ID: nht78-1.45

DATE: 03/10/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Recreation Vehicle Industry Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 10 1978

Mr. Edmund C. Burnett Recreation Vehicle Industry Association 5272 River Road, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20016

Dear Mr. Burnett:

This responds to your January 18, 1978, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, to several vehicle components that you submitted.

First you ask whether padded material used for the top portion of a dashboard would be considered to fall within the ambit of the standard. As you stated in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that a dashboard is considered a front panel and is included within the components subject to the standard. Therefore, since the padding you propose to use on the top of the dashboard constitutes part of the dashboard it is required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard.

In your second question you ask whether the same material mentioned in question 1 would be required to comply withe the standard when used as a seat cushion. Paragraph S4.1, which lists the components covered by the standard, specifically includes seat cushions. Therefore, any material used for this purpose is required to comply with the standard.

In regard to both of the above questions, you ask whether a dashboard or seat cushion consisting of vinyl stitched at varying intervals to padding would be subject to two tests - one for the vinyl and one for the padding. Paragraph S4.2.1 states that: "any material that does not adhere to other material(s) at every point of contact shall meet the requirements of S5.3 when tested separately." When the vinyl is stitched to the padding in the manner outlined in your letter, the vinyl does not adhere to the material at every point of contact. Accordingly, the materials must be tested separately.

Your questions 3 and 4 require no response since the materials to which you refer must be tested separately, not as composite materials.

In your question 5, you correctly state that the two top materials would be required to be tested separately. If as installed in the vehicle the third layer of material would fall within 1/2 inch of the occupant compartment, then it too would be tested in accordance with the requirements. It does not matter that this material would not be within 1/2 inch of the surface when the stitching is removed for testing of each component separately. In a related question you ask whether the stitching itself would be tested. Since the stitching is part of the seat cushion, it is subject to the requirements and since it does not adhere at every point of contact, it should be tested separately. From the standpoint of practicality, however, the stitching cannot be tested separately in the prescribed manner, and is usually simply tested as part of the material itself.

Finally you submitted a section of headlining material and question whether it would be required to comply with the requirements. This material falls within the list of components covered by the standard and, therefore, must comply with all of the requirements. The material that you submitted is composed of two layers joined at every point of contact and would be tested as a composite material.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5469

Dear Mr. Matoba: This responds to your letter, addressed to Patrici Breslin, asking us to review our safety belt requirements for rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans. You stated that manufacturers interpret Safety Standard No. 208 to require the installation of shoulder belts for these seating positions. You expressed concern that this requirement creates a safety hazard for vehicles with a side aisle to rear seating locations. According to your letter, passenger seats next to the side aisle have shoulder belts that cross the aisle. You believe that these shoulder belts would block the exit of more rearward passengers in an emergency, and suggested that we eliminate this requirement. Your understanding of Standard No. 208's requirements is not entirely correct. It is correct that the standard requires (S4.2.4) lap/shoulder safety belts in all forward-facing 'rear outboard designated seating positions' in new passenger vans with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. However, under S4.2.4.1, the term 'rear outboard designated seating position' excludes, for purposes of this requirement, any seating positions that are 'adjacent to a walkway located between the seat and the side of the vehicle, which walkway is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions.' Therefore, the seating positions that you are concerned about are not required to have shoulder safety belts. The standard instead only requires manufacturers to provide lap safety belts for these seating positions. NHTSA decided not to require shoulder safety belts at these seating positions because the agency recognized that the belts might obstruct an aisle designed to give access to rear seating positions. Manufacturers are, however, permitted to provide lap/shoulder belts if they choose to do so. With respect to your concerns about the safety of shoulder safety belts which cross an aisle, I note that such belts do not in fact prevent rearward passengers from exiting the vehicle. Such passengers may exit the vehicle by going under or over the belt. They may also move the belt aside by spooling out the webbing, or even unlatch the belt. Indeed, any difficulty that rearward occupants face in exiting the vehicle is much smaller than that faced by rear seat occupants in a two-door car or the occupants of middle seats. In considering the safety of such belts, it is also important to consider the extra protection offered by the shoulder belt to the occupant who wears it. We believe the vehicle manufacturer is in the best position to balance, for its vehicles, the benefits associated with this extra protection against any difficulties related to occupants entering and exiting the vehicle. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4903

