ID: nht92-5.6

DATE: July 29, 1992

FROM: Kevin R. Boyne -- Chief Engineer, Dynamics and Durability Engineering, Transportation Research Center Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of Chief Council

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Kevin R. Boyne (A40; Std. 114)

TEXT:

This correspondence is a request for clarification of CFR Title 49, Part 571.114, Section 4.2.1 (FMVSS 114, "Theft Protection"). The Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC) is conducting FMVSS certification tests on a passenger car for compliance, beginning September 1, 1992. The test vehicle is equipped with an automatic transmission and a console-mounted shift lever. There is no provision for an override device for the removal of the ignition key.

Section 4.2.1 requires each vehicle which has an automatic transmission with a "park" position to prevent removal of the key, unless the transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. The vehicle we are testing operates in the following manner:

Initial Condition - Engine running and shift lever positioned in "drive".

Action - The operator depresses the thumb button on the left side of the shift lever and moves the shift lever to the "park" position.

Point of Concern - As long as the thumb button is held in the depressed position, the ignition key can be rotated to the lock position and removed. Still holding the thumb button, the shift lever can later be moved to any position. Removal of the key will only occur in the "park" position.

Is this condition within the requirements of the standard?

The solenoid which prevents the moving of the key from the accessory to lock position, and subsequent key removal, is deactivated by the position of the shift lever. Additionally, the shift lever will only lock in "park" if the thumb button is released.

TRC has inspected other vehicles of similar layout for this condition and found it to exist in all three foreign-designed vehicles we tested. The one domestic-designed vehicle we inspected required release of the thumb button to permit rotation of the key to the lock position and subsequent removal.

Please provide TRC in writing, regarding the Chief Council's position. If you have any questions or require further information before you can determine a position, please contact the undersigned at (513) 666-2011. We thank you in advance for your expeditious reply.

ID: nht79-1.47

DATE: 10/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I regret the delay in responding to your letter of July 19, 1979, which requested an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays. You asked whether placing the turn signal symbol on the turn signal control shown in your illustration so that the arrows are vertical would comply with the standard.

The answer is no. Section 5.2.1 of the standard requires that the turn signal symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. The purpose of that requirement is to ensure quick and accurate indentification of the vehicle controls. The upright position of a symbol is determined by referring to column 3 of Table 1 of Safety Standard 101-80. That table shows that the upright position for the turn signal symbol is with the arrows pointing horizontally. Thus, the arrows must point essentially horizontally in the motor vehicle.

Since the symbols required by Safety Standard 101-80 were selected in order to facilitate international standardization and harmonization, it is important that they not be significantly altered from one vehicle to another. This is particularly important in order to ensure that drivers become familiar with the meaning of various symbols including the turn signal symbol.

However, Safety Standard 101-80 does permit manufacturers to supplement the symbols designated in Table 1 of the standard with additional words or symbols for the purpose of clarity. Therefore, nothing in the standard would prevent your company from adding additional symbols, such as curved thinner arrows next to the turn signal symbol, to indicate mode of operation.

SINCERELY,

9/11/79 - SECOND REQUEST

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

July 19, 1979

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

Subject: Request for Interpretation Turn Signal Control Identification FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays

Mack Trucks, Inc. will be introducing a new truck model later this year. The vehicle has been designed to comply with the current requirements of FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays. The attached photograph illustrates the instrument panel layout in a prototype vehicle. Since this vehicle is assembled in France, several features differ from current U.S. vehicle designs.

The turn signal control is located on the instrument panel to the lower left of the speedometer. This is a two function control in that horizontal movement switches the headlamps from low to high beam, while vertical movement activates the turn signals.

FMVSS 101-80 requires that this turn signal control be identified by a specified symbol and that the symbol appear perceptually upright to the driver. As we interpret the regulation, the symbol must be rotated 90 degrees from the position shown in the photograph in order to comply with the requirement. However, we feel that this could be confusing because the operation of the turn signal control is vertical. Although we realize that the symbol is there to indicate the function, not the operation, we question whether a driver will understand what the symbol indicates. We believe it is more appropriate to orient the symbol as shown in the photograph so as to reduce the possibility of confusion. (Note: Please disregard the headlamp symbol next to the turn signal symbol on the control since it will not be there on production vehicles.)

We would appreciate your comments and/or recommendations on the orientation of the turn signal symbol as soon as possible since production of these vehicles is scheduled to begin September 1, 1979.

Thomas F. Brown Executive Engineer-Vehicle Regulations and Standards

ATTACH.

bcc: L. F. DONNELLY; L. F. KASACZUN; E. PASCUAL; S. ROBSON; C. D. TREXLER

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam0504

Dear Mr. Eisenhardt: This is in response to your letter of November 12, 1971. As correctly stated in that letter there is no current requirement that multi-purpose passenger vehicles must comply with standards 105, 109, 110, 201, 202, 203, 204, 212, 214, 215, and 301. Additionally, the information depicted in the chart you provided is correct as of October 11, 1971. However, your dates for proposed future requirements (columns 3 and 5) may change.; The small vans and similar type vehicles being converted for use a emergency medical vehicles are required to conform to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard definition for a 'multi-purpose passenger vehicle,' since they utilize a truck chassis. Contrary to your opinion concerning the safety hazard of the converted emergency vehicles, we have not received any factual data indicating that these converted emergency medical vehicles constitute a safety hazard to the general public, to the sick or injured occupants, or to the attendants who must operate such vehicles.; As stated in our previous correspondence to you and Senator Rober Taft, Jr., at this point in time the Department is not in the position of proposing an expenditure for the construction of a prototype ambulance. Our limited resources are being devoted to those traffic safety programs which result in the greatest savings in lives and in the reduction of injuries.; We are retaining your correspondence for reference. If, in the future our priorities include the development of standards relating to the design of an emergency medical vehicle, please be assured that your interests will be fully considered.; Your continued interest in our traffic safety programs is appreciated. Sincerely, Dana L. Scott, Associate Administrator for Administration

ID: 18268.jeg

Robert C. Sanders, Esq.
Director and General Counsel
Parents for Safer Air Bags
Suite 300, 1250 24th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037

Dear Mr. Sanders:

This responds to your letter asking about the "one-truck credit" provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. I apologize for the delay in our response. The question you ask is answered below. This letter also responds to a question you asked in a subsequent telephone conversation about the "one-car credit" provisions.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established the one-truck credit provisions as part of its March 1991 final rule extending automatic crash protection requirements to light trucks. The final rule established a phase-in implementation of the automatic crash protection requirements for light trucks, with a specified percentage of each manufacturer's production of light trucks required to be equipped with automatic crash protection beginning with vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1994. The phase-in ended on September 1, 1997, after which date all light trucks were required to be equipped with automatic crash protection.

During the phase-in period, the 1991 final rule provided a number of "credits" for light truck manufacturers, including the "one-truck credit." While the requirements for automatic protection generally applied to both the driver's and right front passenger's positions, the one-truck credit provisions allowed manufacturers to count light trucks equipped with an air bag at the driver's position (which met Standard No. 208's unbelted test requirements) and a dynamically-tested manual lap/shoulder belt at the right front passenger's position as one truck equipped with automatic crash protection during the phase-in.

The 1991 final rule also provided that the one-truck credit provisions extended for one year beyond the end of the phase-in. From September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998, manufacturers were permitted to count light trucks equipped with an air bag at the driver's position and a dynamically-tested manual lap/shoulder belt at the right front passenger's position as a truck that complied with the automatic crash protection requirement.

Congress ultimately decided to require light trucks to be equipped with air bags and manual lap/shoulder belts, and specified a one-year phase-in of this requirement during the September 1, 1997 through August 31, 1998 time period. Under this statutory requirement, the one-truck credit remained available during this one-year period.⁽¹⁾

You ask whether a vehicle which was otherwise eligible for the one-truck credit remained eligible if the manufacturer installed a passenger-side air bag that did not enable the vehicle to meet the unbelted test requirements of Standard No. 208, e.g., because the air bag had a sufficiently low inflator power level. The answer to this question is yes.

The specific language implementing the one-truck credit provisions for the light truck automatic restraint phase-in states that each vehicle "whose driver's seating position complies with the requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) by means not including any type of seat belt and whose right front passenger's seating position is equipped with a manual Type 2 seat belt that complies with S5.1 of this standard" is counted as a vehicle complying with the automatic crash protection requirements. (S4.2.5.4(c) and S4.2.5.5(a)(2).) The specific language implementing the one-truck credit provisions for the light truck air bag phase-in states that each vehicle "whose driver's seating position complies with S4.1.5.1(a)(1) by means of an inflatable restraint system and whose right front passenger's seating position is equipped with a manual Type 2 seat belt assembly that complies with S5.1 of this standard" is counted as a vehicle complying with the air bag requirements. (S4.2.6.1.1.)

As indicated by this language, all that was needed under the one-truck credit provisions at the right front passenger's seating position was a dynamically tested lap and shoulder belt. The agency has long stated that manufacturers are free to install systems or components in addition to the required safety components, provided that the additional systems do not destroy the ability of the required systems to comply with the applicable safety standards. Thus, prior to September 1, 1998, if a manufacturer wished to install a passenger-side air bag, it was free to do so under the one-truck credit provisions, even if the air bag did not enable the vehicle to meet the unbelted test requirements of Standard No. 208.

In your letter, you cite a March 1997 statement by a vehicle manufacturer indicating that some light trucks were manufactured with passenger-side air bags that did not satisfy the unbelted test requirements of Standard No. 208. While we have not researched the matter comprehensively, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has advised that a number of manufacturers produced light trucks with passenger-side air bags that were not certified to the unbelted test requirements.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, you asked that we address the question you asked about the "one-truck credit" provisions with respect to the "one-car credit" provisions. I note that the "one-car credit" provisions preceded the "one-truck credit" provisions and were adopted as part of the phase-in of automatic protection requirements for passenger cars. The agency adopted essentially the same language for implementing the one-truck credit provisions as had been used for the one-car credit provisions.⁽²⁾ Therefore, our answer to your question about the one-truck credit provisions also applies with respect to the one-car credit provisions, i.e., a vehicle which was otherwise eligible for the one-car credit remained eligible if the manufacturer installed a passenger-side air bag that did not enable the vehicle to meet the unbelted test requirements of Standard No. 208.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.10/29/98
ref:208

1. See 57 FR 59043, 59044-45 (December 14, 1992) and 58 FR 46551 (September 2, 1993).

2. Compare S4.2.5.4(c), S4.2.5.5(a)(2), and S4.2.6.1.1 with S4.1.3.4(a)(2) and S4.1.4.1. The one-car credit provisions applied both during the phase-in of the automatic protection requirements for passenger cars (September 1, 1986 through August 30, 1989) and for the four years immediately following the phase-in (September 1, 1989 through August 31, 1993). I note that during the phase-in, all that was needed under the one-car credit provisions at the right front passenger's seating position was a manual lap/shoulder belt. For the four years following the phase-in, a dynamically tested manual lap/shoulder belt was required at the right front passenger's seating position. See 52 FR 10096 (March 30, 1987).

ID: aiam1015

Dear Mr. Kutschera: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1973, inquiring whethe size designations '225/70SR14 replaces G70SR14', and '215/70SR15 replaces F70SR15' etc., may be used under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.; Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 provides for the labeling of 'on size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designation may be used.' The NHTSA has taken the position that this requirement does not prohibit the labeling of replacement sizes when the replaced size is in fact being superseded by the replacement size.; Because your proposed label contains both a metric and an inch siz designation, however, it is not clear whether these size designations are intended as 'equivalent' or 'replacement' sizes. If you intend the former size to supersede the later, your use of 'replaces' between the two size designation is consistent with Standard No. 109, If your intention is to label equivalent size designation, however, the use of 'replaces' is inappropriate. One way in which equivalency may be appropriately shown is to place the inch size designation if a parenthesis () immediately following the metric size designation.; One last point is that the size designation listed in the Appendix o Standard No. 109 for 70 Series radial ply tires differ from those specified in your letter. Table I-G, which lists this tire type, specifies size designations in which the second letter is and 'R'. Thus, the size designations which you submit should have read GR70SR14 and FR70SR15. Other size designations of this tire type should be identified accordingly.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 3134o

Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll
Vice President
Transportation Equipment Corp.
712 North Van Buren Way
Hopkins, MN 55343

Dear Mr. Mikoll:

This responds to your recent request for confirmation of your understanding that school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less would comply with the existing requirements of the safety standards if those buses were equipped with a new occupant protection device your company is considering producing. As explained below, this device could not be installed in small school buses as a substitute for safety belts at those seating positions. Assuming those seating positions are equipped with safety belts, the seating positions could also be equipped with this device if the addition of the device does not prevent the safety belts from complying with the requirements of the safety standards.

The new device you are considering producing is a "safety bar." This bar consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. These curved poles are joined by three cross members that are parallel to the seat and are covered with padding. The padded surface is angled at the top slightly back from the vertical. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants will be protected by the "safety bar," so that the padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is designed to protect. When the seat whose occupants are to be protected by this "safety bar" is unoccupied, the padded surface rests approximately on the latitudinal centerline of the seat. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the "safety bar" and then sit down. The "safety bar" will then rest on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap that resembles a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash.

The crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.222). That section provides that these school buses must be capable of meeting the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) as it applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.

The requirements of Standard No. 208 that apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies that multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements specified for passenger cars in either S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208. Each of these three subsections of S4.1.2 requires each rear designated seating position to be equipped with a safety belt. S4.1.2 gives manufacturers the option of substituting a protection system "that requires no action by vehicle occupants" for a safety belt at any or all rear designated seating positions.

Your proposed "safety bar" requires two specific actions by vehicle occupants; i.e., lifting the bar so that the seat can be occupied and buckling the strap to hold the bar in place. Therefore, the "safety bar" could not be considered a protection system that "requires no action by vehicle occupants," for the purposes of S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, each rear designated seating position in small school buses equipped with this "safety bar" must also be equipped with safety belts.

Assuming that these seating positions were equipped with safety belts, the installation of "safety bars" in small school buses would be a voluntary action on the part of the school bus manufacturer. NHTSA has said in several prior interpretation letters that the systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided that the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the safety belts in this case) to comply with the Federal safety standards. If this is the case, the "safety bars" could be provided as a supplement to safety belts on small school buses.

To install these "safety bars" in any new school bus, the manufacturer would have to certify that a bus with the "safety bars" installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of Standard No. 222. Thus, if any part of the "safety bar" was within the head protection zone or leg protection zone, the "safety bar" would have to be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of S5.3. Additionally, the manufacturer would have to certify that the school buses with these "safety bars" installed complied with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR /571.217). Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with emergency exits of a minimum size. This means the "safety bars" could not obstruct emergency exits located adjacent to seats.

If you decide to manufacture these "safety bars," your company will be a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). As such, you will have several responsibilities, including the responsibility specified in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if your company or the agency determines either that the safety bar contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet is enclosed, which describes briefly this and other statutory and regulatory responsibilities of manufacturers and explains how to obtain copies of our regulations.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:208#222 d:ll/3/88

ID: aiam1135

Dear Mr. Eckhold: By petition for rulemaking dated November 15, 1973, the Ford Moto Company requested an amendment of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 with respect to the strength required of the anchorages for the pelvic portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly. After considering the merits of the requested amendment, we have decided to deny your petition.; As stated in your petition, the anchorages for the pelvic portion of Type 2 assembly are presently subject to two strength requirements under Standard 210. Section S4.2.2 provides that, when tested in conjunction with the upper torso anchorage, the pelvic anchorages must withstand a force of 3,000 pounds applied through the seat belt assembly. Section S4.2.1 provides that, when tested separately from the upper torso anchorage, the pelvic anchorages must withstand a force of 5,000 pounds applied through the seat belt assembly.; It is Ford's position that the 5,000 pound requirement of S4.2.1 wa intended to be applicable to anchorages used with Type 2 assemblies having detachable shoulder belts, and that it was not intended for use with integral Type 2 assemblies. Although the NHTSA would agree that the most widely used Type 2 assembly at the time of the standard's adoption had a detachable shoulder belt, the agency does not agree that the 5,000 pound requirement should be limited to anchorages used with such belts.; The 1974 model year will be the first in which integral Type 2 belt are installed in all passenger cars. We anticipate that a measurable percentage of persons riding in cars with the new belts will somehow avoid using the shoulder belt, thereby placing the lap belt under the same potential stress as any other lap belt when used by itself. In light of this possibility, and in consideration of the fact that keeping the pelvic anchorage force at the currently required level of 5,000 pounds will not impose additional manufacturing costs on manufacturers, we do not consider it advisable to grant the requested amendment at this time.; The petition of Ford Motor Company for an amendment of S4.2.1 of Moto Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 and for a complementary amendment to the test procedures of S5.1 of the standard is therefore denied.; Sincerely, James E. Wilson, Associate Administrator, Traffic Safet Programs;

ID: 8768

Kenneth G. Koop, Risk Control Representative
Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency
One Oakbrook Terrace
22nd Street at Butterfield Road
Suite 412
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181

Dear Mr. Koop:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1993, requesting information on a modification for police vehicles. You seek permission to remove the passenger seat and passenger air bag from police vehicles, and to permanently mount equipment where the passenger seat had been. As explained below, this type of modification would be permitted under Federal law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Among the standards that NHTSA has issued are two which could be affected by the modification you propose: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR 571.207), which requires each vehicle to have an occupant seat for the driver and sets strength and other performance requirements for all occupant seats in a vehicle, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle.

If your contemplated modification is made before a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration (See 49 CFR Part 567.7). Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an occupant restraint is only required if a seating position is there.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the presence and condition of devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle under applicable safety standards is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

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.

NHTSA does not consider there to be a violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition with respect to occupant restraints if, after one of the named types of commercial entities modifies a used vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints at every seating position and those occupant restraints are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted when the vehicle was new. Again, if a seating position were removed from a used vehicle, the removal of the air bag as well would not violate the render inoperative provision because the presence of the air bag was originally premised on the presence of the seating position. However, the render inoperative prohibition would be violated if removal of the passenger side air bag caused the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. I would like to caution you to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Removing an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. In addition, removal of the passenger side air bag could cause the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy.

You should also note that the "render inoperative" prohibition applies only to the named entities. Therefore, vehicle owners are permitted to make any modifications to their vehicles, even if the vehicle would no longer comply with applicable safety standards. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles.

You should be aware that S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers install one indicator for both air bags. After the passenger side air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. NHTSA is concerned that the driver would then be unable to tell if the driver side air bag were functional. Therefore, I urge you to contact the manufacturer to determine how the indicator could be altered to monitor the readiness of the driver side air bag only.

As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "render inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you will "place permanently mounted policing equipment in the seat's place." It is our understanding that it is common for police cars to be sold after a few years of service. Presumably any police equipment would be removed before such a sale. I urge you to either reinstall the passenger seat and occupant restraint or to make these modifications in a way that will discourage reinstallation of the passenger seat, so that future users of the vehicle are unlikely to use a seating position that does not have any occupant restraint.

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

ref:VSA#207#208 d:8/26/93

ID: nht93-6.22

DATE: 08/26/93

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein

TO: Kenneth G. Koop -- Risk Control Representative, Intergovernmental Risk Management Agency

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/3/93 from Kenneth G. Koop to John Wolmack (Womack) (OCC 8768)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of June 3, 1993, requesting information on a modification for police vehicles. You seek permission to remove the passenger seat and passenger air bag from police vehicles, and to permanently mount equipment where the passenger seat had been. As explained below, this type of modification would be permitted under Federal law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Among the standards that NHTSA has issued are two which could be affected by the modification you propose: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR S571.207), which requires each vehicle to have an occupant seat for the driver and sets strength and other performance requirements for all occupant seats in a vehicle, and Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208), which specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle.

If your contemplated modification is made before a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration (See 49 CFR Part 567.7).

Once the front passenger seat is removed, Standard No. 208 would not require an air bag for that location since an occupant restraint is only required if a seating position is there.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the presence and condition of devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle under applicable safety standards is affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides:

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.

NHTSA does not consider there to be a violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition with respect to occupant restraints if, after one of the named types of commercial entities modifies a used vehicle, the vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints at every seating position and those occupant restraints are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted when the vehicle was new. Again, if a seating position were removed from a used vehicle, the removal of the air bag as well would not violate the render inoperative provision because the presence of the air bag was originally premised on the presence of the seating position. However, the render inoperative prohibition would be violated if removal of the passenger side air bag caused the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy. I would like to caution you to contact the vehicle manufacturer concerning the proper procedure for any air bag removal. Removing an air bag could cause it to deploy and injure the mechanic. In addition, removal of the passenger side air bag could cause the driver side air bag to malfunction or deploy.

You should also note that the "render inoperative" prohibition applies only to the named entities. Therefore, vehicle owners are permitted to make any modifications to their vehicles, even if the vehicle would no longer comply with applicable safety standards. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles.

You should be aware that S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. NHTSA believes that most manufacturers install one indicator for both air bags. After the passenger side air bag is removed, this indicator would show that the air bag system is not operative. NHTSA is concerned that the driver would then be unable to tell if the driver side air bag were functional. Therefore, I urge you to contact the manufacturer to determine how the indicator could be altered to monitor the readiness of the driver side air bag only.

As a final caution, I note that the purpose of the "render inoperative" provision is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Your letter states that you will "place permanently mounted policing equipment in the seat's place." It is our understanding that it is common for police cars to be sold after a few years of service. Presumably any police equipment would be removed before such a sale. I urge you to either reinstall the passenger seat and occupant restraint or to make these modifications in a way that will discourage reinstallation of the passenger seat, so that future users of the vehicle are unlikely to use a seating position that does not have any occupant restraint.

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.

ID: nht95-3.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 5, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, North American Operations Safety, Affairs and Regulations, GM

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to General Motors' (GM's) inquiry, raised in a June 16, 1995 meeting with the agency, regarding the test procedures in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 for determining whether a vehicle is in the "park" position. Under those p rocedures, a vehicle is deemed to be in park if it ceases rolling within 150 mm. You were concerned that different methods of measuring this distance could result in some vehicles not complying with the requirement that the vehicle roll less than 150 mm .

The short answer to your question is that the test procedure is a "static" measurement procedure. In other words, the agency will not measure the distance that a vehicle has rolled until after the vehicle has completely ceased moving.

This agency recently amended Standard No. 114, adding test procedures to determine whether the key can be removed when the transmission is in positions other than the "park" position and that the transmission remains locked in "park" after key removal. (60 FR 30006; June 7, 1995) NHTSA initiated that action in response to a petition from the automotive industry alleging that such a procedure was needed to make the standard objective.

Section S4.2.1(a)(3) of the amended standard specifies that "[each] vehicle shall not move more than 150 mm on a 10 percent grade when the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park." To demonstrate that the vehicle is in "park" prior to attempting to remove the key, the test procedures in S5.2(e) and S5.3(b) both state:

Drive the vehicle forward up a 10 percent grade and stop it with the service brakes. Apply the parking brake (if present). n1 Move the shift mechanism to the "park" position. Apply the service brakes. Release the parking brake. Release the service bra kes . . . Verify that vehicle movement was less than or equal to 150 mm after release of the service brakes.

n1 The parenthetical reference occurs only in S5.3(b).

In the June 16 meeting with the agency, GM stated that vehicle movement could be measured in two different ways: dynamic or static. GM inquired as to which method NHTSA interpreted the standard as specifying, because the results using these two methods would be different. The "dynamic" method of measuring vehicle movement was described by GM as measuring the maximum play-out of a spool of wire attached to the front bumper after release of the service brakes. The "static" method would measure vehicle movement from a reference point on the wheels after the vehicle has come to a complete stop.

Under the dynamic method, a portion of the measured play-out would be due to the "rocking" motion of the vehicle's chassis on its suspension when the transmission engaged. The driveline components would also contribute some movement by temporarily stori ng some of the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle by flexing and twisting. However, both of these contributions to total rearward movement are temporary, disappearing after the vehicle comes to rest, as in the static measuring method. GM presented te st data for certain vehicles and theoretical worst-case calculations of static roll distance on non-production hypothetical vehicles and one test vehicle. The test data showed that dynamic measuring produces larger measurements of roll than does static measuring.

NHTSA interprets the limitation on vehicle movement specified in S4.2.1(a)(3) as referring to static movement. The agency did not contemplate using the dynamic method. The agency intends to measure only permanent components of total vehicle movement, u sing the "static" method. When conducting compliance testing, NHTSA will measure vehicle movement from a reference point such as the wheel centerline position. The starting time for the measurement will be at the moment before the service brakes are re leased. The ending time of the measurement will be when the vehicle has completely ceased moving, bouncing, and rocking (i.e., until the vehicle is again "static").

This agency believes that its confirmation that the static test method is the proper method should relieve any realistic concerns regarding compliance of the 1996 model year vehicles GM tested, and probably of any future vehicles as well. The actual test s GM conducted in preparation for the meeting with NHTSA all showed static roll distances well within the requirements of Standard No. 114.

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