacturer must exercise due care to assure that its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards.; Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: 12249-5.pja

Mr. Per Karlsson
SCANDMEC AB
P.O. Box 504
S-565 28 Mullsjö, Sweden

Dear Mr. Karlsson:

This letter responds to your July 26, 1996, facsimile asking whether the automatic transmission gear selector design you are developing for GM/Opel complies with the June 7, 1995, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (60 FR 30006). Vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1996, are required by S4.2.1(a)(2) of Standard No. 114 to "prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' . . . ." Your transmission shift lever has a thumb button on top that must be depressed in order to move the lever out of any of the shift positions. Once the lever is between positions and the hand is removed, it will be pulled into one of the positions due to a spring-loaded device. You were concerned that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), while conducting compliance testing, might try to "fool" the system by putting the lever into the park position but keeping the thumb button depressed, removing the key with the left hand, and then pulling the lever back with the thumb button still depressed. Your concern is unfounded.

There are two tests relating to performance of the shift lock. The first, in S5.3(a), is for testing in all positions except park. Its purpose is to assure that the key can't be removed in those positions. The test procedure specifies that the lever shall be placed in "any position where it will remain without assistance" (emphasis added). This means that the hand will be removed from the lever (and the thumb button) prior to attempting to remove the key.

The second test, in S5.3(b), is for testing in the park position. Its purpose is to assure that, when a driver removes the key with the lever in park, the lever will be locked in that position and that children left behind in the vehicle won't be able to pull the lever back from the park position and cause a rollaway crash. The test procedure states: "[m]ove the shift mechanism to the 'park' position . . . Remove the key. Verify that the transmission shift mechanism or transmission is locked in 'park.'" We interpret the test procedures at issue as addressing only the actions that drivers might take as part of the normal driving task. This would include actions that drivers might take inadvertently, e.g., attempting to remove the key thinking that the vehicle is in park when it is not, but not deliberate actions to defeat the transmission shift lock.

In S5.3(b), the purpose of "mov[ing] the shift mechanism to the 'park' position" is to put the vehicle in park. Therefore, the normal procedure for accomplishing this action will be used, i.e., the hand will be removed from the shift lever before the key is removed. The action of putting the lever into the park position but keeping the thumb button depressed, removing the key with the left hand, and then pulling the lever back with the thumb button still depressed, would not be taken as part of the normal driving task. Indeed, the only conceivable reason for taking such a complicated action would be a deliberate effort to defeat the transmission shift lock.

I note, however, that when taking the next step in the S5.3(b) procedure and verifying that the shift lever is locked in park, any reasonable means to pull the lever back may be used, including depressing the thumb button. While Standard No. 114 is not intended to address deliberate misuse by a driver, it is intended to address broadly the various kinds of actions unsupervised children might take while playing in a car.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:114

d:9/20/96