ID: 6971

Mr. Frederick Harris
Frederick Harris Associates
5717 Huberville Avenue
Dayton, Ohio 45431

Dear Mr. Harris:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to your product, which you described as a cloth device containing plastic items useful to a baby, for use in motor vehicles. You explained that your product would be placed in a motor vehicle adjacent to, but not touching, a child in a nearby child safety seat. In particular, you were concerned about flammability resistance standards applicable to your product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our requirements to you. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ...

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine the expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act. Applying these criteria to the cloth device containing baby items, it appears that your product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of your device, it appears that a substantial portion of its expected use will be during the operation of a motor vehicle. In a telephone conversation with Ms. Dee Fujita of my staff, you explained that your device is intended to be sold for use in motor vehicles. In addition, it appears that your product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While it appears that your device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, this agency has not issued any standards setting forth performance requirements for such a device. Obviously, your device could not be determined to be in noncompliance with a safety standard if there is no applicable safety standard.

As for your concern about flammability resistance requirements, please be advised that our safety standard about this issue, Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, (49 CFR 571.302, copy enclosed), would not apply to your device. That standard sets forth such requirements applicable to new motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment.

You should be aware that, as a manufacturer of an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge.

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

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

Ref: 302 d:3/5/92

ID: 77-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Townsend & Townsend Attorneys at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 9, 1977, letter in which you ask how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determines whether a school bus must comply with the new school bus safety standards.

On April 1, 1977, several new standards will become effective relating to the construction of school buses: Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection; Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength; and Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Further, several old standards have been amended to provide special requirements for school buses. These amendments also become effective on April 1.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563), as amended (Pub. L. 93-492), prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect that does not conform to the standard. This means that any school bus manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, must comply with the school bus safety standards, regardless of the date on which the bus is actually sold or introduced into interstate commerce.

For vehicles that you complete by mounting a body on a new chassis, you are permitted to choose as the date of manufacture either the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle (as defined in Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages), the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. Only those standards in effect on the date chosen to represent the date of manufacture would be applicable to the vehicle, irrespective of the date upon which the vehicle is sold to the ultimate consumer.

I am enclosing copies of the new school bus safety standards and Part 568 for your information.

SINCERELY,

February 9, 1977

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: School Bus Safety Standards

We represent an automobile dealership which has heretofore entered into a contract for the purchase of several school buses.

Essentially, the chassis portion of the school bus is manufactured by General Motors and the bodies are then placed upon the chassis by a third party.

Our client recently received information from General Motors regarding new school bus safety regulations which will become effective on April 1, 1977 under the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974. Our dealer understands that there will be several modifications necessary to future school buses including locking devices for brake systems and such things as guards for gas tanks. Of course, the cost of these modifications may be great (Illegible Word) circumstances.

With this in mind, our client is particularly interested in your interpretation of when a school bus is sold or introduced into interstate commerce pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations Section 571.3. Specifically, if the school bus was ordered and the chassis manufactured prior to the effective date of these changes, would this constitute a sale or do you contemplate sale to mean the date that the final bus is sold to the ultimate consumer? Secondly, if the school bus was completed pursuant to prior specifications before the effective date of the new standards, but is sold to the ultimate consumer after the date of the effective standards, must the modifications be incorporated in the final unit?

We would also appreciate your advise as to the effective date of these new standards for school buses.

We are located some distance from a library containing the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register and thus solicit your help in attempting to answer these questions we have posed.

Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND, ATTORNEYS

Robert N. Townsend

ID: nht95-2.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 3, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey D. Shetler -- Manager of Government Relations, Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/2/95 LETTER FROM JEFFREY D. SHETLER TO NHTSA OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TEXT: Dear Mr. Shetler:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123 permit a motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator to be green.

You have noted that, under Table III of Standard No. 108, SAE J588 NOV84 is the appropriate standard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorporated by reference for motorcycle turn signal lamps. You have further noted t hat the SAE standard specifies requirements for turn signal pilot indicators if the front turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Finally, paragraph 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 specifies that the indicator, if located on the outside of the vehi cle, should emit a yellow-colored light. On the other hand, Standard No. 123, which specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification, does not specify a color for turn signal pilot indicators.

You believe that SAE J588 was written with passenger cars in mind and that its color and area requirements are specified because the location of an outside indicator lamp is further away than a lamp located inside the vehicle on the instrument panel. Yo u also believe that Standard No. 123 does not need to address distance from the driver's eye because the turn signal lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the driver's eye. Thus, you have concluded that any pilot lamp color would be acce ptable.

We have reviewed specifications of both the SAE and Standard No. 123. SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and, under Table III, is the standard s pecified for motorcycle turn signal lamps. Because paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 does not contain a section modifying the applicability of J588 to motorcycles, all the requirements of J588 apply to motorcycles, including turn signal pilot indicat ors and their color. All that Standard No. 123 does, through Table III, is to specify the shape of the turn signal indicator. It is silent as to the color of the indicator.

We believe that you are correct in your conclusion that J588 was not written with motorcycles in mind, at least for two-wheeled motorcycles such as Kawasaki makes. Two colors are prescribed by SAE J588, the choice of which depends on the location of the indicator. Under paragraph 5.4.3.2, a green-colored light "with a minimum area of 18 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle." Under 5.4.3.3 a yellow-colored light with "a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for example on the front fenders." Since two-wheeled motorcycles do not have enclosed cabins, all references to "inside" and "outside" the vehicle are inap posite.

Since you brought this matter to our attention, we have conducted an informal survey of the color of turn signal indicators on motorcycles sold in the United States. We find that the predominant color is amber, though Harley-Davidson, accounting for 12% of the market, uses green. We view the use of either color as in accord with J588. Therefore, if Kawasaki wishes to change its indicator color from amber to green, it will not violate Standard No. 108 by doing so.

As J588's color specifications are coupled with those for the minimum illuminated area of the display, and you have not raised the question of an appropriate size for a green turn signal indicator, we call your attention to paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard N o. 123 which requires that the display for turn signal lamps and other equipment "be visible to a seated operator under daylight conditions."

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to answer them for you (202-366-5263).

ID: 0705r

Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler
Manager of Government Relations
Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.
P.O. Box 25252
Santa Ana, CA 92718-2016

Dear Mr. Shetler:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123 permit a motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator to be green.

You have noted that, under Table III of Standard No. 108, SAE J588 NOV84 is the appropriate standard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorporated by reference for motorcycle turn signal lamps. You have further noted that the SAE standard specifies requirements for turn signal pilot indicators if the front turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Finally, paragraph 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 specifies that the indicator, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow-colored light. On the other hand, Standard No. 123, which specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification, does not specify a color for turn signal pilot indicators.

You believe that SAE J588 was written with passenger cars in mind and that its color and area requirements are specified because the location of an outside indicator lamp is further away than a lamp located inside the vehicle on the instrument panel. You also believe that Standard No. 123 does not need to address distance from the driver's eye because the turn signal lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the driver's eye. Thus, you have concluded that any pilot lamp color would be acceptable.

We have reviewed specifications of both the SAE and Standard No. 123. SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and, under Table III, is the standard specified for motorcycle turn signal lamps. Because paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 does not contain a section modifying the applicability of J588 to motorcycles, all the requirements of J588 apply to motorcycles, including

turn signal pilot indicators and their color. All that Standard No. 123 does, through Table III, is to specify the shape of the turn signal indicator. It is silent as to the color of the indicator.

We believe that you are correct in your conclusion that J588 was not written with motorcycles in mind, at least for two-wheeled motorcycles such as Kawasaki makes. Two colors are prescribed by SAE J588, the choice of which depends on the location of the indicator. Under paragraph 5.4.3.2, a green-colored light "with a minimum area of 18 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle." Under 5.4.3.3 a yellow-colored light with "a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for example on the front fenders." Since two-wheeled motorcycles do not have enclosed cabins, all references to "inside" and "outside" the vehicle are inapposite.

Since you brought this matter to our attention, we have conducted an informal survey of the color of turn signal indicators on motorcycles sold in the United States. We find that the predominant color is amber, though Harley-Davidson, accounting for 12% of the market, uses green. We view the use of either color as in accord with J588. Therefore, if Kawasaki wishes to change its indicator color from amber to green, it will not violate Standard No. 108 by doing so.

As J588's color specifications are coupled with those for the minimum illuminated area of the display, and you have not raised the question of an appropriate size for a green turn signal indicator, we call your attention to paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard No. 123 which requires that the display for turn signal lamps and other equipment "be visible to a seated operator under daylight conditions."

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to answer them for you (202- 366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/3/95

ID: 9183

Mr. Mark Archer
Orbital Engine Company Pty. Ltd.
1 Whipple Street, Balcatta 6021
Western Australia
Australia

Dear Mr. Archer:

This responds to your letter in which you asked if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations affecting a vehicle that has an automatic engine shut-off device that operates when the vehicle remains idle for extended periods. I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background information, NHTSA administers Federal requirements for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act," copy enclosed) establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. I have enclosed an information sheet that highlights these responsibilities.

We cannot tell from your letter whether you seek to produce a vehicle that has a shut-off device installed as original equipment ("O.E."), i.e., prior to a first sale to a consumer, or produce the device as an "aftermarket" item of equipment, sold for installation in used vehicles. We will discuss both situations in this letter.

A shut-off device may not be installed on a new vehicle if the device causes the vehicle not to comply with all applicable FMVSS's. Standard No. 102, "Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect," states that "the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position." (S3.1.3). NHTSA does not know of any shut-off device that would enable a vehicle to meet S3.1.3 of Standard 102. In 1984, NHTSA terminated rulemaking on an action that would have amended S3.1.3 to permit a shut-off device that restarted the vehicle's engine when the accelerator is depressed. A copy of the termination notice is enclosed. The agency terminated rulemaking citing a number of safety concerns with the particular features of the shut-off device that was the subject of the rulemaking. NHTSA stated in the notice that, if in the future a more effective and safe fuel saving device is developed, NHTSA would again consider amending Standard 102. However, given that S3.1.3 of Standard 102 was not amended, that section precludes the O.E. installation on a shut-off device such as the one described in the termination notice.

With respect to the aftermarket installation of a shut-off device, there is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to the product. Standard 102 applies only to new motor vehicles and not to aftermarket components of a vehicle's transmission, such as a shut-off device.

However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of a shut-off device. Under the Safety Act, the product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As explained above, each manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." This means that if a shut-off device were sold in the "aftermarket," no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business could install it if doing so would render inoperative any previously certified item of equipment in the vehicle. As explained above, each motor vehicle is certified as meeting Standard 102. A shut-off device that causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard 102 could not be installed by any person listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) without subjecting that person to civil penalties (section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108).

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles. However, NHTSA urges all owners not to perform modifications that would degrade the safety of their vehicles, such as installing a fuel shut-off device that raises significant safety concerns.

I hope this responds to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:102 d:4/5/94

ID: aiam2747

Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your December 14, 1977, letter asking whether the rea push out window emergency exit option in Standard No. 217, *Bus Window Retention and Release*, is limited to rear-engine school buses.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) initiall proposed that this option be restricted to rear-engine school buses. Comments to that rulemaking, however, persuaded the agency to permit the use of these emergency exits on all school buses regardless of the location of the engine or passenger seats. That determination was explained in the preamble to the final rule published on June 3, 1976 (41 FR 22356) (enclosed).; I trust that this fully responds to your question. Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-9.17

DATE: February 8, 1992

FROM: Carl C. Clark -- Safety Systems Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rich (Rice) -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: CC-92028

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/9/92 from Paul J. Rice to Carl C. Clark (A39; Std. 205)

TEXT:

I would appreciate your legal interpretation of the glass-plastic glazing types covered by the designation AS-14 in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205. The definition reads,

" 'Glass-plastic glazing material, means a laminate of one or more layers of glass and one or more layers of plastic in which a plastic surface of the glazing faces inward when the glazing is installed in a vehicle."

Subsequently in the standard, Item AS-14 Glass-Plastics are identified as glass-plastic glazing materials that pass certain tests and meet labeling requirements. These may be used anywhere in any motor vehicle except a convertible (a restriction added because of the possible degradation of the plastic layer(s) by direct sunlight).

This prohibition of the use in convertibles of AS-14 glass-plastic glazing, and AS-15A, Annealed Glass-Plastic Glazing, was subsequently limited to the windshield, allowing the use of these materials for the side and rear windows of convertibles (57 FR 1652, January 15, 1992). Item AS-14 has no stipulations as to the nature of the glass other than those qualities examined by the stipulated tests, and indicated by the required label. Is this a correct interpretation?

In response to a General Motors Corporation letter/petition (56 FR 12669, March 27, 1991), clamping of the glass-plastic glazing sample was allowed for Test 26, (effective date September 26, 1991, revised by the correction - 56 FR 49149, September 27, 1991, to be "effective upon publication in the Federal Register"). With clamping, a test of penetration through the material could be achieved for a two-ply glass-plastic glazing sample. Without clamping, the sample might crack and fall through the test frame without demonstrating its penetration resistance.

My understanding, then, is that if one meets the requirements of AS-14 material, whatever the form of the "glass," one can today use this material for automobile glazing in any position, except for the windshield of a convertible. Please correct me if I am wrong. This would therefore include a "tempered" or an "annealed" glass-plastic glazing, even though one could also call the "annealed" glass-plastic glazing used for a side window "Item 15A" (56 FR 18526, April 23, 1991). A Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (56 FR 18559, April 23, 1991) has proposed calling "tempered" glass-plastic glazing Item 15B, to be used anywhere in the motor vehicle, excluding the windshield. The final rule on this proposal has not yet been issued.

May I note my understanding that the tempered glass-plastic side window material developed by DuPont and used in the contract for which I was the Contracting Officer's Technical Representative while at NHTSA (NHTSA Report DOT ES 807 397, Contract DTNH22-87-c-07442) and in my research reports with Peter Sursi (SAE 851203, 870320, and 890226) would pass all of the AS-14 requirements, once clamping is allowed for Test 26, and so could be designated as AS-14 material, with proper labeling, and put into use immediately. Please correct me if I am wrong.

May I note that the terms "annealed" and "tempered" are qualitative terms for a quantitative process of heat treatment of the glass as if cools from the melted condition. In the discussion of the new glass-plastic "items" 15A and 16A and 16B (56 FR 12669, March 27, 1991), NHTSA agreed to drop the "proposal to prohibit the installation of strengthened glass-plastic glazing in windshields and other locations requisite for driving visibility." This was because of industry comments that the term "strengthened" glass is, in effect, another qualitative term for the quantitative process of heat treatment, intended or a consequence of the industrial process used. Even annealed glass is "strengthened" to some extend, and windshield edges are appropriately tempered to some extend to reduce breakage in installation. A potential future difficulty with Items 15A and 15B is the need for a quantitative definition of conditions and proportion of the total surface that leads to or defines when a glass is "annealed" and when "tempered." To what extent can the small test sample be considered representative of the entire glazing piece used in the vehicle? In my view, the problem disappears if the glass, however named, meets the tests specified for AS-14 material, in which case it can be labeled AS-14, with the appropriate warning label also added as required, and put into general use immediately. Please correct me if I am wrong.

A number of companies have been running road tests of two-ply tempered glass-plastic side windows. My hope (and plan) is to have more of these tests, a process that can extend beyond private use, in my view, if indeed the glazing meets AS-14 requirements. May future road tests go forward with commercial installation of after-market glass-plastic glazing that meets the AS-14 tests and is properly labeled, whatever the designation of the glass component?

ID: nht72-4.45

DATE: 03/24/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 7, 1972, in which you discussed some problems that you have encountered with the regulation on vehicles manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 368), as applied to the school buses of which you are the final-stage manufacturer. Since the receipt of your letter, Mr. Rumph of your company and Mr. Sweet of the Truck Body and Equipment Association met with Mr. Dyson of this office to discuss the issues raised in your letter. Also, on March 8 you sent a sample letter that you proposed to send to your customers.

As we understand the problem from your letter and the subsequent discussion, it is essentially that you are receiving chassis-cowls from school bus buyers, for mounting of your bodies as a final-stage manufacturer, which are inadequate for the purpose according to the gross vehicle and gross axle weight ratings now included with the incomplete vehicles under our multistage vehicle regulations, 49 CFR Part 568. The problem as you describe it appears to have arisen in the negotiation between the school bus buyers and the dealers from whom they bought the incomplete vehicles, in that the dealers sold chassis that were too lightly equipped with tires and axles for the loaded weight implicit in the buyer's specification, under both our certification regulations and accepted industry practice. You state that your company bears the immediate burden of the problem, because you have invested in the production of several dozen bodies whose installation is held up pending resolution of the problem.

From your discussion we assume that all parties are agreed that the bodies that the customers ordered (and you have built) are the ones that are to be used, and that the chassis that have been furnished to you can be economically modified to meet the requirements of our regulations and be safe for their intended use.

With these assumptions, we suggest the following course of action on your part:

1. Complete each vehicle as planned.

2. Affix a certification label to each vehicle as you normally do, stating on the label weight rating figures that will satisfy our regulations (Part 567) and the axle capacity requirements of the vehicle.

3. Deliver the vehicle, but concurrently send a written statement by certified mail to the vehicle buyer to the effect that the vehicle must be modified in order to conform to the GVWR and GAWR figures on the certification label, both for purposes of safety and to conform to Federal regulations. The letter should advise the buyer to take the vehicle to a dealer of the chassis manufacturer for these modifications immediately upon receiving it. The sample letter you sent on March 8 will be satisfactory if you modify the second and third paragraphs to read as follows: "Federal Regulation 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, requires Blue Bird to certify the front and rear gross axle weight rating (GAWR) and the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of completed vehicles, and specifies a minimum GVWR based on seating capacity.

"Your vehicle may be shipped as it is, however, the values of GAWR and GVWR shown on the certification plate will be contingent on the chassis modifications indicated above. These changes must, in the interest of safety, be made before the vehicle is placed into service, and you should take the vehicle to your chassis dealer as soon as you receive it."

4. Send copies of each such statement to (a) Office of Standards Enforcement, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590; (b) the manufacturer of the chassis that was delivered to you; and (c) the dealer from whom the buyer ordered the chassis, if any and where known to you.

This procedure is allowed only as to chassis that have already been received by Blue Bird as of the receipt of this letter, and it should not be viewed as precedent for future action by any other persons. In the future, Blue Bird as the final-stage manufacturer must take responsibility for the vehicle as completed by it, to the extent of its knowledge of relevant facts.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

ID: nht81-2.17

DATE: 04/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: N. B. Echelberry

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the vehicle owner's questionnaire you forwarded on March 9, 1981, concerning the installation of computer terminals in patrol cars assigned to the city of Miami Police Department. The questionnaire was recently forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether the installation violated any safety standards.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, a copy of which is enclosed, specifies performance requirements for the instrument panel. It can't be determined from the information you provided whether the terminals are located within an area of the vehicle covered by that standard. The standard generally regulates only the upper portion of the dashboard. If it is located within the regulated zone, the installation of the computer terminal on the vehicle's instrument panel may be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle 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 part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

Modification of the instrument panel by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business during the installation of the computer terminals so that it no longer complies with Standard No. 201 would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A).

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION VEHICLE OWNER'S QUESTIONNAIRE

HL NO.: (Illegible Words)

OWNER

LAST NAME: ECHELBERRY FIRST NAME & MIDDLE INITIAL: NORMAN B. TELEPHONE NO. (Area Code): Work- 579-6540 Home- 579-6111

STREET ADDRESS: 2514 SHERMAN ST. CITY: HOLLYWOOD STATE: FL. ZIP CODE: 33020

VEHICLE INFORMATION

VEHICLE MAKE & MODEL: PLYMOUTH VOLARE MODEL YEAR: 79-80 BODY STYLE: 4 DR. VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NO.: UNK.

ENGINE SIZE (CID/CC): UNK. [X] GAS [] DIESEL MILEAGE: UNK DATE PURCHASED: [X] NEW [] USED DEALER'S NAME AND ADDRESS: AIR CONDITIONED: [X] Yes [] No

VEHICLE SPEED AT FAILURE: [] Parked NO. CYLINDERS: 8 POWER STEERING: [X] YES [] NO POWER BRAKES: [X] YES [] NO TRANSMISSION MANUAL (Speed): AUTOMATIC [X] Yes [] No [] 3 [] 4 [] 5 TYPE

FAILED COMPONENT/PART INFORMATION

COMPONENT/PART NAME: LOCATION: [] Left [] Right [] Front [] Rear FAILED PART: [] Original [] Replacement MILEAGE AT FAILURE: NO. OF FAILURES:

DESCRIPTION OF FAILURE: (OVER)

FAILED TIRE INFORMATION

MANUFACTURER: TIRE NAME: SIZE: TYPE FAILURE:

CONSTRUCTION: [] Belted [] Bias [] Radial FAILED TIRE: [] Original [] Replacement BELT MATERIAL: [] Steel [] Fiberglass [] Aramid [] Rayon LOCATION: [] Right Front [] Right Rear [] Left Front [] Left Rear [] Spare DOT IDENTIFICATION NO. *:

* The identification number consists of about ten letters and numerals following the letters DOT usually located near the rim flange on the side opposite the whitewall or on either side of a blackwall tire.

APPLICABLE ACCIDENT INFORMATION

ACCIDENT: [X] Yes [] No NO. INJURIES: UNK.- INFO NOT AVAILABLE NO. FATALITIES: 0

DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT: OVER SIGNATURE OF OWNER: (Illegible Words) DATE: 2-20-81

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM

I am employed by the City of Miami Police Dept.-400 NW 2 Ave Miami, Fl. Currently, nearly our entire fleet of patrol cars have had computer terminals installed in them. These terminals are approx. 12" x 12" x 18" high. They protrude from the center dashboard into the area over the front seat. Two thin metal brackets support this terminal. There have been accidents where our officers were injured as a result of this installation. I have made several inquiries to different agencies to determine if this is indeed a violation of a safety standard. I received your agencies name to send a request to.

Please respond if I have contacted the wrong agency. This is a serious matter, particularly for passengers in the front right side. These items are going to be installed in vehicles due for a near future delivery.

Thank you for your attention on this matter.

(Illegible Words)

ID: GF001689

Mr. Kenneth Reed
Product Legislation and Compliance
Jaguar Cars
555 MacArthur Boulevard
Mahwah, NJ 07430

Dear Mr. Reed:

This responds to your letter asking about S4.2.2(a) of Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, in connection with Jaguars "pass key technology." The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.  The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter.

Under S4.2.1 of Standard No. 114, the key-locking system in vehicles that have an automatic transmission with a "park" position, when tested under specified procedures, must generally 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. S4.2.2(a) states (in relevant part) that 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 the system (including battery discharge) occurs.

You asked how S4.2.2(a) applies to key-locking systems using "pass key technology," i.e., systems using electronically coded cards or other means to enter an electronic key code into the locking system. In past interpretation letters, we have stated that the electronic code itself can be considered the key. You noted that in situations of sudden and complete loss of electrical power, the electronic key code could be immediately erased from the vehicles volatile memory, before a vehicle could be stopped.

In considering your question, we believe it is helpful to note the history of the provision at issue. On January 17, 1992, we published in the Federal Register (57 FR 2039) a notice responding to petitions for reconsideration of amendments to Standard No. 114. Honda and Toyota, asking about key-locking systems using conventional keys, asked that the standard make it clear that key removal was permitted in the circumstance of electrical failure when the vehicle's transmission was not in park.

In addressing these requests, the agency stated:

NHTSA believes that there is an interpretation issue concerning whether the March 1991 amendments permit key removal after battery discharge. For example, the Honda system ordinarily prevents key removal unless the transmission is locked in park, as required by the amendments. Only under a failure condition, battery failure, is it possible to remove the key when the vehicle's transmission is not in park. It could be argued that a non-failed battery is an assumed test condition for the requirement and that Honda's system therefore meets the requirement as written. 57 FR at 2041.

As explained in that notice, however, the agency decided to resolve the issue raised by Honda and Toyota by making it clear in the text of the standard that key removal is permitted in the circumstance of electrical failure when the vehicle's transmission is not in park. To implement this decision, the agency adopted the language of S4.2.2(a) discussed earlier; i.e., specifying that "(n)otwithstanding 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 the system (including battery discharge) occurs . . . ."

In considering the issues raised by your letter, it is our interpretation that the narrow provisions related to electrical failure do not apply to pass key technology where electronically coded cards or other means are used to enter an electronic key code into the locking system. These provisions were specifically crafted in the context of addressing whether (and under what circumstances) traditional keys should be permitted to be removed after battery discharge occurs, whereas, in the case of "pass key technology," electrical failure can automatically result in the immediate removal of the electronic key code. Moreover, the clause provided that steering is prevented upon the key's removal would not be appropriate in situations where sudden and complete loss of electrical power could result in immediate erasure of the electronic key code before a vehicle could be stopped, since paragraph S4.3 requires that steering be maintained in that situation.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:114
d.5/27/03