"Dear Mr. Hale: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke, ou Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, asking what type of safety belt must be installed at rear seating positions in conversion vans. You indicated that these conversions would be made to used 1990 Chevrolet full-sized vans. You intend to install lap/shoulder belts at the front two seating positions and lap-only belts at each of the middle and rear seating positions, and asked if this planned installation would conflict with the safety belt installation requirements set forth in NHTSA's safety standards. The answer is that this planned installation would not conflict with Federal requirements, as explained below. To begin, NHTSA does not classify vehicles as 'vans.' Instead, cargo vans are generally classified as 'trucks,' and passenger vans are generally classified as 'multipurpose passenger vehicles.' S4.2.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard and rear forward-facing outboard seating positions and with either lap/shoulder or lap-only belts at every other designated seating position. Any of these vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1991 are required to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and with either lap/shoulder or lap-only belts at every other designated seating position. Thus, if your van conversions were new vehicles, your planned safety belt installations would be permissible for van conversions manufactured before September 1, 1991, but impermissible for conversions manufactured after that date. You stated, however, that the van conversions in question would not be new vehicles, but would instead be used 1990 model year vehicles. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, the Safety Act includes a provision that prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from 'rendering inoperative' any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. This prohibition applies to both new and used vehicles and means that the named commercial entities may not remove safety equipment required by the safety standards, such as seat belts, unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle will not be used during the time its compliance with the safety standards has been 'rendered inoperative.' In the case of safety belts, this means that your dealership could remove belts to make repairs or modifications, but must reinstall or replace the belts before returning the vehicle to a customer. NHTSA does not consider it to be a violation of the 'render inoperative' prohibition when a dealer modifies a used vehicle in such a way that the vehicle is equipped with safety belts at every designated seating position and those safety belts are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted to be installed at that seating position in the vehicle when it was new. In this case, your letter states that you would equip the used 1990 conversion vans with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and lap-only belts at all other seating positions. This belt installation was permitted by Standard No. 208 for new 1990 multipurpose passenger vehicles. Therefore, your planned installation would not violate the 'render inoperative' prohibition of the Safety Act with respect to the safety belt installation requirements for these vehicles. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2300

Dear Mr. Mita: This responds to NSK Warner's April 12, 1976, question whether th release and buckle requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, permit the use of a latch mechanism that consists of a fixed hook over which belt webbing (presumably from the upper torso and pelvic portions of a continuous loop system) is slipped by the occupant, causing a rotating catch to close the open end of the hook and secure the webbing. Release is accomplished by depression of a push button that rotates the catch away from the open end of the hook, followed by occupant action to slip the belt webbing off the hook.; Standard No. 208 specifies that a seat belt assembly installed in motor vehicle shall have a latch mechanism '[t]hat releases at a single point by a push-button action' (S7.2(c)). 'Release' in this context means that the portions of the belt assembly on either side of the latch mechanism disengage from one another. From your description of the hook mechanism, it would not disengage the two portions of belt assembly by a push-button action, because an additional action by the occupant is required. It therefore appears that such a mechanism would not conform to S7.2(c) of Standard No. 208.; Standard No. 209 specifies that 'A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembl shall be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant to permit his easy and rapid removal from the assembly' (S4.1(e)). 'Buckle' is defined in S4. as 'a quick release connector which fastens a person in a seat belt assembly.' Section S4.3 further specifies that 'The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall release when a force of not more than 30 pounds or 14 kilograms is applied' (S4.3(d)(1)). 'Release' in this standard is also interpreted to mean that the portions of the belt assembly on either side of the latch mechanism disengage from one another. For this reason, it appears that the described device would not comply with the listed requirements of Standard No. 209.; I trust that this answer is responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2298

Dear Mr. Mita: This responds to NSK Warner's April 12, 1976, question whether th release and buckle requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, and Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, permit the use of a latch mechanism that consists of a fixed hook over which belt webbing (presumably from the upper torso and pelvic portions of a continuous loop system) is slipped by the occupant, causing a rotating catch to close the open end of the hook and secure the webbing. Release is accomplished by depression of a push button that rotates the catch away from the open end of the hook, followed by occupant action to slip the belt webbing off the hook.; Standard No. 208 specifies that a seat belt assembly installed in motor vehicle shall have a latch mechanism [t]hat releases at a single point by a push-button action' (S7.2(c)). Release' in this context means that the portions of the belt assembly on either side of the latch mechanism disengage from one another. From your description of the hook mechanism, it would not disengage the two portions of belt assembly by a push-button action, because an additional action by the occupant is required. It therefore appears that such a mechanism would not conform to S7.2(c) of Standard No. 208.; Standard No. 209 specifies that A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembl shall be provided with a buckle or buckles readily accessible to the occupant to permit his easy and rapid removal from the assembly' (S4.1(e)). Buckle' is defined in S4. as a quick release connector which fastens a person in a seat belt assembly.' Section S4.3 further specifies that The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall release when a force of not more than 30 pounds or 14 kilograms is applied' (S4.3(d)(1)). Release' in this standard is also interpreted to mean that the portions of the belt assembly on either side of the latch mechanism disengage from one another. For this reason, it appears that the described device would not comply with the listed requirements of Standard No. 209.; I trust that this answer is responsive to your inquiry. Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 001307.Bruno.cmc

Mr. Dick Keller
Bruno Independent Living Aids
1780 Executive Drive
PO Box 84
Oconomowoc, WI 53066

Dear Mr. Keller:

This responds to your letter in which you ask about the application of the "make inoperative" provision to the removal of advanced air bag sensors during the installation of driver seats that accommodate individuals with disabilities. As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) will exercise its enforcement discretion and refrain from taking action under the circumstances described in your letter.

In your letter you discussed the installation of a product your company calls the Turning Automotive Seat (TAS) to facilitate vehicle access by individuals with disabilities. You described the TAS as being offered in two models, but you explained that both models are essentially "a swivel seat base mechanism rotating approximately 90 degrees with articulation to clear the B-pillar during entry and egress."You stated that the TAS system is used with the originally equipped (OEM) seat belts and bolts into the OEM seat mounting points. Your letter explained that with the newer air bag systems relying on seat sensors to modulate air bag deployment, replacing the OEM seat with the TAS requires removal of these sensors. You asked if such modifications were covered by the make inoperative exemption in 49 CFR 595.7(c)(14).

By way of background, NHTSA has authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to all applicable FMVSSs before the products can be offered for sale. After the first retail sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122. However, NHTSA has recognized that it is appropriate to permit some modifications that could cause a vehicle to no longer comply in order to accommodate people with disabilities. 49 CFR Part 595 Subpart C, Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People with Disabilities, lists modifications of certain portions of specific FMVSSs that are exempt from the "make inoperative" provision in order to accommodate people with disabilities.

On May 12, 2000, the agency published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 208 by establishing requirements to reduce the risk of serious air bag-induced injuries, especially to small women and young children, and to improve safety for all occupants by means that include advanced air bag technology. (65 FR 30680; Advanced Air Bag Rule.) Motor vehicles certified as complying with the provisions of the Advanced Air Bag Rule will be required to minimize air bag risks by automatically turning off the air bag in the presence of an occupant who is a young child or deploy the air bag in a manner less likely to cause serious or fatal injury to an "out of position occupant."Among the technologies used to comply with these requirements are a variety of seat position, occupant weight, and pattern sensors incorporated into the seat structure. The advanced air bag technology requirements are being phased in beginning September 1, 2003, with full compliance required starting September 1, 2006. ^[1]

While 49 CFR 595.7 includes some specific requirements of FMVSS No. 208 among the requirements subject to the "make inoperative" exemption, the provisions established under the Advanced Air Bag Rule are not included. As you are aware, the agency has granted a petition for rulemaking to include the provisions of the Advanced Air Bag Rule in the exemption list under Part 595. If the agency issues a final rule incorporating the advanced air bag requirements into Part 595, Subpart C, then a vehicle modifier that meets the conditions set forth in that subpart would be permitted to make such modifications as you described.

