ID: PORSCH3.wpd

Michael Love, Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
100 West Liberty Street
P.O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

On April 25, 1996, I issued an interpretation to Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Porsche), concerning the readiness indicator requirement in S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. In that letter, I interpreted that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standard to mean that a readiness indicator was not required for either voluntarily-installed inflatable restraints (air bags), i.e., those installed in addition to required safety systems, or for air bags installed for compliance with a standard other than Standard No. 208. The interpretation also stated:

[I]f you voluntarily provide a readiness indicator, and decide to combine it with the required readiness indicator, the information provided by the former must not confuse or obscure the information provided by the latter about the required air bag. The indicator must distinguish between the different air bag systems, such as by having dissimilar signals for the different systems.

We have received substantial feedback from you and other motor vehicle manufacturers disagreeing with the conclusion prohibiting a combined indicator that gives nondistinguishing messages. We also received a written request from the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM), dated June 25, 1996, asking that we reconsider the interpretation.

Upon reconsideration, this letter replaces and supersedes my interpretation of April 25, 1996 to Porsche. In addition, as part of the reconsideration process, we have reconsidered that portion of a November 27, 1991 interpretation which concludes that an indicator for pretensioners may not be combined with the S4.5.2 indicator unless a distinguishable message is provided. That portion of the November 27, 1991 interpretation is also superseded by this letter.

Porsche asked whether the S4.5.2 indicator requirement applies (1) to a voluntarily-installed inflatable restraint (not needed to comply with Standard No. 208), or (2) to an inflatable restraint installed to meet the requirements of another standard (such as Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection). You stated that Porsche believed that in both of these situations the manufacturer could install:

• no readiness indicator, or
• a separate readiness indicator from that required by Standard No. 208, or
• a readiness indicator combined with that required by Standard No. 208.

As explained below, we agree. Moreover, we also conclude that a voluntarily-provided indicator for pretensioners may be combined with the required Standard No. 208 indicator without providing a distinguishable message.

S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 states:

An occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a crash shall have a monitoring system with a readiness indicator. The indicator shall monitor its own readiness and shall be clearly visible from the driver's designated seating position.

We believe that this provision, in the overall context of Standard No. 208, could be interpreted in more than one way. In particular, the requirement could be interpreted as applying to all occupant protection systems that deploy in the event of a crash, or just to those provided to comply with Standard No. 208.

On the one hand, one might conclude that an indicator is required for all air bags because the language of S4.5.2 does not limit its application to systems provided to comply with Standard No. 208, and because Standard No. 208 has historically addressed occupant protection broadly, i.e., its requirements are not limited to frontal protection.

Conversely, one could reach the opposite result, i.e., that an indicator is required only for air bags used to comply with Standard No. 208, because the standard's dynamic test requirements have, over time and as a practical matter, become limited to frontal protection. After all, an indicator's purpose is to ensure that an air bag or other crash deployed system will provide benefits for the life of the vehicle by warning the driver when repairs are needed. So it would be logical to conclude from the overall context of Standard No. 208 that the indicator requirements are there to ensure that the air bags provided to comply with the standard will provide benefits for the life of the vehicle. Viewed from that context, the indicator requirements do not address air bags installed for other purposes.

Under the first interpretation, i.e. that an indicator is required for all air bags, a single indicator could clearly be used for all air bags, without providing distinguishing messages, because nothing in Standard No. 208 suggests that separate indicators or messages are required.

The second interpretation, i.e. that an indicator is required only for air bags used to comply with Standard No. 208 raises the issue whether a single indicator without distinguishing messages could be used for required and non-required air bags. As suggested in my April 25 letter, it is arguable that the requirement in S4.5.2 would not be satisfied by an indicator providing non-distinguishable messages which may relate either to air bags required by Standard No. 208 or to other systems.

After considering the language of Standard No. 208 and its purposes, we conclude that it is appropriate to interpret Standard No. 208, S4.5.2, not to require an indicator for air bags other than those required to comply with that standard. While the agency is stopping short of interpreting the standard as requiring an indicator for such voluntarily-installed air bags, however, we nonetheless encourage such indicators. Consistent with that encouragement, and considering the ambiguity of S4.5.2, we believe it is appropriate to interpret the standard as permitting a single indicator, without distinguishing messages, for all air bags.

The reason for this conclusion is that the message of the readiness indicator is that a component of an air bag system (or other occupant protection system which deploys in the event of a crash) needs the attention of an automotive expert such as a dealer. Regardless of which system is causing the indicator to signal the existence of a malfunction, we believe that when vehicle owners see the indicator provide a warning, they will understand that there is a problem with an air bag (or other occupant protection system which deploys in the event of a crash) and will take the vehicle to a dealer or repair business. Since the dealer or repair business can inform the owner which system is malfunctioning, it does not matter that the indicator does not make that distinction. This result is, as noted above, consistent with the view that S4.5.2 applies to non-required air bags.

As indicated above, NHTSA has also reconsidered that portion of a November 27, 1991 interpretation which concludes that an indicator for pretensioners may not be combined with the S4.5.2 indicator unless a distinguishable message is provided. The rationale for that interpretation had some similarities to the April 25, 1996 interpretation to Porsche about air bags other than those used to comply with Standard No. 208. First, NHTSA concluded that S4.5.2 does not require an indicator for pretensioners. Second, the agency concluded that a voluntarily provided indicator for pretensioners may not be combined with the S4.5.2 indicator unless a distinguishable message is provided.

In concluding that S4.5.2 does not require an indicator for pretensioners, the agency considered whether pretensioners are "an occupant protection system that deploys in the event of a crash." The agency noted that even though pretensioners are designed to activate in the event of a crash, they will not "deploy" the belts if the belts have not been manually fastened. NHTSA stated that it does not view the pretensioners as "deploying" the belts but instead providing a final, albeit important, adjustment to belts which have already been deployed.

Just as there is some ambiguity with respect to whether S4.5.2 covers air bags other than those used to comply with Standard No. 208, there is ambiguity with respect to whether it covers pretensioners. The word "deploy" is defined in the dictionary and in common usage as "to arrange, place, or move strategically or appropriately." While it is certainly true that pretensioners will not "deploy" unfastened safety belts, pretensioners can be seen as "deploying" fastened safety belts in the event of a crash, i.e., moving them into position to provide better occupant protection.

NHTSA believes that this ambiguity should be resolved in the same manner as for air bags other than those used to comply with Standard No. 208. That is, the agency will not interpret the standard as requiring an indicator for pretensioners, but nonetheless encourages such indicators. As part of that encouragement, and given the ambiguity of S4.5.2, we interpret the standard as permitting a single indicator, without distinguishing messages, for all air bags and pretensioners.

I note that we are not interpreting S4.5.2 as permitting indicators for devices other than deploying occupant crash protection systems to be combined with the required indicator without distinguishing messages. I also note that, should the agency in the future receive information demonstrating that indicators for multiple air bag systems without distinguishing messages are creating confusion for drivers, we may revisit this subject in rulemaking. Finally, because this interpretation reflects consideration of the unique history of Standard No. 208, I caution against using it for precedent concerning how the agency might interpret other standards.

If you have any other questions or need some additional information, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin

Chief Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Mr. Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr.
President
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
1001 19th St. North
Suite 1200
Arlington, VA 22209

ref:208#214

d:7/30/96

ID: aiam4119

Dear Mr. Doherty: This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, in whic you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* (UTQGS). Specifically, you stated that your firm is the registered agent for a foreign tire manufacturer and that you would like a clarification of what information the manufacturer is required to provide to this agency under the UTQGS.; Before responding specifically to the statements in your letter, would like to point out that the requirements for tire manufacturers to furnish UTQGS information to this agency are set forth in three different regulatory provisions. The first of these is 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2), which provides: 'Each brand name owner of tires and each manufacturer of tires for which there is no brand name owner shall submit to the Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to the ... tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before it is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.' This language makes clear that the only information the tire manufacturers must provide to this agency is information that will be provided for examination by prospective purchasers in accordance with 49 CFR S575.6(c).; The second regulatory provision addressing information to be provide by tire manufacturers is 49 CFR S575.6(c). That section provides that the tire manufacturer shall provide each of its dealers with a brochure setting forth the UTQGS information for each of its tires offered for sale by that dealer. The third regulatory provision is 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii), which requires that the information required by S575.6(c) shall list all possible grades for tires and restate verbatim the explanation for each performance area in which the tires are graded, as specified in Figure 2 of S575.104, although not necessarily in the same format as Figure 2. This section also requires that the information clearly and unambiguously indicate the grade in each performance area assigned to each of the manufacturer's tires sold by the dealer.; With this background, I will now address each of your statements, i the order they were presented in your letter. Each of my explanations will cite the applicable regulatory provision that is the authority for that explanation.; 1. To register each new tire design, or each change in the applicabl UTQG information with respect to an already registered tire design, the tire manufacturer must submit to DOT ten (10) copies of a brochure containing the tire design and UTQG information for the tire including the information set forth in the three paragraphs of 49 CFR S575.104, Figure 2, Parts I and II of the Regulations.; Response: Tire manufacturers are not required to 'register' tir designs with the agency. The manufacturers are only required to provide this agency with advance copies of the UTQGS information that will be furnished to their dealers. 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2). If the tire manufacturer wishes to add a new tire design to the UTQGS information previously supplied to the agency, or to change some of the previously supplied information, the tire manufacturer must furnish this agency with 10 copies of a brochure showing *all* of the manufacturer's tire designs, including those designs for which the previously submitted information is unchanged, and the grades assigned to those tire designs. 49 CFR S575.6(c). This brochure must also include the explanations for the various possible grades set forth in Figure 2 of S575.104. 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii). For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a typical brochure furnished to this agency by a tire manufacturer.; 2. Such brochures must be sent to all U.S. dealers of th manufacturer's tires and be delivered to purchasers when they examine and/or buy the manufacturer's tires. The brochures must be sent to the dealers with the first lot of each new design.; Response: The brochures must be sent to all dealers of th manufacturer's tires and furnished to all prospective and actual purchasers of those tires upon request. Brochures incorporating information on new tire designs must be furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires not later than the first day on which the manufacturer authorizes the tires to be put on general public display and sold to consumers. 49 CFR S575.6(c).; 3. The ten (10) copies of the UTQG brochure (sic) must be submitted t DOT at least 30 days before such brochure is first provided to tire purchasers for examination.; Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2). 4. Photographs of tires are not required to be submitted to DOT. Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requiremen that photographs of tires be provided to this agency.; 5. UTQG labels are not required to be submitted to DOT. Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requiremen that UTQGS labels be provided to this agency.; 6. If a tire manufacturer intends to market a tire that is alread registered under a new or private brand name, all that is required is a letter to DOT setting forth the pattern code, tire size(s) and UTQG characteristics of the tire already registered and indicating that the tire will be sold under the additional brand name.; Response: This statement is inaccurate. If changed marketing practice by the tire manufacturer cause the UTQGS brochures submitted to its dealers and this agency to be either incomplete or incorrect, the tire manufacturer must revise its brochure. Ten copies of the revised brochure must be submitted to this agency 30 days before the marketing change takes effect, and revised brochures must be provided to each of the manufacturer's dealers not later than the day on which the marketing change takes effect. 49 CFR SS575.6(c) and (d)(2). The tire manufacturer may enclose a letter with its brochure explaining the change, but such a letter is not required.; 7. If a private brand tire made by the tire manufacturer gets a ne tire design, the manufacturer does not have to provide the updated UTQG information to DOT -- the brand name owner for the tire design would be required to provide the information.; Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR SS575.6(c) and (d)(2). Should you have any further questions or need more information in thi area, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4123

Dear Mr. Doherty: This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, in whic you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of 49 CFR S575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* (UTQGS). Specifically, you stated that your firm is the registered agent for a foreign tire manufacturer and that you would like clarification of what information the manufacturer is required to provide to this agency under the UTQGS.; Before responding specifically to the statements in your letter, would like to point out that the requirements for tire manufacturers to furnish UTQGS information to this agency are set forth in three different regulatory provisions. The first of these is 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2), which provides: 'Each brand name owner of tires and each manufacturer of tires for which there is no brand name owner shall submit to the Administrator 10 copies of the information specified in Subpart B of this part that is applicable to the ... tires offered for sale, at least 30 days before it is first provided for examination by prospective purchasers pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.' This language makes clear that the only information the tire manufacturers must provide to this agency is information that will be provided for examination by prospective purchasers in accordance with 49 CFR S575.6(c).; The second regulatory provision addressing information to be provide by tire manufacturers is 49 CFR S575.6(c). That section provides that the tire manufacturer shall provide each of its dealers with a brochure setting forth the UTQGS information for each of its tires offered for sale by the dealer. The third regulatory provision is 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii), which requires that the information required by S575.6(c) shall list all possible grades for tires and restate verbatim the explanation for each performance area in which the tires are graded, as specified in Figure 2 of S575.104, although not necessarily in the same format as Figure 2. This section also requires that the information clearly and unambiguously indicate the grade in each performance area assigned to each of the manufacturer's tires sold by the dealer.; With this background, I will now address each of your statements, i the order they were presented in your letter. Each of my explanations will cite the applicable regulatory provision that is the authority for that explanation.; 1. To register each new tire design, or each change in the applicabl UTQG information with respect to an already registered tire design, the tire manufacturer must submit to DOT ten (10) copies of a brochure containing the tire design and UTQG information for the tire including the information set forth in the three paragraphs of 49 CFR S575.104, Figure 2, Parts I and II of the Regulations.; Response: Tire manufacturers are not required to 'register' tir designs with the agency. The manufacturers are only required to provide this agency with advance copies of the UTQGS information that will be furnished to their dealers. 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2). If the tire manufacturer wishes to add a new tire design to the UTQGS information previously supplied to the agency, or to change some of the previously supplied information, the tire manufacturer must furnish this agency with 10 copies of a brochure showing *all* of the manufacturer's tire designs, including those designs for which the previously submitted information is unchanged, and the grades assigned to those tire designs. 49 CFR S575.6(c). This brochure must also include the explanations for the various possible grades set forth in Figure 2 of S575.104. 49 CFR S575.104(d)(1)(ii). For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a typical brochure furnished to this agency by a tire manufacturer.; 2. Such brochures must be sent to all U.S. dealers of th manufacturer's tires and be delivered to purchasers when they examine and/or buy the manufacturer's tires. The brochures must be sent to the dealers with the first lot of each new design.; Response: The brochures must be sent to all dealers of th manufacturer's tires and furnished to all prospective and actual purchasers of those tires upon request. Brochures incorporating information on new tire designs must be furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires not later than the first day on which the manufacturer authorizes the tires to be put on general public display and sold to consumers. 49 CFR S575.6(c).; 3. The ten (10) copies of the UTQG brochure must be submitted to DOT a least 30 days before such brochure is first provided to tire purchasers for examination.; Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR S575.6(d)(2). 4. Photographs of tires are not required to be submitted to DOT. Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requiremen that photographs of tires be provided to this agency.; 5. UTQG labels are not required to be submitted to DOT. Response: Your statement is correct. There is no regulatory requiremen that UTQGS labels be provided to this agency.; 6. If a tire manufacturer intends to market a tire that is alread registered under a new or private brand name, all that is required is a letter to DOT setting forth the pattern code, tire size(s) and UTQG characteristics of the tire already registered and indicating that the tire will be sold under the additional brand name.; Response: This statement is inaccurate. If changed marketing practice by the tire manufacturer cause the UTQGS brochures submitted to its dealers and this agency to be either incomplete or incorrect, the tire manufacturer must revise its brochure. Ten copies of the revised brochure must be submitted to this agency 30 days before the marketing change takes effect, and revised brochures must be provided to each of the manufacturer's dealers not later than the day on which the marketing change takes effect. 49 CFR SS 575.6(c) and (d)(2). The tire manufacturer may enclose a letter with its brochure explaining the change, but such a letter is not required.; 7. If a private brand tire made by the tire manufacturer gets a ne tire design, the manufacturer does not have to provide the updated UTQG information to DOT -- the brand name owner for the tire design would be required to provide the information.; Response: Your statement is correct. 49 CFR SS 575.6(c) and (d)(2). Should you have any further questions or need more information in thi area, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426- 2992.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 2673y

Mr. Satoshi Nishibori
Vice President
Industry-Government Affairs
750 17th Street, NW
Suite 902
Washington DC 20006

Dear Mr. Nishibori:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). You were uncertain whether your shift lock emergency override system, your emergency key release, and your transmission park lock system comply with S4.2 and S4.3, as amended by a May 30, 1990 final rule (55 FR 21868). On June 29, 1990, you submitted a petition for reconsideration which the agency is currently considering. Under the revised requirements, section S4.2 provides that:

"Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor; and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key."

As explained below, we have made the following interpretations concerning your systems based on our understanding of them from your petition for reconsideration, your July 25, 1990 letter, and your discussions with agency staff.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not approve any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000.

Shift Lock Emergency Override You explained that your shift lock emergency override system is operable by depressing a button on the lower, rear portion of the shift lever. By depressing the button, the transmission may be shifted out of "park," independent of the ignition key position or the key being in the ignition switch. You expressed your opinion that the transmission remains "locked" in "park" until it is "unlocked," either by turning the ignition key to the "on" position and depressing the brake pedal or by operating the emergency shift release override. This led you to conclude that your emergency shift override would be permissible under S4.2(b).

We disagree with your suggested interpretation. Under S4.2(b), the key-locking system must prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. Given the presence of the emergency shift release override, we do not believe the transmission or transmission shift lever would ever be "locked" in park, since it could be released without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system. Your alternative shift lock system in which the manual override would be operable only after removing a cover over the override lever would also not appear to comply with S4.2 because the presence of a cover would not affect one's ability to release the transmission shift lever without regard to the key used to operate the vehicle's key-locking system.

Emergency Key Release You explained that your emergency key release system facilitates removal of the ignition key in the event of an electrical system failure. That system permits overriding the ignition key lock, so that the ignition key can be removed from the vehicle and the driver can lock the vehicle. You explained that the emergency key release override is activated by removing a cover over the ignition switch and then using a screw driver to activate a hidden lever located inside the exposed ignition switch compartment.

We do not concur with your suggested interpretation of S4.2. That requirement provides that "the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park." The regulatory text does not refer to alternative methods of key removal such as the procedure you describe. While you state that virtually any key locking system can be overriden through some form of lock disassembly and associated procedures, we do not consider the simple override you describe to be similar to lock disassembly. Therefore, an emergency key release system in which the key could be removed in a position other than "park" would not comply with S4.2, regardless how the key could be removed. Nevertheless, such an emergency key release would be permissible if it were operable only while the transmission or transmission shift lever were locked in the "park" position. You should be aware that we are evaluating such systems in our review of the petitions for reconsideration to the final rule.

Park Lock System You explained that your park lock system prevents drivers from inadvertently depressing the accelerator pedal rather than the brake pedal when shifting out of "park". This is accomplished by permitting the transmission lever to be moved out of "park" only if the ignition key is in the "on" position and the brake pedal is depressed. You further explained that if the transmission is placed in "park," the shift lever locks in that position when the ignition key is turned to the "off" position. You expressed your belief that your park lock system complies with S4.3, as amended.

I agree that your park lock system appears to comply with S4.3. That provision requires that the prime means for deactivating the vehicle's engine or motor, typically the ignition key, shall not activate the key-locking system described in S4.2(b). Based on our understanding of your key-locking system, it appears to comply with S4.3 because that provision refers to the key-locking system and not a transmission shift lock. As you correctly note, the purpose of S4.3 is to prevent the potentially dangerous situation in which the ignition key of a moving vehicle is turned to the "off" position causing the steering column to lock.

You asked that we continue to consider your petition for reconsideration, if, as we have done, we concluded that some of your suggested interpretations were incorrect. We will notify you of our response to that petition as soon as we complete our review of it.

I hope this explanation is helpful. Please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure ref:ll4 d:9/26/90

ID: 001851cmc

Mr. Agus The
Amsafe Commercial Products
240-C North 48^th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85043


>

Dear Mr. The:

This is in response to your letter asking whether the Locktec child restraint buckle release meets the "two or more finger" requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, as incorporated into FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems. As explained below, the two-finger standard is a width requirement, which is not satisfied simply by the use of two fingers in actuating the buckle release.

S5.4.3.5(c) of FMVSS No. 213 requires any buckle in a child restraint system to "[m]eet the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) of FMVSS No. 209, except that the minimum surface area for child restraint buckles designed for push button application shall be 0.6 square inch [387 mm²]." You state in your letter that: "The Locktec buckle has [a sliding mechanism for release] and not a push button or a lever application." Since your buckle release is not designed for push button application, the 0.6 square inch minimum surface area requirement in S5.4.3.5(c) does not apply.

S4.3(d)(2) of Standard No. 209 reads:

A buckle designed for pushbutton application of buckle release force shall have a minimum area of 452 mm with a minimum linear dimension of 10 mm for applying the release force, or a buckle designed for lever application of buckle release force shall permit the insertion of a cylinder 10 mm in diameter and 38 mm in length to at least the midpoint of the cylinder along the cylinder's entire length in the actuation portion of the buckle release. A buckle having other design for release shall have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate release.(Emphasis added.)

Because your buckle release is designed for slide application rather than push button or lever application, your buckle release falls under the "other design for release" category.

Under the last sentence of S4.3(d)(2), your buckle must have adequate access for two or more fingers to actuate the release. In the photos you provided of the release being actuated, one finger is in the slide action release button and an additional finger is on the buckle base opposite of the sliding mechanism. The placement of the finger on the base merely provides support to the buckle while the release is actuated. Only one finger is accessing the slide action release button.

FMVSS No. 209 requires that a slide action release button be large enough to be accessed by a minimum of two fingers, placed side-by-side. While there is no clear indication of what is meant by "two fingers" in terms of a minimum width, the two-finger requirement of FMVSS No. 209 was included in FMVSS No. 213 to ensure that child restraint buckles are easy to operate.(See, 50 Federal Register 33722.)The buckle release mechanism must be sufficiently large enough to reduce the force to surface ratio required to actuate release. The need to conveniently unbuckle a child restraint system (CRS) is of particular importance in emergency situations when there is a need to quickly remove a child from a CRS.

The release mechanism on your buckle does not accommodate two fingers of a majority of adults. The width of the index finger of a small, 5^th percentile adult female at the knuckle nearest the hand is approximately 16 mm, and the width of the index finger of a 50^th percentile male at the same position is approximately 21 mm. [1] Given the normal reduction in finger width at the tip as opposed to the knuckle nearest the hand and approximating the combined width of the index and middle finger, "two or more fingers" for a 5^th percentile female is approximately 28 mm. The contactable surface for actuating the release on the Locktec buckle is less than 25 mm. As such, the vast majority of adults would be unable to place two fingers side-by-side to actuate the Locktec buckle.

We recognize that there is some ambiguity in the two-finger specification and that a more objective criteria, specifying a minimum linear width would be appropriate. We plan to address this requirement in future rulemaking. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Chris Calamita of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.4/25/03





---

[1] Stephen Pheasant, "Bodyspace: Anthropometry, ergonomics, and the design of work" 49 (Taylor & Francis) (1996).

ID: 21015.ogm

Mr. Murray West
P.O. Box 7081
Terre Haute, IN 47802

Dear Mr. West:

This responds to your letter requesting information about modifying the seat back in your new Ford Escort. I apologize for the delay in our response. You indicate that the angle of the seatback is uncomfortable for you and that you wish to have the seat modified so that the seat back would be perpendicular to the seat cushion. Representatives of the dealer who sold the car to you have indicated that it would be illegal for them to modify the seat in the manner you request. You ask that you be provided with the statutes or regulations which make modifying the existing seat illegal.

We would like to explain that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to assure that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation.

FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems (49 CFR 571.207; copy enclosed), sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as your Ford Escort. FMVSS No. 207 does not contain any requirements that specify that the seat back must be within a certain range of angles to the seat back. The standard does, however, require that seats and seat backs meet certain strength requirements. Any modifications to the seat that would alter its original design could affect the seat's ability to meet these strength requirements. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, sets forth certain performance requirements for frontal crash protection. Modifying the seat back angle in the manner you describe in your letter may have an impact on the ability of the seat belt and air bag to protect the driver in a crash. We do not know if modifying the adjustment mechanism on your seat to make the back perpendicular to the seat cushion would affect the seat's compliance with FMVSS No. 207 or No. 208 and how such a modified seat would perform in a crash.

You may wish to ask the manufacturer of your vehicle what effect modifying the seat back angle would have on its ability to meet FMVSS No. 207 or No. 208 as well as the seat's performance in a crash. If the seat back angle can be changed in the way that you describe without affecting the safety performance of the vehicle and its compliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the dealer would not be violating the "make inoperative" provisions described above by modifying the seat.

If you have other questions or require additional information, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.7/12/00

ID: 04-004377drn

Jock Marlo, Esq.
Hart, King & Coldren
P.O. Box 2507
Santa Ana, CA 92707

Dear Mr. Marlo:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements that your clients product, the "Smart Shift," must meet. The "Smart Shift" permits drivers to shift gears by a push button system, replacing transmission shift gear levers.

You described the "Smart Shift" as follows:

The Smart Shift is an automotive aftermarket product. It is sold to vehicle owners for installation by the vehicle owner or his designee. The Smart Shift is an electronically controlled shifter that attaches to an automatic transmission which allows the user to shift the transmission gears by the touch of a button, thereby eliminating the transmission gear selector rod or cable. It features a neutral safety device, a built in reverse light relay, a safety button to prevent accidental shifts, and back lit buttons and LCD display for positive gear selection.

You also provided a copy of the "Smart Shift Preliminary Users Manual." The manual shows, on page 5, a schematic of the "Smart Shift" system that includes the shift position keyboard. From left to right, in a row, the buttons are: "P," "R," "N." Slightly above this row is a button, "D+." Slightly below the row is a button, "D-." I will assume that "P" stands for "park," "R" for "reverse," "N" for "neutral," "D+" for a higher drive and "D-" for a lower drive. The schematic also includes a "Display" which you explained in your letter displays the "positive gear selection."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor

vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

NHTSA has issued FMVSS No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, which specifies requirements for the transmission shift lever sequence, a starter interlock, and for a braking effect of automatic transmissions, to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors, starter engagement with vehicle in drive position, and to provide supplemental braking at speeds below 40 kilometers per hour. FMVSS No. 102 applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.

Among FMVSS 102s provisions are the following:

• a neutral position must be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions (see S3.1.1);
• the engine starter must be inoperative when the transmission shifting device is in a forward or reverse drive position (see 3.1.3);
• for a transmission shift sequence that includes a park position, identification of the shift positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, must 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 (see S3.1.4.1); and
• the information required to be displayed by S3.1.4.1 must be displayed in view of the driver in a single location (see S3.1.4.4).

Although the standard makes references to "transmission shift levers," no provision in FMVSS No. 102 would preclude a device that allows the user to shift the transmission gears by the touch of a button.

Since FMVSS No. 102 applies to motor vehicles, not to aftermarket automatic transmission shifting devices, your client would not be required to certify compliance with FMVSS No. 102. However, if the "Smart Shift" is installed by certain parties, 49 U.S.C. Section 30122 would be relevant. Section 30122 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.

Section 30122 would prohibit any of the above-named commercial entities from installing a "Smart Shift" if such installation makes inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any applicable safety standard, including FMVSS No. 102. For example, if the "Smart Shift" caused the vehicle to no longer comply with any of the requirements noted under the bullets above, installation of the system would make inoperative compliance of the vehicle with that standard.

You also write that your clients product may be installed by vehicle owners. In this situation, our safety standards would not affect the sale or installation of the product. The "make inoperative" provision does not prohibit owners from modifying their vehicles, even if the modification adversely affects the compliance of the vehicle with the FMVSSs. However, we encourage all persons to avoid making vehicle modifications that have an adverse effect on safety.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge, even if their equipment is not covered by a safety standard. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. For example, the States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I have enclosed a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:102#VSA102(4)
d.8/11/04

ID: aiam0337

Dear Mr. Strum: In your letter of April 20, 1971, to Robert L. Carter you ask fo copies of regulations governing 'the construction, equipping, and operation of private motor coaches.' It is our understanding that you wish to construct a vehicle for your own use upon a standard Dodge M-300 motor coach chassis.; A motor coach is categorized as a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle under the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I enclose copies of the following safety standards which would apply to the motor coach body that you wish to construct, and with which you, as a 'manufacturer' of a motor vehicle, must ensure compliance.; >>>102 - Transmission Shift Lever, etc. (Note S3.2) 103 - Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems 107 - Reflecting Surfaces 108 - Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associate (sic) Equipment 111 - Rearview Mirrors 205 - Glazing Materials 206 - Door Locks and Door Retention Components 208 - Seat Belt Installation (effective July 1, 1971) 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies (effective September 1, 1971, th requirements in effect until then apply only to equipment manufacturers)<<<; This agency has no regulations governing the 'operation' of a privat motor home, however, Michigan may have special provisions as a prerequisite to the registration of a motor home.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4494

"Dear Mr. Martin: This is a response to your letter of last year wher you stated your concern respecting the installation of 'latches' on the rear doors of a school bus of 10,000 lbs or less GVWR (small school bus), and asked a number of questions on release mechanisms for required rear emergency doors on these small school buses. I regret the delay in this response. You said that the State of Texas has a school bus specification that requires 'the first-closed (left-hand) door)' to have a latching mechanism at the top and bottom. Your supplier tells you that this specification conflicts with provisions of Federal safety standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (Standard 217). You go on to express your concern that a single mechanism would hold both doors closed, and that this feature increases the risk of injury from accidental or intentional opening. You believe that where a small school bus has two rear doors, if each door is secured independently, then there is a decreased risk of a student's falling through a door opened inadvertently. Let me begin my answer with some general information on the requirement for a rear emergency door in a small school bus. As your supplier suggests, there can be instances where independently securing the rear doors on a small school bus would violate Standard 217. Paragraph S5.2.3.1 requires a manufacturer of these buses to install either (1) one rear emergency door, or (2) one emergency door on the vehicle's left side and one push-out rear window. Where a manufacturer chooses to meet this requirement by installing one rear emergency door, the door may be hinged on either side of the vehicle. When a manufacturer installs more than one rear door exit, the question of whether both exits are 'emergency doors' under paragraph S5.2.3.1 of Standard 217 depends upon whether one or both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of a specified parallelepiped under paragraph S5.4.2.2. The purpose of the school bus emergency exit requirements is to facilitate quick and safe rider exit from the vehicle in the event of an emergency. (44 FR 7961, 7962, February 8, 1979.) Question 1: Are both of the rear doors on small school buses (with GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less) considered 'emergency doors' in the context of Paragraph S5.2.3.1 of FMVSS 217? If a manufacturer installs more than one rear door on a small school bus, and intends one door to be a rear emergency door under S5.2.3.1 and one to be a regular door for loading and unloading passengers, then the designated rear emergency door is a sufficient rear emergency exit so long as it will permit unobstructed passage of the device specified in paragraph S5.4.2.2 of the Standard. In a case such as this one, the manufacturer must label the emergency door appropriately, and otherwise ensure that the designated rear emergency door meets the performance, accessibility, and release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus. On the other hand, if the manufacturer installs two rear doors on a small school bus, and if both of those doors must be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, then both doors constitute a rear emergency exit under S5.2.3.1. In this case, the two doors together must meet the applicable provisions of Standard 217. There is yet another possibility that a manufacturer may install a second rear exit and designate it as an emergency exit. Assuming that at least one exit meets Standard 217's requirements for a rear emergency door exit, NHTSA would not prohibit installing this additional emergency exit. However, as the agency long has held, that 'extra' emergency exit must comply with Standard 217 provisions applicable to emergency exits in buses other than school buses. Question 2: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require separate, independent operation, that is, must one be able to open the left-hand door without first opening the right-hand door from outside of the passenger compartment? Again, the answer to this question depends upon whether one door can meet the unobstructed test measurement for a required rear emergency door. Let me begin this answer by explaining the release requirements for a rear emergency door on a small school bus. Under paragraph S5.3.3, a required small school bus rear emergency door generally must have a release mechanism that allows (1) a single person (2) to operate the door manually (3) from in or outside the vehicle's passenger compartment without the use of remote controls or tools (4) irrespective of whether the vehicle's power system fails. (Paragraph S5.3.3 also sets the maximum permissible magnitude of force and the permissible direction in which a force must be applied to operate the release mechanism.) In an interpretation of March 17, 1982, this agency stated that the release mechanism is the mechanism that keeps the door from opening. In other words, the release mechanism is what you refer to in your letter as the door 'latch.' If the test device described in my answer to your first question passes through unobstructed only when both doors are open, then the door release mechanism must be operable for both doors from inside the vehicle passenger compartment irrespective of whether a person outside the vehicle operates the outside release mechanism. Further, this same release mechanism must be operable from outside the vehicle. In this circumstance, a separate release mechanism for each door would not comply with the Standard. If only one door needs to be open, and the manufacturer has designated the second door as an emergency exit, then this additional emergency door still must be operable from inside the passenger compartment. In this case, independent release mechanisms may be appropriate, but a release mechanism on an additional emergency exit need not be operable from outside the vehicle. (S5.3.2.) If only one door needs to be open to accommodate the parallelepiped, and the manufacturer neither intends the second door to be an emergency door, nor designates it as an emergency exit, then the second door is a regular door for loading and unloading passengers. Standard 217 would be inapplicable to this second door. Question 3: Does Paragraph S5.3.3 require a warning system to indicate an opened position of any latch or latches on the left-hand door even though this door cannot be opened until after the right-hand door is opened, provided both doors must be opened to insert the 45' high by 22' wide x 6' deep parallelepiped? If both doors must be opened for unobstructed passage of the specified parallelepiped, then there must be a single emergency release mechanism (or latch) for both doors. In a case such as this, there must be an audible alarm under S5.3.3 whenever the release mechanism is not closed and the vehicle ignition switch is 'on.' That alarm should sound if either door is unsecured. Question 4: Would a warning system be required to indicate opened latch or latches on the left-hand door as in 3 above, provided the parallelepiped could be inserted into the passenger compartment through the opened right-hand door with the left-hand door closed? In your question, the manufacturer may designate either door as the required S5.2.3.1 emergency exit if the door accommodates the test device. The warning system then must sound when the release mechanism on the designated rear emergency door is open and the vehicle ignition switch is 'on.' For example, if in your question, the manufacturer designated the right-hand door as the required rear door emergency exit, then the warning system must sound whenever the release mechanism for that door is open and the vehicle ignition position is 'on.' As I stated in Question 1, the second rear door could be an 'additional' emergency exit, or a regular means for loading and unloading passengers, then the additional door would have to meet such other requirements as may apply to these exits. Question 5: Would a latch or latches be required on the left-hand door if both doors had to be opened to insert this parallelepiped even though the left-hand door is close by the latches of the right-hand door? In this circumstance, Standard 217 would prohibit installing a separate release mechanism on each door. Recall that S5.2.3.1 requires on a small school bus, 'one rear emergency door,' or one side door and one push-out window. If the manufacturer chooses to install the rear emergency door, then under S5.4.2.2, the specified parallelepiped must pass through that rear emergency door without obstruction. If both doors must be open to accommodate the test device, then both doors constitute the single, rear emergency door which the Standard requires. Under paragraph S5.3.3, the required rear emergency door must have its own release mechanism. I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: 7556

Mr. Takashi Odaira
Chief Representative
Emissions & Safety
Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.
46401 Commerce Center Drive
Plymouth, MI 48170

Dear Mr. Odaira:

This responds to your letter asking about the side door strength test procedures of Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, as they apply to a certain pickup truck design. You described three alternative methods of fixing the vehicle in position and asked whether they are consistent with the standard's test procedure.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 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 meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

S4(a) of Standard No. 214 sets forth the following procedures for fixing a vehicle in position for the quasi-static side door strength test:

Place the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface. Fix the vehicle rigidly in position by means of tiedown attachments located at or forward of the front wheel centerline and at or rearward of the rear wheel centerline. (Emphasis added.)

The side door strength test is then conducted by applying a loading device to the outer surface of the door, until the loading device travels 18 inches. See S4(d).

You asked about these procedures in connection with a certain pickup truck design, which can be described as follows. The cab of the truck is attached to the frame by means of flexible rubber mountings. The rear body is installed separately on the frame. The cab of the truck is over the front wheels, and the rear body is over the rear wheels.

You requested our comments on three alternative methods of testing the pickup truck at issue. The first would involve fixing the frame of the vehicle at or forward of, and at or rearward of, the front and real wheel centerlines. You stated, however, that the rear portion of the cab would not be rigidly fixed by this method, and that the application of the Standard No. 214 loading device would result in the stretching of the cab's rubber mountings and upward tilting of the cab as a whole.

Your second alternative would involve adding a third fixing of the vehicle, in addition to the front and rear fixings of Alternative 1. This additional fixing would be at the rear of the cab, on both sides. You indicated that this would permit the side door strength test to be conducted without tilting the vehicle, but that the relative cab to frame fixing would not be the same as on an actual vehicle.

Your third alternative would involve fixing the cab alone to a test fixture, at three locations. You stated that a problem with this method may be that the cab itself, and not the vehicle, is tested.

In considering how the Standard No. 214 quasi-static test should be conducted for a particular vehicle, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to measure the crush resistance of a side door. The agency is not measuring the extent to which a vehicle's suspension or other design features permit the vehicle to tilt when specified loads are applied. In order to measure the crush resistance of a door in a test, it is necessary that the vehicle be fixed rigidly in position. Otherwise, the application of a load to the side door could simply result in movement of the vehicle as a whole.

Standard No. 214's test procedure was developed initially for cars. As noted by your letter, the combination of tying the vehicle down at or forward of, and at or rearward of, the front and rear wheel centerlines and placing the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface is sufficient to rigidly fix a passenger car in position for test purposes. Your letter raises the issue of how the Standard No. 214 test should be conducted if the specified procedure does not result in a particular vehicle, such as one with a divided body, being rigidly fixed in position.

For purposes of compliance testing, NHTSA would take the following actions. First, the agency would examine whether the procedure set forth in S4(a) would result in the vehicle being rigidly fixed in position. This could involve considering various tiedown arrangements within the areas specified by S4(a). If the agency determined that the procedure was not sufficient to rigidly fix a vehicle in position, e.g., the entire cab of a pickup truck would tilt upward during a test, it would then follow the specified procedure but also add an additional tiedown attachment as necessary to rigidly fix the vehicle in position. In making this additional attachment, the agency would take care to ensure that the attachment did not interfere with the side door strength test.

I can offer the following comments on the three alternative test methods you described. NHTSA would not follow the Alternative 1 test procedure since the vehicle would not be rigidly fixed in position under that procedure. The agency would also not follow the Alternative 3 test procedure since it does not include one of the tiedown arrangements specified by S4(a). The agency might follow an approach along the lines of Alternative 2, assuming that it determined that the S4(a) procedure was not sufficient to rigidly fix the vehicle in position.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:214 d:10/5/92