ID: nht93-3.23

DATE: April 27, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Raymond S. Byers -- Engineering Manager, Research, Testing, and Certification, Utilimaster Motor Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-1-92 from Raymond S. Byers to Administrator, NHTSA (OCC 8258)

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry regarding the alternate placement of a vehicle certification label in your "Aeromate" van. I apologize for the delay in responding.

As you noted in your letter, 49 CFR S567.4 requires that a motor vehicle manufacturer affix a certification label to each vehicle it makes, and permits the manufacturer to place the label in any one of the places listed in that provision. If none of the listed locations is practicable, S567.4 directs the manufacturer to suggest an alternate position for the affixed label, and to request National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) approval for that position.

You explain in your letter that in your "Aeromate" vehicle, the driver's door slides between an inner and outer metal panel, thus making it impossible to affix the label to the hinge pillar, door-latch post, or the door edge that meets the door-latch post. Based on the photographs you included with your letter, affixing the label to the inside of the driver's side door would be unacceptable because, when opened, the door slides between the two metal panels. Thus, when the door is in the open position, the label would be obscured from the view of any observer. You propose installing the label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's side door opening, to the left of the driver's legs under the instrument panel, and include photographs showing the label affixed to the proposed position. You state, and your photographs appear to confirm, that the location would be visible from the driver's position, and for inspection by officials.

In directing a manufacturer to put its certification label in those places set out in S567.4, NHTSA's purpose is to make these labels easy to see and read. Based on the information you supplied, the agency determines that for this particular vehicle design, installing the certification label as you propose will facilitate seeing and reading the label. On the other hand, placing the label as specified in S567.4 may not be practicable and might interfere with unobstructed viewing of the label. Therefore, on the condition that your company's label complies in all other respects with S567.4, NHTSA grants your request to install the certification label on the inner metal panel in front of the driver's door opening as shown in the photographs that you provided to us.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact David Elias of my office at the above address or by phone, at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam1431

Dear Mr. Coughlin: This is in reply to your letter of February 12, 1974, requesting definition for 'motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users' used in paragraph S1. *Scope*, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*. You ask specifically what this phrase means relative to public thoroughfares, motorcycle race tracks, off-road public and private lands, and any other vehicles.; >>>'Motorcycle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as-- 'a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the us of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.'<<<; A 'motorcyclist,' then, would be any rider of a motorcycle as define above. 'Other motor vehicle users' means any occupant of a motor vehicle not a motorcycle. 'Motor vehicle' is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as--; >>>'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufacture primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.'<<<; Standard No. 218 applies to the manufacturers, distributors, an dealers of helmets to be used at least in part by motorcyclists or other motor vehicle users. The circumstances under which such helmets must be worn, however, is under the jurisdictional control of the respective States and their political subdivisions.; You also ask whether it is lawful to manufacture and sell helmets fo racing purposes that are designed to meet the Snell standard, irrespective of Standard No. 218. The answer is yes, if due care is taken by such manufacturers, distributors, and dealers to prevent non-conforming helmets from being introduced into interstate commerce for eventual use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users on the public streets, roads, and highways.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1429

Dear Mr. Coughlin: This is in reply to your letter of February 12, 1974, requesting definition for 'motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users' used in paragraph S1. *Scope*, of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, *Motorcycle Helmets*. You ask specifically what this phrase means relative to public thoroughfares, motorcycle race tracks, off-road public and private lands, and any other vehicles.; >>>'Motorcycle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as-- 'a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the us of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.'<<<; A 'motorcyclist,' then, would be any rider of a motorcycle as define above. 'Other motor vehicle users' means any occupant of a motor vehicle not a motorcycle. 'Motor vehicle' is defined in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as--; >>>'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufacture primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.'<<<; Standard No. 218 applies to the manufacturers, distributors, an dealers of helmets to be used at least in part by motorcyclists or other motor vehicle users. The circumstances under which such helmets must be worn, however, is under the jurisdictional control of the respective States and their political subdivisions.; You also ask whether it is lawful to manufacture and sell helmets fo racing purposes that are designed to meet the Snell standard, irrespective of Standard No. 218. The answer is yes, if due care is taken by such manufacturers, distributors, and dealers to prevent non-conforming helmets from being introduced into interstate commerce for eventual use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users on the public streets, roads, and highways.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1581

Dear Mr. Semark: This is in response to your letter of July 15, 1974, inquiring as t the applicability of Part 581, the proposed bumper standard (39 FR 25237), to buses, specifically school buses.; The standard, as proposed, applies to passenger motor vehicles othe than multipurpose passenger vehicles. These vehicle categories are used in the standard as they are defined in Section 2 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Pub. L. 92-513). The Act defines passenger motor vehicles as those vehicles with motive power designed to carry 12 persons or less, except motorcycles and trucks not designed primarily as passenger carriers. Multipurpose passenger vehicles are defined as passenger motor vehicles constructed either on a truck chassis or with features for occasional off-road use. Buses, which are defined at 49 CFR Part 571.3 but not in the Cost Savings Act, are motor vehicles designed to carry more than 10 persons.; The application section of the proposed bumper standard excludes fro coverage passenger carrying vehicles designed to seat 12 persons or less when they are either constructed on a truck chassis or possess features for off-road operation. Any vehicle defined under 49 CFR Part 571.3 that is designed to carry 11 or 12 passengers would, for the purposes of Part 581, be classified as either a multipurpose passenger vehicle or a passenger vehicle. If such a bus meets the multipurpose passenger vehicle definition it would be excepted from the standard's coverage. However, if the bus has neither features for occasional off-road use nor a truck chassis it would be subject to the Part 581 bumper standard.; A school bus is a subcategory of bus, and it would be subject to any o the requirements of the proposed bumper standard applicable to buses in general.; Thank you for your inquiry. Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-5.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 19, 1994

FROM: Patricia J. Jackson -- Owner, Patnel Co.; Patt Jackson

TO: Mr. Racht, Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/3/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO PATRICIA JACKSON (REDBOOK (2); STD, 213; PART 302)

TEXT: I have just received a patent on my cushion. I needed to know if their are any safety standards that I need to pass on my cushion. I am sending a pamphlet to help you under stand my product and how the cushion is used. Should I meet any fire safety st andards since my cushion is used by children of all ages.

If you should have any question regarding this please feel free to call me at (314) 839-5382

ENCLOSURE

December 19, 1994

Deirdre R. Fujita NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Room 5219 Washington D.C. 20590

RE: Phone call conversation in December 7, 1994

Enclosed is the brochure of my product "BoosterBuddy" a childs car cushion that comforts and protects. The cushion is used under the booster seat that is state regulated. This cushion has rolled pads on each side to provide comfort. The cushion prot ects tha car upholstery from the load bearing friction caused by the state regulated restraint seats. The cushion is used under the restraint seat from 0 to 40 pounds. The cushion can be used by the older child over 40 pounds with a safety belt.

Please send me a letter stating if my product meets all safety regulations required. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Enclosure (OMITTED)

ID: 8181

The Honorable Paul David Wellstone
United States Senate
2550 University Avenue, West
Court International Building
St. Paul, MN 55114-1025

Dear Senator Wellstone:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituents, Ms. Tutti Sherlock and Ms. Mary Bock, regarding the application of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) school bus standards to Head Start facilities.

Your constituents ask that NHTSA inform the Minnesota Department of Transportation that we do not require school bus manufacturers to provide school bus equipment, such as stop arms and special stop lights, on Head Start buses. They base this request on their belief that in 1985, NHTSA said that states may decide which regulations should apply to Head Start buses. They also believe that stop arms and lights for Head Start buses are unnecessary, and that painting Head Start buses yellow could be confusing.

We cannot provide the requested interpretation, because the understanding of your constituents is incorrect. By way of background, your constituents' concerns relate to two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress. The first of these, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. NHTSA has issued a number of FMVSS's for school buses, including FMVSS's requiring these buses to have a stop arm and warning lights. The Safety Act requires that each person selling a new bus (defined in our regulations as a vehicle designed for 11 or more persons) to a primary, preprimary or secondary school must sell a bus that is certified to the FMVSS's for school buses. State law cannot change this requirement.

The question of whether Head Start facilities are "schools" under the Safety Act has been addressed by NHTSA since the beginning of the school bus FMVSS's. The agency's longstanding position is that Head Start programs are primarily educational in focus rather than custodial, and are therefore "schools" under the Safety Act. We base this conclusion on a review of the goals and functions of the Head Start program (see, e.g., 45 CFR 1304.1-3), and on past NHTSA interpretations of "school." NHTSA has stated its position that Head Start facilities are schools most recently in an August 21, 1992 letter to Mr. Chuck Anderson of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Any new bus that is sold to a Head Start facility must have the safety features of a school bus at the time of the vehicle's sale, including the stop arm and signal lights.

However, the Safety Act does not require Head Start facilities to use school buses or any other particular vehicle, nor does it require school buses to be painted yellow. The maintenance and operational characteristics of school buses are matters left to the individual states. We stated this in NHTSA's September 27, 1985 letter to Mr. Charles Pekow, to which you refer in your letter. To clarify your understanding of the letter, NHTSA stated that "The requirements for school bus operation and maintenance ... are matters left to the individual states to determine." (Emphasis added.) NHTSA's second set of school bus regulations, issued under the Highway Safety Act, is a set of recommendations to the states for developing effective pupil transportation programs. Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety" (copy enclosed), recommends that any vehicle designed for 11 or more persons that is used as a school bus should comply with the FMVSS's for school buses and should be painted yellow. However, Guideline 17 would affect the operation of your constituents' school buses only to the extent that Minnesota has incorporated it into state law.

I hope this information will be helpful in responding to your constituents.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA d.1/26/93

ID: aiam4049

Dear Ms. Hill: Thank you for your letter of September 19, 1985, asking about th effect of our regulations on a safety belt design you have seen. You explained that the design uses 'a rigid member to support a webbing guide near the shoulder of a front seat occupant. This rigid member was rigidly attached to the roof of the vehicle.' You asked several questions about this design, which are answered below.; You first asked whether the rigid member would be considered a sea belt anchorage, a piece of attachment hardware or a common component for the purposes of our standards. We cannot provide a definitive answer without having further details about and preferably a drawing of the structure. Based on the information you have provided, it appears that the rigid member would be an anchorage.; Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, defines a 'anchorage' as a device that transfers safety belt assembly load to the vehicle structure. Since the rigid member is attached to the roof at one end and to a safety belt webbing guide at the other, it appears to be intended to transfer loads to the vehicle structure. Thus, it would have to meet the strength and location requirements of the standard.; You also asked if one or both ends of the rigid member are required t meet the upper torso restraint location requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. If, as discussed above, the rigid member is intended to transfer loads, then it would have to meet the location requirement of S4.3.2. That section states that the 'anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso restraint shall be located within the acceptable range' shown in Figure 1 of the standard. The purpose of the requirement is to specify the angle at which the shoulder belt crosses the occupant's chest. Thus, the portion of the anchorage that controls the angle of the shoulder belt must be within the zone specified in Figure 1.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have an further questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5148

"Dear Mr. Friedman: This responds to your January 19, 1993, lette asking for information on any Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to retrofit air bags. Your letter states that these devices are intended for vehicles which do not have factory-installed air bags. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that passenger cars provide automatic crash protection. Light trucks will also be required to provide automatic crash protection beginning with the 1995 model year. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test. At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific method of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular method for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Please note that the automatic crash protection requirement applies to the performance of the vehicle as a whole, instead of setting requirements for the air bag as an individual item of equipment. This approach permits vehicle manufacturers to 'tune' the performance of the air bag to the crash pulse and other specific attributes of each of their vehicle models. However, this approach also means that the Federal standards do not specify specific performance attributes for air bags such as inflated dimensions, actuation time, and the like. While most of Standard No. 208's requirements are expressed in terms of the performance of the vehicle as a whole and apply only to new vehicles and not to aftermarket equipment, there is one exception to this. Pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems must comply with section S9 of Standard No. 208 whether they are part of a new motor vehicle or are aftermarket equipment. Therefore, the manufacturer of these items must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. Another Federal requirement that would affect a retrofit air bag is the 'render inoperative' prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The 'render inoperative' provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing an aftermarket air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard. You should also note that a replacement or retrofit air bag would be considered 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of the Safety Act. Therefore, if the air bag contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge. Please note that recently a manufacturer of an aftermarket air bag that did not provide any crash protection benefits to vehicle occupants recalled its air bags following a NHTSA investigation. In addition, NHTSA provided information to the Federal Trade Commission concerning the claims made by the manufacturer in its advertising. We suggest you carefully review the test data on the devices you are considering importing to assure yourself that the air bag would afford adequate protection to vehicle occupants in crashes and that the claims made in the company's advertising are true. I also note that, based on the product information you provided with your letter, NHTSA technical staff raised possible concerns about the air bag you are considering importing. The design differs from other air bags in two significant ways. First, while the crash sensor for air bag systems is normally located in the vehicle structure, yours is not. Second, while air bags generally are released toward the driver's chest from the steering wheel, your air bag would be released from above toward the driver's face and chest. For driver crash protection, the crash sensor of an air bag system must initiate deployment of the air bag early enough in a crash to position the inflated air bag between the driver and the steering wheel in time to cushion the impact. At the same time, it must not be so sensitive that it deploys the air bag in non-crash situations. Given the ways in which the crash sensor of your system differs from other air bag systems, our technical staff questions whether it is possible for it to initiate deployment early enough in a crash to provide occupant protection yet not be so sensitive that it deploys the air bag in non-crash situations. In addition, while the inadvertent deployment of any air bag system would raise safety concerns, the location of your air bag would increase those concerns, since it would appear to interfere with the driver's forward vision even after deflation. I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to get copies of these materials. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 23832.drn

Dietmar K. Haenchen, Process Leader
Safety Affairs and Vehicle Testing
Volkswagen
Mail Code 3C02
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326





Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your December 13, 2001, letter asking about S4.2.2 of Standard No. 114, Theft protection. You ask whether Volkswagen's proposed design for an "override device to permit key removal in the event of electrical failure or which would permit moving the transmission from the PARK position after the ignition key has been removed" would meet the conditions in S4.2.2 and thus be allowed. As explained below, our answer is no.

The Requirements

Standard No. 114 requires each vehicle to have a key-locking system which, when the key is removed, prevents the normal activation of the engine or motor, and prevents steering and/or forward self-mobility of the vehicle (S4.2). S4.2.1 of the standard requires the key-locking system in vehicles with automatic transmissions with a "park" position to 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. However, S4.2.2 provides that:

(a) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, provided that steering is prevented upon the key's removal, each vehicle specified therein may permit key removal when electrical failure of this system (including battery discharge) occurs or may have a device which, when activated, permits key removal. The means for activating any such device shall be covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device. The covering surface shall be removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool.

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

(1) By the key, as defined in S3; or

(2) By another means, provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed from the ignition, and provided that the means for activating the device is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device. The covering surface shall be removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool.

Your Question

You ask whether:

an override device located behind the vehicle ashtray, which can be removed without the use of tools, would comply if after the ashtray has been removed, the override device is accessible only by the use of a tool, such as a pen or screwdriver. In such a system, the override device would be located in an opening accessible only when the ashtray has been removed, but the opening is so narrow and deeply recessed, that a person cannot activate it without reaching into the opening with a tool such as a screwdriver or a pen or a similar device.

You further state:

Volkswagen believes that this proposed system falls within the provisions of S4.2.2 since the override device is not visible until an opaque object, the ashtray, is removed and after that object is removed, the device itself can only be actuated with the use of a tool.

Our Answer

We do not interpret S4.2.2(a) or (b) as permitting the design. Those sections require the device to be covered by a non-transparent surface that is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool. The ashtray is removable without the use of a tool. Assuming for the purpose of this letter that the ashtray qualifies as a non-transparent surface specified in S4.2.2(a) or S4.2.2(b)(2), your design nonetheless does not meet the standard because the ashtray can be removed without the use of a tool.

S4.2.2(b) was adopted in order to prevent vehicle rollaway, and to ensure that children are not be able to move the transmission shift lever when the key is not in the vehicle. (See final rule published on March 26, 1991 (58 FR 12464)). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stated in the preamble to that final rule that keyless overrides must be child-proof:

A second way to prevent access by children and thus vehicle rollaway is to permit key-less overrides that are not visible and are "child-proof." After reviewing suggested designs, the agency has determined that a key-less override could prevent activation by a child if it is covered by a surface that, when installed, prevents activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a tool such as a screwdriver. An emergency override that is visible and accessible to children such as an uncovered one located on the transmission console would not be child-proof and thus would not comply with section S4.2.2(b). To ensure further that young children cannot easily gain access to the override, a surface that could be removed with a person's hands alone would not be permissible. [T]he agency has determined that such requirements are necessary to ensure that children cannot easily override the transmission shift lock and thus shift the transmission lever. (See 58 FR at 12467)

The ashtray can be easily removed by a person's hands alone, which is contrary to the requirements of the standard. While you state that the override device would be located in an opening that is "narrow and deeply recessed," the standard requires a "child-proof" cover to the device. That the override device needs to be actuated by use of a screwdriver or pen or similar device does not satisfy the requirement concerning the ability of children to access the device. Further, once the ashtray has been removed, a curious child could easily poke a pen or part of a toy into the opening, creating a potential for the harm that NHTSA sought to prevent when it adopted S4.2.2.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:114
d:2/6/02

ID: Robert Linton drn