Until this rulemaking is completed, the agency will use its enforcement discretion and refrain from taking action in the limited instance of a vehicle not complying with the advanced air bag requirements because of the installation of a replacement seat to accommodate persons with disabilities. This is conditioned on the vehicle modifier complying with the modifier and modification requirements of Part 595, including the label and documentation requirements of 595.7(b). If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208#595
d.4/8/04





---

^[1] A majority of vehicle manufacturers are required to certify that a percentage of their fleet complies with these requirements according to the following phase-in schedule, with credits for early compliance: September 1, 2003 to August 31, 2004--20 percent; September 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005--65 percent; September 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006--100 percent.

ID: aiam3931

Dear Mr. Williams: This responds to your February 13, 1985 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting clarification of the agency's definition of a bus. A 'bus' is defined in the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.3) as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' You asked whether a vehicle's classification under our regulation is based on the seating capacity of the vehicle as designed, which may vary, or the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act require manufacturers to certify that their vehicles as manufactured, comply with our safety standards. Thus, the agency uses the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured to determine the classification of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. 'Designated seating position' is defined in S571.3 as 'any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats....' Consistent with this definition, we have also counted positions designed to accommodate wheelchairs in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of vehicle classification. Under our regulations, a vehicle having a total of more than 10 designated seating positions and wheel chair positions is a bus and a vehicle having a total of 10 or less positions is either a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV).; The vehicles you manufacture must be certified as meeting all th standards applicable to those vehicle types. For example, you must certify your MPV's as complying with all the safety standards applicable to MPV's. You may also voluntarily manufacture a MPV in compliance with the requirements of our school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.; In the materials you enclosed with your letter, you indicate that som of the vehicles you manufacture are equipped with wheelchair lifts. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a final rule recently published in the Federal Register (50 FR 12029, March 27, 1985) amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components* to exclude doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and audible or visual alarms from the requirements of the Standard.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3923

Dear Mr. Metzger: This responds to your February 22, 1985 letter to the National Highwa Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requesting clarification of this agency's definition of a bus. A 'bus' is defined in the definitions section of our motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR 571.3) as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' You asked whether a vehicle's classification under our regulation is based on the seating capacity of the vehicle as designed, which may vary, or the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act require manufacturers to certify that their vehicles as manufactured, comply with our safety standards. Thus, the agency uses the actual seating capacity of the vehicle as manufactured to determine the classification of the vehicle. NHTSA determines the seating capacity of a motor vehicle by identifying the number of designated seating positions in the vehicle. 'Designated seating position' is defined in S571.3 as 'any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats....' Consistent with this definition, we have also counted positions designed to accommodate wheelchairs in determining vehicle seating capacity for the determination of vehicle classification. Under our regulations, a vehicle having a total of more than 10 designated seating positions and wheel chair positions is a bus and a vehicle having a total of 10 or less positions is either a passenger car or a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV).; You asked why you are not permitted to build a 6 passenger MPV exactl as you manufacture a school bus. As a MPV, your vehicle must be certified as meeting all of the standards applicable to that vehicle type. You may also voluntarily manufacture the vehicle in compliance with the requirements of our school bus safety standards, as long as the vehicle continues to comply with our standards for MPV's.; A final rule was recently published in the Federal Register (50 F 12029, March 27, 1985) amending Standard No. 206, *Door Locks and Door Retention Components* to exclude doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and audible or visual alarms from the requirements of the Standard. Since you expressed an interest in that amendment, I have enclosed a copy of the final rule for your information.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/02/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Kenji Shimamura -- Exective Vice President and General Manager, Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Kenji Shimamura Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. Research & Development Center 1203 Woodbridge Avenue Ann Arbor, Michigan 58105

This responds to your letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, for brake indicator lamps. The second sentence of section S5.3.2 of the standard provides that in vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, the activation of the indicator lamp(s) as a check of lamp function is not required when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. You asked if this provision can be interpreted to apply to vehicles equipped with a manual trans mission and fitted with a clutch pedal interlock switch, based on a purported equivalent function of the clutch pedal starter interlock switch to the automatic transmission starter interlock. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no. As requ ested by your letter, we will consider your request as a petition for rulemaking and process it accordingly.

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 manufac turer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.3.2 of the standard states:

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 "s tart" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. However, in vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, the activation as a check of lamp function is not required when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

Standard No. 105. In adding the sentence, NHTSA stated the following:

Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., has requested confirmation that S5.3.2 of the standard requires a check of the brake system indicator lamp function only when the transmission shift lever is in the "P" (park) or "N" (neutral) position (in the case of vehicles w ith automatic transmission), The literal 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 turned to the "on" position when the engine is not running, or wh en the ignition switch is in a position between "on" and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. In the case of vehicles with an automatic transmission, however, this wording does not reflect the NHTSA's intent with respect to check function. To properly reflect this intent, the language of S5.3.2 is hereby modified in accordance with Toyota's request. . . . 40 FR 42872, September 17, 1975.

Thus, except to the extent provided by the second sentence of section S5.3.2, that section requires a check of lamp function without regard to the position of the transmission shift lever, whenever the ignition switch is turned to the "on" position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition switch is in a position between "on" and "start" that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. Since the second sentence of section S5.3.2 specifically applies only to "vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission," we conclude that the sentence cannot be applied to vehicles equipped with a manual transmission.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Re: Request for Interpretation/Petition for Rulemaking - 49 CPR Part 571.105. Hydraulic Brake Systems

Dear Ms. Jones:

Mazda (North America). Inc., on behalf of Mazda Motor Corporation located in Hiroshima. Japan, (Mazda) requests that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provide an interpretation of 49 CFR Part 571.105, 55.3. Brake System Indicator Lamp. Further, subject to the stipulations enumerated below. please consider this document a formal petition for rulemaking consistent with 49 CFR Part 552. Petitions for Rulemaking. Defect, and Noncompliance Orders.

49 CFR Part 571.105, 55.3. cites several performance requirements for brake system indicator lamps. Among these are the conditions, as a function of ignition switch position that the indicator lamp must be activated. 49 CPR Part 571.105. 55.3.2. specific ally requires the lamp to be activated whenever the ignition switch is turned to the "on" position or is turned to a position between the "on" and "start" position, dependent on the preference of the manufacturer. It also exempts certain requirements for vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission whenever the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

The obvious justification for the above partial exemption is that these vehicles must also comply with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.102, S5.3.2. This regulation prohibits engines of vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions from starting when ever the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. Operation of a vehicle with the transmission shift lever so positioned is therefore not possible. The warning function of the brake system indicator lamp accordingly serves no s afety function for an inoperative vehicle.

Mazda's question relates to the lack of such a safety function on the analogous situation of a vehicle equipped with a manual transmission. such vehicles are often equipped with a clutch pedal starter interlock switch which prevents the engine from start ing (by interruption of the starter motor circuit Page 2 of 3 unless the clutch pedal is fully depressed. This device Protects the vehicle and occupants from inadvertent engine activation when the vehicle transmission is in gear and possible unexpected m ovement of the vehicle The avoidance of such an occurrence is precisely the justification for the adoption of 49 CFR Part 571.102. 53.1.3. for vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions and obviously led to the subsequent partial exemption for vehicl es so equipped from the requirements of 49 CPR Part 571.105, 55.3.2.

Based on the equivalent function of the clutch pedal starter interlock switch to the automatic transmission starter interlock, Mazda has concluded that a vehicle equipped with a manual transmission and fitter with a clutch pedal interlock switch should a lso be exempted from certain brake system indicator lamp requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.105, S5.3.2.. However, a technical interpretation of this regulation clearly does not support Mazda's conclusion to the extent that all risk of a technical non-compl iance can be eliminated.

Therefore. Mazda requests that the Agency review this issue and comment on the appraisal provided above. Mazda is especially interested in the opinion of the NHTSA regarding the ability of a vehicle equipped with a manual transmission fitted with a clutc h pedal interlock switch to apply the brake system indicator lamp activation partial exemption as provided in 49 CFR Part 571.105. S5.3.2. and still comply with all applicable provisions.

Should the NHTSA conclude that the technical language of 49 CFR Part 571.105. S5.3.2. cannot incorporate, as written, manual transmissions fitted with a clutch pedal interlock switch, please consider this document a formal petition consistent with 49 CFR Part 552. Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders, and forward it to the Administrator for appropriate consideration.

Based on the discussion provided above. Mazda believes that there is ample cause for the NHTSA to afford manual transmissions equipped with clutch pedal starter interlock switches the same exemptions currently contained in 49 CFR Part 571.105, S5.3.2.. A s noted above. the manual transmission clutch pedal starter interlock switch is equivalent in function to the automatic transmission starter interlock switch currently partially exempted. No safety degradation is expected to occur if manual transmissions are also partially exempted by 49 CFR Part 571.105.5.3.2., providing the empirical and analytical justification for the NHTSA's current, limited exemption of automatic transmission starter interlocks is adequate.

Further, Mazda asserts that overall cost effectiveness and to a lesser degree, safety will actually be enhanced through fewer low speed collisions. The option for a manufacturer to employ a single wiring harness for the brake system indicator lamp circui t for vehicles equipped with both manual and automatic transmissions will be a powerful incentive for manufacturers to provide clutch pedal starter interlock switches for vehicles not currently so equipped. Unexpected motion of the vehicle during engine activation will be reduced as the clutch pedal will be depressed more often in a wider variety of vehicles prior to engine activation.

Currently, Mazda designs, produces and installs two separate brake system indicator lamp wiring harnesses for each model.,the only difference being the activation logic for the brake lamp. In both harnesses, Mazda has designed the brake system indicator lamp to activate between the "on" and "start" ignition switch position. By harmonizing the requirement between vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions and manual transmissions, this unnecessary duplication and its attendant costs will be avoided. The result will be simplification in design, production schedules, inventory controls and assembly procedures. These cost avoidances are substantial and will allow the consumer to obtain and maintain less expensive and possibly safer vehicles.

Therefore, Mazda recommends that 49 CFR Part 571.105. 55.3.2. be amended 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. However, if engine activation is prevented due to the function of any starter of engine inter-lock device, the activation as a check of lamp function is not required".

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Should you or your staff have any questions regarding either the request for interpretation or the conditional petition for rulemaking, please contact Mr. Sadato Kadoya (313-747- 8881) for assistance.

Sincerely,

Kenji Shimamura Executive Vice President and General Manager

ID: 1982-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/14/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, Michigan 48076

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock and Transmissions Braking Effect. You asked whether a 5-speed automatic transmission which you are considering producing meets the requirement of section S3.1.1 that a neutral position be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

In reference to the diagram enclosed with your letter, the relevant question is whether, in accordance with the above requirement, there is a neutral position between the HD (highway drive) and R (reverse) positions. As explained below, it is our opinion that the answer to that question is yes.

Your letter states that "the transmission is neutral whenever the shift lever is at any place on the horizontal line (including its left and right extreme ends) at the center of which the mark 'N' is shown." Further, your letter indicates that "the shift lever is spring-loaded to return to the center of the horizontal line ('N' position) whenever the lever is left free on that line."

In shifting between HD and R, the lever must cross the horizontal line. We understand that if the lever is merely held on the horizontal line at the crossing point, i.e., the extreme right, the transmission will be in neutral.

Further, we understand that if the lever is left free in that position, it will return to the center of the horizontal line where it will remain in neutral. Based on these two understandings, it is our opinion that the extreme right crossing point constitutes a neutral position between the HD and R positions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

DET82-134

May 18, 1982

Mr. George L. Parker Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Parker,

This letter is intended to seek your advice on the interpretation of the requirement in FMVSS 102 on the location of automatic transmission shift lever positions.

Show in the attached sheet is the shift lever pattern of a 5-speed automatic transmission we are planning to use on our passenger car. As far as you see on the pattern, it looks one can shift from "HD" (highway drive) to "R" or vice versa without passing a neutral position. But the fact is that the transmission is neutral whenever the shift lever is at any place on the horizontal line (including its left and right extreme ends) at the center of which the mark "N" is shown. Therefore, we think arrangement meets the requirement of FMVSS 102, S3.1.1 which says: "A neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions."

For additional information, the shift lever is spring-loaded to return to the center of the horizontal line ("N" position) whenever the lever is left free on that line. The lever can be moved from "HD" to "R" and vice versa at any time but a built-in transmission control unit works to prevent gear engagement unless the vehicle speed is suitable for the intended shift.

We would like to receive NHTSA's interpretation about the compliance of this system with FMVSS 102. Your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering