ID: nht87-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dec 31, 1986

U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

This is in further response to your letter of July 15, 1986, in which you asked a number of questions concerning our standards and regulations. This responds to your question about Part 585, Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting Requirements. I hope the following discussion answers your question.

You asked about the requirement in Part 585.5(a)(4) of the regulation. That section provides that a manufacturers report "contain a statement regarding the extent to which the manufacturer has complied with the requirements of S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208. " You explained that you did not understand what the sentence means and asked whether your sample report conformed to the requirement of the regulation.

S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208 provides for the phasing-in of the automatic restraint requirements and sets certain percentage of passenger car production requirements that each manufacturer must meet. The purpose of Part 585.5(a)(4) is to have each manufact urer state to what degree of extent it has met the applicable phase-in requirement. Thus, a statement, such as the one contained in your sample report, which sets out the percentage of your vehicles produced during an applicable reporting period that com ply with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of the standard would meet the requirement of Part 585.5(a)(4).

If you have any further questions, please me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Leon Pauksta -- Traffic Manager, Nichimen America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Leon Pauksta Traffic Manager Nichimen America, Inc. 225 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2322 Chicago, IL 60601-5983

This responds to your February 20 and March 18, 1987 letters requesting guidance on the information which you should provide us so that we can issue an opinion whether a particular vehicle is considered to be a motor vehicle. You explained that this requ est was made with reference to a mini pickup truck your company is considering importing from Taiwan, and that the truck would be used as "off-the-road utility conveyances." have set forth below the factors this agency considers in making determinations of whether a particular vehicle is a motor vehicle.

Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) defines a "motor vehicle" as

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. On the one hand, vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. In additi on, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles which use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, jeep-type utility vehicles are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road o peration. NHTSA has interpreted the definition of "motor vehicle" to include vehicles whose on-road use is substantial, even though use on the public roads is not the vehicles' greatest intended use. Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of the vehicle's owners, NHTSA has held that the vehicle is a "motor vehicle". This finding was made in the case of dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent rega rding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Between these fairly clear areas are the cases the agency has previously characterized as "borderline" cases. These cases typically involve vehicles that have off-road operating capability, but also have on-road operating capability, and about which ther e is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use. In previous letters of interpretation, this agency has set forth some of the factors it considers to determine whether borderline case vehicles should be classified as motor vehicl es. These factors include:

1. Whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use;

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use;

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers assist or will assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates of origin or title documents.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that are indisputably classified as motor vehicles; and

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads.

If you wish to submit information relevant to the factors discussed above, we would be pleased to consider it and offer you an opinion regarding your vehicle.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 18, 1987

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn.: Chief Counsel

SUBJECT: Application for Ruling As to Whether a Motor Vehicle is For Primary Use on Public Thoroughfares.

Dear Counsel:

Attached is a copy of our February 20th inquiry. Although it was sent to you almost one month ago we have not received a reply from you.

Because this subject is an active business project for us which is being researched, we do require instructions from your office.

Could you please send instructions as to what kind of information we are required to submit to your office in order to obtain a ruling.

Yours very truly,

NICHIMEN AMERICA INC.

Leon Pauksta, Traffic Manager

cc: Mr. Hattori

February 20, 1987

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 - 7th Street. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn.: Chief Counsel

SUBJECT: Application for Ruling As to Whether a Motor Vehicle is Considered for Primary Use on Public Thoroughfares.

Dear Counsel:

We have been researching the feasibility of importing mini pickup-truck type motor vehicles from Taiwan for use in the U.S. as off-the-road ultility conveyances.

Would you kindly provide instructions as to what kind of information we must submit to your office and any formal application format we should use. It would also be helpful if you could give an estimated time-frame such ruling procedure would involve.

Your prompt response and assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Yours very truly,

NICHIMAN AMERICA, INC.

Leon Pauksta. Traffic Manager

cc: Mr. Hattori

ID: nht87-1.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hiromi Hori

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 10, 1987

AIR MAIL

Mr. Hiromi Hori Manager, Certification Regulations Section Technical Department Ichikoh Industries, Ltd. 80 Itado, Isehara-City Kanagawa Pref. 259-11 Japan

Dear Mr. Hori:

This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1987, with reference to a lamp that is used as both an identification lamp, and as a clearance lamp. Currently the lamp projects its amber beam forward as much of the remainder of the lens is painted black. You have asked if it is permissible to remove the black paint, as a result of which the lamp will emit light in other directions.

Standard No. 108 does not prohibit removal of the black paint. The lamp, of course, must meet the photometric requirements for a clearance lamp, or for an identification lamp if it is used as part of the three lamp array. We call your attention to paragr aph 3.4 of SAE Standards J592e, July 1972, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108. It states that "The H-V axis of a clearance or identification lamp shall be taken as parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle." The lamp depicted in your s ketch appears to conflict with this requirement. Further, if the lamp is mounted as shown in the sketch, it would appear that no light will be visible, except in that half of the pattern on the lens side of the lamp base.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

L62/01 January 12, 1987

Subject: Front identification lamp and front clearance lamp.

Dear Ms. Jones,

We would like to inquire about the front identification lamp and front clearance lamp.

The color of illumination from the above lamps is amber. which is stipulated in the FMVSS 108. table I "Required Motor Vehicle Lighting Equipment".

Our devices are designed to illuminate amber light to the forward only as shown in the following page.

SECTION A-A

The back side of the lens is black painted as shade to prevent the illumination to the rearward.

Question:

Is it permissible to remove the black paint from the lens? (In this case, amber light is emitted to the rearward, too.)

We appreciate your effort in responding to our inquiry.

Best regards,

Hiromi Hori, manager Certifications Regulations Section Technical Department

CC.: Mr. F. Takata. manager of representative office in Washington

ID: nht87-1.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: C. D. Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. C. D. Black Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, New Jersey 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This responds to your December 11, 1986 letter to me concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether we interpret Standard No. 206 to permit inst allation of a particular type of door locking system which you referred to as a "child safety lock." The answer to your question is yes.

You explain that a "child safety lock" is a special locking system installed in addition to the locking system mandated by Standard No. 206. You state that the required locking system (hereinafter referred to as "the primary locking system") is operated by a vertical plunger located in the door top trim roll (window sill). The child safety lock (which I will refer to as a "secondary locking system") consists of a lever that is located in the shut face of the rear doors which can only be reached when the door is open. When the lever is set in the "active" position, it renders the inside rear door handle incapable of opening the door. The outside door handle is operative and can be used to open the door.

The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows:

S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.

S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

As you know, the standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include the door lock requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadverte nt door openings due to impact upon or movement of inside or outside door handles. Other objectives were to protect against children opening rear door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from insi de the vehicle (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.

Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the interior latch release controls (door handles) to operate the door latches when the door locking mechanism is disengaged. As explained be low, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 206 and past agency interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only secondary locking systems which interfere with the engagement of the primary locking system. Since y our child locking systems do not interfere with the manner in which the primary locking system engages, their installation on the vehicles you manufacture is permitted.

The answer to your question about the child locking systems is dependent on whether the systems interfere with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1. 3.2 are written in terms of what must occur when the primary system is engaged and impose no requirements regarding the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door lo cks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking mechanism is enga ged. Since we have determined that S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks--i.e., S4.1.3.2 does not require that the inside rear door handles be operative (capable of releasing the door latch) when the requ ired locking system is disengaged--a child locking system may be provided on a vehicle if it does not negate the capability of the door lock plunger (the operating means) to engage the door locks.

While the agency stated in its April 1968 notice amending Standard No. 206 that one purpose of requiring an interior means of operating door locks was to allow a reasonable means of escape for vehicle occupants, the agency did not go further in facilitat ing escape by also including a provision to require in all circumstances that door handles be operative when the primary locking systems are disengaged. Since the agency could easily have included such a provision to address this reverse situation, but d id not do so, the implication is that the agency did not intend to impose requirements regarding that situation. In fact, the notice included a contemporaneous interpretation that the standard permits a secondary locking device which rendered the inside rear door handle inoperative even when the primary locking mechanism was disengaged. This affirms that NHTSA did not even intend to impose a requirement that the handles always be operative when the primary locking mechanism is disengaged.

In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 206 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to "minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a re sult of impact." Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in Collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements for occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibits a device which negates the capability of the inside o perating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system.

Another issue related to your inquiry is whether the location of the operating means for the child locks is regulated by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no. Secondary locking mechanisms discussed in the final rule adopting the doo r lock requirements and in past agency letters all were designed so that the operating means for the secondary mechanism was inaccessible when the door was closed. In none of those documents did the agency take exception to that location of the operating means, much less suggest that those means, like the means for the primary locking mechanism, must be located in the vehicle's interior.

This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies past agency statements concerning issues raised by secondary locking systems such as "child safety locks." To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations made by NHTSA in the past, the previous interpretations are overruled.

Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 11, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

We request your interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 206 as it relates to child safety lock systems currently fitted to Jaguar sedans destined for U.K. and European markets and which we would like to fit to USA cars.

The Jaguar rear door primary locking system is activated or deactivated from a vertical plunger situated in the door top trim roll. It functions in the manner described in FMVSS 206, paragraph 4.1.3.2., (also pages 12 and 13 of the Jaguar drivers handboo k attached.)

To operate the additional child safety lock (special locking system), the door must first be opened and a small lever, situated in the door shut-face, activated. The door, when subsequently closed, cannot then be unlocked or opened from inside the vehicl e regardless of the position of the primary locking system vertical plunger. However, the door can be opened using the outside handle. The child safety lock can be deactivated only by opening the rear door using the outside door handle and then reversing the position of the lever in the door shut-face.

However, the preamble to FMVSS 206 amendment of 27 April 1968 (33 FR 6465) contains a phrase that we believe could be interpreted to preclude fitment of these locks for USA cars:

"At the same time, by affording occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicle, a reasonable means of escape is provided for such occupants in the post crash phase of an accident." (Emphasis added).

We would like a clear statement that such a system as described above would not contravene the requirements of FMVSS 206.

On behalf of Jaguar Cars Yours sincerely,

C.D. Black

Manager - Engineering CDB:as Legislation & Compliance

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS

Attach.

ID: nht87-1.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Karl-Heinz Ziwica -- Manager, Environmental Engineering, BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/10/74 letter from Lawrence R. Schneider to city of Philadelphia; 12/15/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr. to Bud Shuster

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Manager, Environmental Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, NJ 07645

This letter concerns your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, as it applies to the antitheft device BMW intends to install on the Carline 7 passenger car line for model year 1988. We apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry.

On October 9, 1986, NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register granting BMW's petition for an exemption from the marking requirements of the vehicle theft prevention standard, based on its determination that an effective antitheft device will be in stalled on those lines as standard equipment. (51 FR 36333.) However, because NHTSA wished to further consider the compliance of the double-lock aspect of the central locking system with Standard No. 206, we granted the petition while reserving decision on that issue. We have completed our evaluation of the double-lock system and have determined it is permitted by the standard.

In its petition for the marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard, BMW described an antitheft device which, among other things, prevents entry into the vehicle by affecting the door locks in the following manner:

The inside locking mechanism operating means is a vertical plunger on each door, and the plungers on the front doors override the two rear door plungers. To prevent locking the keys in the car upon exiting, the front doors can only be locked with a key. for convenience, this also locks all the other doors; if they are open at the time of locking, they lock when closed.

The locks in the front doors have three-position cylinders - off, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees. Upon exiting, if the key is turned 45 degrees and removed from the lock, the doors, trunk and gas filler door are locked. If, however, the key is rotated 90 deg rees and removed, the car's burglar alarm is armed and the doors are "double locked"; after the plungers move downward, the central locking system is deactivated and the door locks are mechanically inhibited. Thus locked, neither an outside nor inside ha ndle, nor a locking plunger can be used to unlock a door - the doors can only be unlocked and the alarm disarmed using a key in a front door lock... Disconnecting the battery does not unlock the doors or change the "double locked" mode... In the event of an accident, an inertia switch automatically unlocks all doors.

The requirements of Standard No. 206 for door locks are as follows:

S4.1.3 Door locks. Each door shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 Side front door locks. When the locking mechanism is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative.

S4.1.3.2 Side rear door locks. In passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles, when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release controls shall be inoperative.

The standard was amended on April 27, 1968, to include the door lock requirements described above. An objective of the amendment was to ensure retention of occupants within the vehicle during and subsequent to an impact by reducing inadvertent door openi ngs due to impact upon or movement of inside or outside door handles. other objectives were to protect against children opening rear door handles, and to afford occupants of the rear of a vehicle a method of unlocking the rear door from inside the vehicl e (i.e., a reasonable means of escape) in the postcrash phase of an accident.

Your inquiry raises the issue of the permissibility under S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 for negating the capability of the operating means to disengage requisite door locking mechanisms. As explained below, based on our review of the purpose of Standard No. 20 6 and past NHTSA interpretations of the standard, we conclude that the standard prohibits only additional locking systems which interfere with the capability of the operating means to engage the locking system required by the standard. Since according to your letter of September 24, 1986, BMW's double-lock feature does not interfere with the interior operating means' engagement of the required door locks, the secondary locking system is permitted.

The answer to your question about the double lock system is dependent on whether the system interferes with an aspect of performance required by Standard No. 206. We have determined that the answer is no, because the requirements of S4.1.3.1 and S4.1.3.2 of the standard are written in terms of what must occur when the required locking system is engaged and impose no requirements for the effects of disengaging the system. Thus, the aspect of performance required by S4.1.3 for the interior operating means for the door locks is that it be capable only of engaging the required door locking mechanisms. The aspect of performance required by S4.1.3.2 for door locks on the rear doors is that the inside and outside door handles be inoperative when the locking m echanism is engaged. Since we have determined that S4.1.3 through S4.1.3.2 do not address the effects of disengaging the required door locks, we conclude that the required aspect of performance in S4.1.3 for door locking mechanisms is that the interior o perating means be capable only of engaging the locks. We thus conclude that the standard permits an additional door locking device which might interfere with the disengagement of the required locking system. The additional system, however, must not inter fere with the capability of the operating means to engage the required door locks.

In determining that the performance requirements of Standard No. 206 address only the effects of engaging the required door locks, we noted that the purpose of the standard is to "minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a re sult of impact." Throughout the rulemaking history of the standard, NHTSA has limited application of the standard's performance requirements only to doors that are provided for the purpose of retaining the driver and passengers in collisions. Because the standard is narrowly focused on occupant retention in a vehicle and specifies no performance requirements for occupant egress, we concluded that there is no requirement in the standard that prohibits a device which negates the capability of the inside o perating means for the door locks to disengage the locks, provided that the device does not interfere with the engagement of the required door locking system.

This letter interprets Standard No. 206 in a manner that clarifies past agency statements on issues raised by secondary locking systems. To the extent that the statements contained herein conflict with interpretations issued in the past, the previous int erpretations are overruled.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Brian McLaughlin, NHTSA

RE: BMW Petition for Exemption from Part 541 - Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

Dear Mr. McLaughlin:

In our recent telephone conversation, you informed us of NHTSA's reservation about BMW's double-lock feature as described in our petition for exemption from Part 541.

In particular, you indicated concern about the compliance aspect of this feature with FMVSS 206, S4.1.3.

We ask that you consider the following, which shows why the door lock and anti-theft system is in compliance, is safe, and has potential for saving lives by deterring theft.

DESCRIPTION OF DOOR LOCKING SYSTEM IN NEW BMW CARLINE 7

The new BMW Carline 7 passenger car is a four-door sedan with a standard central locking system and an auxiliary anti-theft system incorporating, among other things, a double-lock feature. This additional feature ensures significantly greater security ag ainst attempts of unauthorized persons to open the doors when the car is parked. While the double-lock feature is separate from the central locking system, it is natural to combine it into the total locking system for convenient but distinct operation.

CENTRAL LOCKING SYSTEM

The locks in the front doors have three-position cylinders - off, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees. The locking mechanism of the central locking system is activated by rotating the key 45 degrees in either the driver's door or the front passenger door lock. Th e inside locking mechanism operating means is a vertical-moving plunger on each of the four doors. If raised, the plunger allows opening the door via either inside or outside door handle. In the lowered position, the door cannot be opened by using either the inside or outside door handle.

If any of the four plungers is pushed down into the lowered position by an occupant of the car, it can easily be raised again by that person inside the car. Occupants can lock and unlock the back doors individually via the door plungers, or all doors sim ultaneously using the plunger on either front door.

To prevent locking the key in the car upon exiting, the car can only be locked by using the ignition key in a front door after the door has been closed.

Upon exiting, if the key is turned 45 degrees in the lock and removed in the conventional manner, all four door plungers are lowered, the doors are locked and the door plungers remain operable.

ANTI-THEFT LOCKING

If the key is rotated twice as far as the normal locking position, past the detent to the 90 degree position and removed from the lock, the doors are "double-locked"; the plungers remain lowered and, additional to the central locking system, the door loc ks are mechanically inhibited. In this mode, the door plungers cannot be moved from their lowered position, and neither an outside nor inside handle, nor a locking plunger can be used to deactivate the theft system - it can only be deactivated by using t he key in a front door lock. This prevents use of a slimjim, or slipping in a wire to lift a plunger, and prevents opening a door by breaking a window and reaching in to use a door handle or plunger.

SYSTEM COMPLIES WITH STANDARD AND ITS INTENT

FMVSS 206, 54.1.3 requires each door to have a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of vehicle.

S4.1.3.1 defines the function of the operating means to be the engaging of the locking mechanism by requiring the front door locking mechanism to make the outside door handle inoperative. From the disengaged condition, the BMW door lock can be engaged at all times, thus locking the outside door handle as required by S4.1.3.1.; the double-lock feature, then, in no way interferes with the lock's capability of being engaged at any time.

The stated purpose, "S1 ... to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact.", shows that the standard was not intended to ensure occupant egress, but to prevent the occupant from being ejected from the vehicle under certain circumstances. Further support for this is provided by NHTSA's May 10, 1974 letter of interpretation to the City of Philadelphia, wherein it is stated that FMVSS 206 does not require inside door handles, and that no federal standard requir es window handles.

The entire history of this rulemaking points toward this objective. In 34FR158 of Aug. 19, 1969 the Agency stated the standard's purpose succinctly, "... retaining the driver and passengers in case of collision...", and in 36FR1913 of Feb. 3, 1971, "... intended to afford protection against ejection through side doors ...". The agency thus has demonstrated that FMVSS 206 does not address egress from the vehicle, but rather the prevention of being thrown from the vehicle during an accident. NHTSA has not in the intervening 12 years since provided otherwise by amending this standard.

Our lock fully complies with this intention. In the engaged position, the BMW door lock disables the outer door handle to prevent occupants from being ejected during impact and the double-lock in no way interferes with the lock's capability of being enga ged to make the outside door handle inoperative.

Also, the requirement of the standard to have an operating means inside the vehicle presupposes that there is someone inside the vehicle to operate this means. Our door lock system complies with that requirement of FMVSS 206. When a vehicle is parked and left unattended, the driver may activate, in addition to the vehicle's normal locking mechanism, a vehicle anti-theft system. This system, which has an integrated double-lock feature, is not used when the vehicle is occupied. The Owner's Handbook will c aution the vehicle operator to activate the anti-theft system only when the vehicle is parked and left unattended, much the same as the Handbook warns against removal of the ignition key when the vehicle is in motion, because the anti-theft steering lock would be engaged and the vehicle rendered unsteerable.

It is further our position that the double-lock is an additional feature that does not prevent the primary lock from complying, much like the child safety lock, which, although it does not interfere with the operation of the locking mechanism per se, pre vents the opening of the door. In that respect the child safety lock has greater egress consequences, since it is intended to be in operation when the vehicle is occupied.

GUARDED AGAINST ENTRAPMENT

The operating means of the anti-theft system also provides security against entrapment. In order to activate the anti-theft system from inside the vehicle, the ignition key is required. For the vehicle to be driven with the anti-theft system activated, t he driver would have to use the key to start the engine, open a window, turn off the engine, remove the key from the ignition switch, open,and close the door, reach through the open window, insert the key in an outside door lock, turn the key past the de tent to the 90 degree position, remove the key, and reinsert it in the ignition switch and restart the engine - A MOST IMPROBABLE SCENARIO.

Further when the engine is running, or the key is in the accessory position, the doors cannot be double-locked, even if a second key is used in a door lock cylinder. The double-lock system cannot be engaged until the key is removed from the ignition and the driver's door is then opened and reclosed.

The lock inhibit position can only be achieved by inserting the ignition key in the outside keyhole of a front door and rotating the key past the detent through 90 degrees. In this condition, for anti-theft purposes, all plungers are lowered, and plunger s and inside and outside door handles are locked in position, and no door can be opened. Standing at the side of the car while locking the door with the key. a person can easily see the entire inside of the vehicle, including any person inside and a blin king warning light on top of the dashboard indicating that the anti-theft system is engaged. Thus, the probability of a person accidently being locked inside is virtually nil.

Because a passerby can also see into the passenger compartment, intentional entrapment in the passenger compartment is equally unlikely considering the availability of the car's trunk for that purpose. In this connection, we note that in 49FR47276 of Dec ember 3, 1984, NHTSA denied a petition for rulemaking that would have required a handle on the inside of a car's trunk lid, on the basis that entrapment is extremely unlikely. We submit that entrapment inside the passenger compartment is even less likely and therefore not a real concern.

DOUBLE-LOCK SYSTEM WILL SAVE LIVES

In the letter of interpretation of December 15, 1978 to Congressman Bud Shuster, NHTSA conceded that there are competing safety considerations involved with front door locks.

During the rulemaking process for FMVSS 114, Theft Protection, NHTSA made the point that stolen cars are much more likely to be involved in accidents than unstolen cars. In 43FR18578 of May 1, 1978, and again in 45FR85450 of December 29, 1980, NHTSA stat es that stolen cars are 47 to 200 times more likely to be in an accident.

There is no question that the double-lock system will make it extremely difficult for an unauthorized entry into the vehicle and therefore will significantly reduce auto theft. Based on NHTSA's own accident analysis of stolen vs. unstolen vehicles, we ca n only conclude that the BMW door lock system will save more lives than a vehicle without such a feature. Further, this anti-theft device has received no objection in Europe, Japan, Australia and other countries having a type-approval procedure and we st rongly believe that the effectiveness of the system together with the overall safety benefit it provides, due to the reduced theft rate, should not be compromised for some perceived negative impact the system might have in the unlikely event of misuse.

Since this is such an important issue to us, we ask you to hold our petition in abeyance if you still have concern.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Very truly yours,

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Environmental Engineering

See 5/10/74 letter from Lawrence R. Schneider to City of Philadelphia and 12/15/78 letter from J.J. Levin, Jr. to Bud Shuster.

ID: nht87-1.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: George Ziolo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. George Ziolo 16182 Arena Drive Ramona, CA 92005

Dear Mr. Ziolo:

This letter responds to your inquiry concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111. I apologize for the delay. As I understand your question, you are concerned with a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror apparently does not meet the fiel d-of-view specifications in S5.1 of FMVSS 111 and therefore that must have an outside passenger side mirror in order to comply with the standard. You wish to know whether the need to inscribe the convex mirror in accordance with S5.4.2 is eliminated when the passenger side of the car has both a complying mirror of unit magnification and a convex mirror.

Please understand that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to ensure that its vehicle or equipment complies with applicable standards. Therefore, this letter is an opinion based on the facts you provide in your letter.

The answer to your question is "yes." The passenger side of a new car would need an outside convex mirror inscribed in accordance with S5.4.2 only if its inside rearview mirror failed to meet the S5.1.1 field of view specifications, and the manufacturer chose to comply with the requirement of S5.3 for an outside passenger side mirror by installing a convex passenger-side mirror rather than a unit magnification passenger-side mirror. S5.4 provides that the requirements in S5.4.1 - S5.4.3 are applicable t o a convex mirror only if that mirror is used to comply with S5.3. In your example, a mirror of unit magnification is used to comply with S5.3. I should add that the manufacturer would have to ensure that installing the convex mirror does not take the mi rror of unit magnification out of compliance with FMVSS 111.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

GEORGE ZIOLO 16182 ARENA DRIVE RAMONA, CA 92065 619-789-9792

Office of the Chief Counsel US DOT/NHTSA 400 7th St SW Washington, DC 20590

Subj: FMVSS 111

A convex mirror installed in accordance with (IAW) S5.3 must meet S5.4.2 (inscription)

Mirrors installed IAW S6 must meet S6.1(a) or (b); the latter makes no mention of a convex mirror.

I have observed that vehicles falling into the category specified in S6 are sold with mirrors meeting S6.1.(b). However, in addition to mirrors of unit maginification, convex mirrors are also installed but they do not bear the inscription mentioned in S5 .4.2 (bear no inscription).

It therefore appears to me that when a mirror of unit magnification is supplemented by a convex mirror, the latter need not meet the inscription requirement of S5.4.2.

The question therefore arises whether the above would as well apply to vehicles falling into the category of S5 - passenger cars. That is to say, is the need for the inscription (S5.4.2) eliminated when there is installed a mirror of unit magnification in addition to a convex mirror.

Please advise me of your opinion in this matter.

Sincerely,

GEORGE ZIOLO DOT Paperwork Processor

ID: nht87-1.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/14/87

FROM: J. MIKE CALLAHAN -- PRECISION IMAGES

TO: TAYLOR VINSON -- LEGAL COUNSEL

TITLE: FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/11/88 TO J MIKE CALLAHAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2), STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 11/19/87 TO ROGER M. COX, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 09/03/87 TO DAVID M. ROMANSKY, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson:

Reference FMVSS108, I am representing a company that will be selling plastic name plates which would be installed behind the red lens of the third brake light. These are to be sold to new car dealerships. When the driver of the car steps on the brake t he dealer's name lights up.

I need letters regarding the legality of the name plates for the following states:

Washington Oregon California Arizona Montana Idaho Nevada North Dakota South Dakota Wyoming Colorado Kansas Oklahoma Iowa Illinois Utah New Mexico Louisiana Arkansas Missouri Wisconsin Minnesota Texas Nebraska

I would appreciate any help you can offer.

Thanking you in advance.

Sincerely,

DEALER ADS,INC

DEALER ADS BRINGS YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE YOUR NAME

LIGHTED

SEEN 50,000 TIMES PER YEAR 400,000 TIMES AVE. LIFE OF CAR

FOR SO LITTLE YOU WON'T BELIEVE IT!!!

INSTALL IN HIGH MOUNT STOP LIGHT

1. MEETS ALL FEDERAL D.O.T. FMVSS 108 (LOCATION IS CONSIDERED AN AUXILIARY LIGHT AND AS SUCH COMPLIES WITH STATE LAWS ALSO.)

2. INSTALLS IN MINUTES (PART OF DEALER PREP).

3. MORE CUSTOMER ACCEPTANCE THAN STANDARD DEALER ATTACHED ADVERTISING.

NEW IMPROVED DEALER ADVERTISING! WILL BE SEEN DAY AND NIGHT! COST EFFECTIVE!!!! SEEN THOUSANDS TIME MORE THAN OTHER FORMS OF ADVERTISING

YOUR LOCAL DISTRIBUTER IS Mike & Cindi Callahan PHONE BOX 5524 KENT, WA. 98064-5524 206-631-0693

ID: nht87-1.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/87

FROM: Erika Z. Jones -- NHTSA

TO: Jim Bates -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Jim Bates United States House of Representatives 430 Davidson Street Suite A Chula Vista, CA 92010 Dear Mr. Bates:

This responds to your letter on behalf of a constituent, Tatar Osman. Mr. Osman was interested in learning how to get an "approval" for a child seat. According to advertising literature you enclosed with your letter, this child seat complies with the Eur opean ECE Regulation 44. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations.

In enforcing its safety standards, this agency does not follow the European practice of requiring the manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment to deliver an item of the equipment to specified institutes for testing before the product can be sold. Instead, as required by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer itself must certify that each of its items of motor vehicle equipment fully satisfies all requirements of the Applicable Federal motor vehicle standards. In the case of c hild seats, every child restraint system for use in motor vehicles that is sold in or imported into the United States must be certified as complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213 (copy enclos ed). This standard sets forth both performance and labelling requirements that must be satisfied by the child restraint system.

Further, this agency does not require that the manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests of the child restraint system or any tests at all. Pursuant to the Vehicle Safety Act, we only require that the certification be made with the exercise of due care on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its child restraint system complies with Standard No. 213. We would certainly recommend, however, that a manufacturer selling its child restraint systems in the United States for the first time test those systems according to the test procedures specified in Standard No. 213. Once the manu facturer has determined that its child restraint system complies with the requirements of Standard No. 213, it certifies that compliance by placing a certification label on the child restraint, as specified in section S5.5 of Standard No. 213.

There are two additional regulations you should bring to the attention of your constituent in the even he plans to import these child restraints into the United States. Copies of both these regulations are enclosed for your information. The first is 49 C FR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This regulation requires a manufacturer (including importer) of motor vehicle equipment to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the equipment it manufactures (or imports) to this agency within 30 days of the date the child restraints are first manufactured (Imported into the United States).

The second regulation in 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Section 551.45 requires the actual manufacturer of foreign-manufactured child restraints to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of proce ss in this country. It is not necessary for an importer located within this country to designate its own agent as well. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent by the manufacturer must contain the following six items of information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding upon the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, tradenames, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's child restraint systems that do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by the manufacturer, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

Such a designation must be received by this agency before any of the manufacturer's child restraint systems are imported into this country.

Should you need further information on this subject, or a clarification of any of the information set forth herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel cc: Washington Office

March 4, 1987

Edward P. Harrill Congressional Relations Consumer Product Safety Commission 5401 Westbard Ave. Bethesda, MD 20207

Dear Mr. Harrill:

I was recently contacted by a constituent, Tatar Osman, regarding an approval for a babyseat, advertising attached.

I would greatly appreciate your looking into this matter and providing me with a reply so that I might properly respond to the inquiry. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact Marie Scharfenberg of m y district office at 691-1166.

Thank you for your assistance. Please respond to me at 430 Davidson St., Suite A, Chula Vista, CA 92010.

Sincerely, J.M. BATES Member of Congress Attachment (SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC PICTURES)

ID: nht87-1.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Dawn B. Brown

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dawn B. Brown Currier, Zall & Shepard 207 Main Street P. O. Box L Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-2938

Dear Ms. Brown:

This responds to your January 2, 1987 letter asking a number of questions concerning certain aspects of automatic transmissions. You ask first if there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) relating to the permissibility of a transmission de sign which allows a driver to remove the key from the ignition while the transmission is in drive. You state your belief that "Standard 114, 49 CFR 571.113 is relevant," and ask whether that standard ever has been interpreted for a purpose other than to prevent unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. (We assume that the citation of 571.113 instead of 571.114 was a typographical error.) You ask further if there are any Federal safety standards that address whether a vehicle should "jump from park to drive when left in park." Finally, you ask whether there are standards other then 114 "that govern these problems."

As it is currently written, Standard 114 requires a manufacturer to install a key-locking system that prevents starting a vehicle engine and also prevents either, steering a vehicle or moving a vehicle forward under its own power whenever the key is removed. Thus, the standard does not directly require that the vehicle be in park before a driver can remove the ignition key.

In 1968, when Standard 114 was adopted, the stated purpose was to "reduce the incidence of accidents resulting from unauthorized (motor vehicle) use." 33 Federal Register 6471, April 27, 1968. The agency based this goal on evidence showing that: "Cars operated by unauthorized persons are far more likely to cause unreasonable risk of accident, personal injury and death than those which are driven by authorized individuals." (See the preceding citation). Neither the Standard nor the language in the preamble to it states any other goal.

In 1980, this agency amended Standard 114 to prevent a driver from inadvertently locking the steering wheel of a moving vehicle by removing the ignition key or shutting off the engine (45 Federal Register 85450, December 29, 1980). However, after receivi ng petitions for reconsideration and studying the question further, NHTSA decided that while this kind of inadvertent activation might be a safety problem in certain vehicles, the problem did not then warrant requiring additional steps to protect against inadvertent ,lock-up. Therefore, the agency rescind the 1980 amendment. The agency stated that it would continue to monitor complaints on the subject, and infiltrate rulemaking should new data warrant it ( 46 Federal Register 32251, 32253, June 22, 1981 ).

Currently the agency is re-evaluating whether data warrants amending Standard 114 to improve key-locking systems by reducing the prospect of a driver's inadvertently locking the steering column while a motor vehicle is moving.

As to your question about the existence of a FMVSS which directly addresses the permissibility of a design which allows a car to jump from "park" to "drive" when a driver leaves the car in "park", the answer is there is no such standard. However, NHTSA h as received a number of letters complaining of this phenomenon and, using its authority not only to issue FMVSS but also require the recall and remedy of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects, has conducted investigations based on these comp laints. A listing of the defect investigations based on these complaints. A listing of the defect investigations can be obtained from: Technical Reference Division, NHTSA, Room 5108, 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SouthWest Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Dear Ms. Jones:

Dear Ms. Jones:

I would like to obtain some information about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. First, I would like to know if there are any federal motor vehicle safety standards governing whether a vehicle with an automatic transmission must be in park before th e driver should be able to get the keys out of the ignition. In other words, are there any standards regulating whether or not a driver should be able to pull the keys out of the ignition of a vehicle when it is in drive as opposed to being in park. Seco nd, I would like to know whether there are any federal safety standards which deal with whether or not a vehicle should be able to jump from park to drive when left in park.

Please let me know whether there are any federal standards governing these questions. I am particularly interested in finding out whether Standard 114, 49 CFR 571.113 is relevent. I understand that the purpose of this particular standard is to prevent th e unauthorized use of motor vehicles, but I would like to know whether it has ever been interpreted for another purpose. I would also like to know whether there are other standards, besides Standard 114, that governs these problems. Any information you c an provide will be appreciated. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Dawn B. Brown

ID: nht87-1.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Koji Tokunaga

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

This letter responds to your inquiry of June 25, 1986, requesting an interpretation of S4.5 of Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number--Basic Requirements, regarding the "part of the vehicle" on which the vehicle identification number (VIN) shoul d appear. I regret the delay in replying to your letter.

You ask whether either of two specific locations within the passenger compartment of a vehicle would meet the VIN location requirement, and submit diagrams of these locations. Paragraph S4.5 of Standard No. 115 reads:

"The VIN of each vehicle shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part."

You state in your letter that your concern is whether a VIN or a plate or label with the VIN affixed to it, may be "fitted to a part that is not designed to be removed except for repair but that can be replaced by a new part as a result of the repair."

We interpret S4.5 to require that the VIN be placed on a part that is designed to be removed only for the purpose of repairing (or replacing) that part. Thus, the VIN may not be placed on a part which is designed to be removed to allow the maintenance or repair of other parts.

The first location you describe is the instrument panel front cover. That cover is a plastic strip immediately behind and below the inner surface of the front windshield, and it appears from your diagram that the part is designed to be removed only for i ts repair or replacement. If that is correct, placing the VIN at this location would meet the requirement of S4.5.

The second location is the top of the meter upper hood. On your diagram, this location seems to be on the plastic cover for the speedometer and tachometer. It appears from the diagram that the meter upper hood is designed to be removed to permit the repa ir or maintenance of those meters or other parts of the dash board. If this is the case, then this location would not comply.

As a separate matter, we note from your diagram that the meter hood location may be in a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, or light truck. If that is so, you must meet both the S4.5 requirement with respect to placement of the VIN, and the r eadability requirement of S4.6.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 25, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Subject: Confirmation of NHTSA's Interpretation of our Request

The attached letter, DE-85-181, requested your agency's interpretation regarding "a part of the vehicle" where the vehicle identification number (VIN) is required to appear.

We mailed this letter last August. However, we have not received your interpretation. On June 24th and 25th, Mr. Imai or Isuzu Motors America, spoke with your secretary and was informed that you do not have any record of this request. Therefore, we are s ending this letter again. Please check your records and please forward your interpretation.

We would appreciate your response as soon as possible.

If you have any questions, please contact us.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering

August 26. 1985

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Subject: VIN Durability.

The purpose of this letter is to request your agency's interpretation regarding "a part of the vehicle" where the vehicle identification number (VIN) is required to appear.

FMVSS 115. S4.5 requires a VIN to be fitted to "...a part of the vehicle...that is not designed to be removed except for repair Our concern is whether the VIN may be fitted to a part that is not designed to be removed except for repair but that can be re placed by a new part as a result of the repair. In the context of a specific vehicle, we would request you to advise us whether it meets the requirement to affix the VIN or a VIN plate or label to either of the following parts in the locations shown in t he attached fig. 1 and 2:

1. Instrument panel front cover (Fig. 1)

This cover is made of plastics and can be detached from the vehicle by removing a clip on each side and the three screws shown. There is a possibility, although not great, of this cover being replaced by a new cover when damaged or badly stained.

2. Meter upper hood (Fig. 2)

This hood is also made of plastics, and can be detached from the vehicle by removing the four screws shown. The possibility of this hood being replaced is still smaller but not nil.

We would appreciate your prompt confirmation as to whether affixing the VIN to these parts meets the requirements of S4.5 of FMVSS 115.

Sincerely yours.

Koji Tokunaga Manager. Engineering

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS