ID: nht94-7.23

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: Tilman Spingler -- Robert Bosch GMBH

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 108, S4.Definitions, Integral Beam Headlamp Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/94 from John Womack to Tilman Spingler (A42; Std. 108)

TEXT:

In this paragraph an integral beam headlamp is defined to be an indivisible optical assembly of lightsource, reflector and lens. In the case of High Intensity Discharge Headlamps where the lightsource is comprised of a bulb and associated electronic modules, it may in some cases not be feasible to integrate the ignition module and the control module in the headlamp housing because of space limitations. In the letter to TOYOTA of March 1991 these modules were permitted to be separately located, but permanently attached by cable at the time of assembly. When the ignition module is installed inside and the control module outside the headlamp housing they will be connected by a 4-core cable in one design. Are there requirements for this cable concerning indivisibility and integration, for example, may it be of the following? - soft cable, resistant to abrasion? - hard cable, resistant to cutting and abrasion? - armored cable? Maximum voltage on 2 cores will be 130 V AC in the on-mode of the headlamp, on the 2 other cores 400 V AC for 700 msec during ignition of the light source. These voltages are much lower than voltages on ignition cables for motor vehicle engines.

ID: nht94-7.24

DATE: March 25, 1994

FROM: James Ackley -- Region 4 Director; Carol Baumhauer -- Counselor; Krista D. Subler -- Counselor -- Small Business Development Center, Upper Valley JVS Business Development Center

TO: John E. Boehner

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/25/94 Est from John Womack to John A. Boehner (A42; Std. 108; VSA S102(a)(2)(A) and letter dated 4/7/94 from John A. Boehner to Jackie Lowey

TEXT:

We are writing in reference to clients of the Upper Valley Small Business Development Center in Piqua. Mr. John Cail and Mr. James Lipps are inventors with a patent on a product called Life Lites.

Because this system has the potential to save lives, we request your assistance in guiding Mr. Cail and Mr. Lipps through the color code designation process and any other resource possibilities available.

We appreciate your consideration in this matter.

ID: nht94-7.25

DATE: March 24, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary D. March -- Director, Illinois Dept. of Transportation, Division of Traffic Safety (Springfield, IL)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/94 from Gary D. March to John Womack (OCC 9667)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 14, 1994, requesting an explanation of the compliance date for vehicles manufactured in two or more stages of a recent final rule amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992).

The effective date for the November 2 final rule is May 2, 1994. Only vehicles manufactured on or after the effective date of an applicable requirement in a Federal motor vehicle safety standard must comply with that requirement. If a vehicle is manufactured in two or more stages, the final stage manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with "the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion, or a date between those two dates." (49 CFR Part S568.6). The choice of a date is the manufacturers.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.26

DATE: March 24, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Carver -- Product Engineering, Wayne Wheeled Vehicles (Marysville, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/8/94 from Bob Carver to John Womack (OCC 9544)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 8, 1994, asking two questions concerning a recent amendment to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992). Your questions and the response to each follow.

1. There's some confusion here in our engineering department regarding the interpretation of the "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" as it applies to the new side emergency door specification in FMVSS 217. Page 2 shows the allowable obstruction and the context in which "Daylight Opening" and "Unobstructed Opening" are used. Page 3 shows some measurements of our seats placed according to the "30 cm minimum" shown on page 2. Page 4 shows four different interpretations of the "Unobstructed Opening" area. Depending on the interpretation, between 9 and 15 people may be accommodated by a side emergency door. My question is this: of the four possibilities shown, which definition of the "Unobstructed Opening" area is correct? Mr. Hott indicated definition 4.

The term "daylight opening" is defined in the Final Rule as "the maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening." An obstruction in this context would include any obstacle or object that would block, obscure, or interfere with, in any way, access to that exit when opened. In determining the "maximum unobstructed opening of an emergency exit," we would subtract, from the total area of the opening, the area of any portions of the opening that cannot be used for exit purposes as a result of the obstruction. The area measurements would be taken when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the plane of the opening.

Your question specifically concerns how the "maximum unobstructed opening" of a side door is measured when the opening is partially obstructed by a seat. In the case of the illustrated door exit, occupants would use the exit by movement along the floor. This would be considered in determining the extent of an obstruction. None of the four examples you enclosed with your letter correctly illustrates the area that would be credited for the illustrated exit. The following regions would not be credited for this exit: (1) the area visually obstructed by the seat; (2) your region A 2, an area bounded by a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, a vertical line tangent to the rearmost portion of the top of the seat, the upper edge of the door opening, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; (3) your region A 5, an area bounded by the seat back, a horizontal line tangent to the top of the seat back, and the edge of the door forward of the seat; and (4) your region A 8, an area bounded by the seat leg, the floor, the lower edge of the seat bottom, and the edge of the door forward of the seat. Because the seat would make the last three regions unusable as exit space for a person traveling along the floor of the bus towards the exit, they would not be credited for that exit.

You should be aware that the agency published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 217 on December 1, 1993 (58 FR 63321). The notice proposed two alternate means for determining the maximum amount of area that will be credited for all types of emergency exits on school buses. The agency is currently reviewing the comments received in response to this notice. I am enclosing a copy of this notice.

2. Here is an excerpt from FMVSS 217 S5.5.3(a):

"Each school bus ....shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" as appropriate, .... For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus.... For emergency window exits, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, or at the bottom of the emergency window exit on both the inside and outside surfaces of the bus."

I've seen a two-sided sticker used by other bus manufacturers. It is applied on the inside surface of a window and the same image "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit" can be read from both inside and outside the bus. Is it permissible for us to use this sort of decal, assuming it meets all other (i.e., FMVSS 302)?

The answer to your question is yes. The agency addressed this issue in an October 2, 1978, letter to Mr. E.M. Ryan of Ward Industries, Inc. I am enclosing a copy of this letter.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-7.27

DATE: March 24, 1994

FROM: Marvin A. Leach -- Regional Program Manager, Region VIII, NHTSA

TO: Robert Hellmuth -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/14/94 from John Womack to Robert L. Montgomery (A42; Std. 108; VSA Sec 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

3/24/94 LETTER FROM REGION VIII MANAGER MARVIN A. LEACH TO ROBERT HELLMUTH:

Dear Mr. Hellmuth:

Please find enclosed a request for information related to the conspicuity rule, from a local business in Denver. Since they are requesting an opinion, it is beyond the scope of our office to assist. They have forwarded considerable detail and I hope you will be able to be of assistance.

We have had a number of requests for information on the rule, and in most instances sending a copy has sufficed.

I know your assistance will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Marvin A. Leach, D.Ed.

3/24/94 LETTER FROM REGION VIII MANAGER MARVIN LEACH TO ROBERT MONTGOMERY:

Dear Mr. Montgomery:

It will not be possible to answer your "conspicuity" question from our office here in Denver. I have forwarded your letter and pictures to the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance in Washington, and asked them to respond to your request.

I hope this will provide the information your need and thank you for your interest in highway safety.

Sincerely,

Marvin A. Leach, D.Ed.

3/9/94 LETTER FROM ROBERT MONTGOMERY TO MIKE BAKER:

Mr. Mike Baker, State Director Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 555 Zang St

Lakewood, CO 80228

REF: 49 CFR Part 571 - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment

Dear Mr. Baker:

I am enclosing two photos. Photo number one depicts the conspicuity stripes as they come from the manufacturer. They are mounted on the Doors at a height of 56 inches which is approximately 6 inches higher than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated. As you can see, it is necessary to offset the rear red and orange logo striping so that the stripes no longer make an even continuous line around the trailer.

Photo number two depicts the rear of an identical trailer where the reflectorized material was installed between and in line with the taillight assemblies. This installation is 46 inches which is 4 inches less than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated. The material DOES NOT extend form the extreme edges of the trailer as in photo number one.

S5.6.1.4.1 allows for "as close as practical" to both height and width.

We would, of course, prefer to equip the rear of our trailers as depicted in photo number two: 1) To avoid the need to offset our red and orange reflectorized striping and 2) to bring the conspicuity striping down more to eye level and in line with the rear lamps.

The diagram provided in the register does show the reflectorized striping from edge-to-edge but the artist failed to consider the bumper bar area and the light assemblies that are actually on a van and which basically interferes with proper height and width placement on most trailers.

Would it be possible to obtain a written interpretation as to the legality of compliance with the regulation as to the installation of the reflectorized striping shown in photo number two, in a prompt and timely manner.

Thank you. Sincerely,

Robert L. Montgomery, Safety Manager Leprino Transportation Division

ATTACHMENT:

58414 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 238 / Thursday, 12-10-92 / Rules and Regulations. (Text omitted.)

ID: nht94-7.28

DATE: March 23, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard A. Zander -- AlliedSignal Automotive Proving Grounds (New Carlisle, IN)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/19/93 from Richard A. Zander to NHTSA Office of Chief Council

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the fade and recovery requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. I apologize for the delay in our response. You noted that the standard requires vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to be capable of making a specified number of fade stops "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop." You stated that you are aware of a number of different understandings within the industry of the quoted phrase, and requested an interpretation as to whether vehicles must be capable of maintaining an average deceleration of at least 15 fpsps or a minimum deceleration of at least 15 fpsps. As discussed below, vehicles must be capable of maintaining a minimum deceleration of at least 15 fpsps.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1381, et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 105's fade and recovery test requirements are set forth in S5.1.4. These requirements must be met under the conditions prescribed in S6, when tested according to the procedures set forth in S7. See S5.1. The purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

The standard specifies two fade and recovery tests for vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Each of the fade and recovery tests consists of three parts: (1) baseline check stops, (2) fade stops, and (3) recovery stops. The requirements for the fade stops are set forth in S5.1.4.2(a), which states that:

Each vehicle with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs or less shall be capable of making 5 fade stops (10 fade stops on the second test) from 60 mph at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop, followed by 5 fade stops at the maximum deceleration attainable from 5 to 15 fpsps."

As noted, S5.1.4.2(a) must be read in conjunction with S7.11.2.1, which sets forth the procedure for conducting the fade stops. It reads, in relevant part, as follows:

Make 5 stops from 60 mph at 15 fpsps followed by 5 stops at the maximum attainable deceleration between 5 and 15 fpsps for each stop. ... Attain the REQUIRED DECELERATION within 1 second and, AS A MINIMUM, MAINTAIN IT for the remainder of the stopping time.

Control force readings may be terminated when the vehicle speed falls to 5 mph. (Emphasis added.)

The words "required deceleration" in S7.11.2.1 refer to 15 fpsps. (That value is set forth both in S5.1.4.2(a) and the first sentence of S7.11.2.1.) Thus, in conducting fade stops, within one second of beginning a stop, a deceleration of 15 fpsps must be attained. S7.11.2.1 then specifies that, "as a minimum," the required deceleration (15 fpsps) must be maintained for the remainder of the stopping time. (The word "it" in the highlighted sentence refers back to the phrase "required deceleration.") Thus, after a deceleration of 15 fpsps is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even momentarily.

You stated that you are aware of the following three understandings within the industry concerning the meaning of this requirement:

1. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps. The average deceleration is calculated one second after the stop begins to a vehicle speed of 5 mph.

2. After 1 second the deceleration can not drop below 15 fpsps even for an instant. If the deceleration drops below 15 fpsps at any time it is considered a failure even if the average deceleration is greater than 15 fpsps.

3. The average deceleration for the stop must be greater than 15 fpsps and the deceleration must be greater than 15 fpsps for at least 75% of the stop excluding the first second of the stop.

Of the three understandings, the first and third are inconsistent with the plain wording of S7.11.2.1 which specifies that, after the required 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), it must, as a MINIMUM, be maintained for the remainder of the stopping time. The first and third understandings would, among other things, replace S7.11.2.1's specification that the 15 fpsps deceleration be maintained as a "minimum" with one that it be maintained as an "average." The second understanding is largely correct. It is correct to state that, in conducting a fade stop, after a 15 fpsps deceleration is attained (within one second of beginning the stop), the deceleration cannot drop below 15 fpsps even

for an instant. However, if the deceleration did drop below 15 fpsps, that would not necessarily indicate a "failure" but might simply be an invalid test. As you note in your letter, a deceleration might fall below 15 fpsps because the driver did not compensate for in-stop fade. However, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

You stated in your letter that the second understanding appears to not consider the intent of the fade procedure, the intent being that a vehicle must be capable of making multiple high deceleration stops in a short period of time without drastic changes in effectiveness. As discussed above, the purpose of the fade and recovery test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving. If a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 105's fade stop test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would indicate inadequate stopping capability during conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

You also stated that in the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, published by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC), the data sheet for the fade stops requests the following information for the deceleration: "Average Sust Decel." You stated that it therefore appears that NHTSA's interpretation of the phrase "at a deceleration not lower than 15 fpsps for each stop" is "the average sustained deceleration."

It is incorrect to interpret the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures as limiting the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I call your attention to the following note which is set forth at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure:

The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s).

In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.

I am enclosing a copy of the most recent version of the Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 105, in response to your request. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Elias of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366- 2992.

ID: nht94-7.29

DATE: March 22, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe Miller -- Product Support Manager, Load King

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/10/93 from Joe Miller to John Womack

TEXT:

This is in response to your FAX December 10, 1993.

You have informed us that Load King manufactures trailers, selling them to a dealer in Minneapolis who, in turn, sells these trailers to customers/ users. You would like the dealer "to do some finish manufacturing for us." "Specifically, you would like the dealer "to paint the trailers, install operational decals and place the conspicuity striping." You ask whether "primed trailers can be moved without conspicuity striping in this case."

The answer is no. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and its regulations, when a completed motor vehicle is delivered to its dealer, it must be certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and it must, in fact, comply with all such standards at the time of delivery. Thus, your trailers are required to be equipped with the conspicuity treatment at the time of shipment since the treatment is a requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The Minneapolis dealer, however, may apply paint and decals since this is not required under Standard No. 108 or any other regulation.

Were the trailer one that is manufactured in more than one stage, our regulations would permit the final stage manufacturer to apply the conspicuity treatment since that manufacturer is required to affix the necessary certification of compliance with all standards upon completion of the final stage of manufacture. However, painting and application of the conspicuity treatment are regarded as minor finishing operations that do not rise to the level of being a separate stage of manufacturing, and this exception is not available under the facts that have been presented to us.

ID: nht94-7.3

DATE: April 5, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Scott Slaughter -- Pitts Enterprises, Inc. (Pittsview, AL)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/2/94 from Scott Slaughter to Marv Shaw (OCC 9654)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether a logging trailer known as the "knuckle boom loader trailer" that you manufacture is a motor vehicle that would have to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You explained that your trailer stays in the woods the majority of its life and is infrequently transported over public roads between job sites. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

This agency interprets and enforces the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety, Act ("Safety Act" 13 U.S.C. S 1392 et seq.) under which the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are promulgated. The Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

"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."

Whether the agency considers your trailer to be a motor vehicle depends on its use. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In contrast are instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the available information, it appears that your trailer is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the Safety Act. This conclusion is based on statements in your letter and brochures that this equipment spends extended periods of time at a single construction site and only uses the public roads infrequently to move between job sites. Thus, the agency would consider the use of your device on the public roads to be incidental and not its primary purpose. Since your trailer is not a motor vehicle, it would not be subject to our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

If the agency were to receive additional information indicating that your trailer used the roads more than on an incidental basis, then the agency would reassess this interpretation. If the agency were to determine that your trailer is a motor vehicle, then the trailer would have to comply with the applicable Standards, including Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which addresses conspicuity, Standard No. 115, Vehicle

Identification Numbers, Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and Standard No. 121 Air Brake System which requires automatic slack adjusters and brakes to act on all wheels.

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

ID: nht94-7.30

DATE: March 22, 1994

FROM: Gerald J. Gannon -- Attorney, GM Legal Staff

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; Stanley Scheiner - Office of Market Incentives; Barbara A. Gray - Office of Market Incentives; Charles W. Babcock, Esq. - General Motors Legal Staff; Milford R. Bennett - General Motors Safety Center; Richard F. Humphrey - General Motors Safety Center; Lorenzo B. Perkins - General Motors Safety Center

TITLE: FMVSS 114 - Automatic Transmission Park-Lock Override

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9-16-94 letter from John Womack to Gerald Gannon (A42; STD. 114)

TEXT: This letter requests the opinion of the Chief Counsel's Office on this question: did the agency intend to require that vehicles with an automatic transmission with a "park" provision must prevent steering after removal of the key in order to have an ignition key-operated transmission shift override device? Uncertainty results from provisions added to FMVSS 114 on March 26, 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 12464, 12469) that were basically continued on January 17, 1992 (57 Fed. Reg. 2039).

BACKGROUND

May 30, 1990

The agency amended FMVSS 114 to require vehicles with an automatic transmission with a "park" position to have a key-locking system that prevents removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. "The amendment is intended to reduce the potential for accidents caused by shifting the transmission lever on parked vehicles with automatic transmissions.", by children (55 Fed. Reg. 21868). In the Preamble the agency approved of an ignition key-operated manual override device:

"The agency has decided that a superior approach is to permit a manual override to the electrical shift system, but only if such an override has to be operated by the key used to control the vehicle." (emphasis added)

(Id. at 21873, left column)

Use of such a key-operated override device was not limited to a vehicle whose steering is prevented after removal of the key.

March 26, 1991

Responding to petitions for reconsideration of the Final Rule, the agency amended the above Final Rule primarily to permit certain key-less override devices so that in the event of electrical failure the ignition key can be removed or the transmission shifted out of "park". This was done because in the event of a battery failure certain vehicle designs would not permit removal of the key from the ignition or shifting the transmission from "park" to facilitate towing. At the same time the agency attempted to add to the regulation permission to use the previously approved ignition key-operated override device (56 Fed. Reg. 12464).

The Preamble to that response states:

One way to prevent access by children and thus vehicle roll-away is to permit an override that is operable only by the vehicle's key because this typically ensures that the override is being activated by an authorized user. The preamble to the final rule explained that such a key-operated override was permissible. Based on the apparent confusion caused by not expressly stating this in the regulatory text, upon reconsideration, the agency has modified Standard No. 114 so that section S4.2.2(b) now states that the means for activating the override device may be operable by the key, as defined in S3 of the standard.

...

The agency emphasizes that the amendment permits a key-less emergency override only if theft protection is ensured by a steering lock. (emphasis added)

(Id at 12466, 12467)

S4.2.2(b) was added to permit moving the automatic transmission shift lever from "park" after removal of the key from the ignition by activating an emergency override device. If the device is activated by the key, as defined in S3, the device need not be covered. If there is a key-less device, the device must be "covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool."

The Preamble to that Final Rule suggests the phrase "provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed" was inadvertently placed as shown below:

(b) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified herein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed. The means for activating the device may be operable by the key, as defined in S3. The device may be operable by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool. (emphasis added)

(Supra at 12469)

However, to be consistent with the Preamble concern about theft protection for only a key-less override device, the phrase should have been located as shown below:

(b) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified herein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key. The means for activating the device may be operable by the key, as defined in S3. Provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed, the device may be operable by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool. (emphasis added)

January 17, 1992

In response to Toyota and Honda's petitions for reconsideration of the March 1991 rule the agency stated "the notice further amends the requirements to provide manufacturers appropriate flexibility while continuing to meet the need for safety" and delayed until September 1, 1993 "the requirement for inaccessibility for the emergency release button on the transmission shift override device". The increased flexibility expressly allows releasing a key in any gear shift position in the event of battery failure. The delay of the requirement to cover a key-less transmission shift override device was intended to help manufacturers unable to meet the September 1, 1992 effective point. (57 Fed. Reg. 2039-40)

At that time the agency reiterated:

The May 1990 final rule permitted only key-based override systems. In response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA also decided to permit key-less overrides that are not visible and are "child-proof". . . . Accordingly, the agency decided to permit key-less override devices only if they are covered by a non-transparent device which, when in place, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool.

(Supra at 2040)

With respect to transmission shift override devices the Final Rule resulting from that rulemaking states:

S4.2.2(b) is revised to read as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or by another means which, when installed, is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

(Supra at 2043 - emphasis added))

OUR INTERPRETATION

We believe that the agency intended to continue to permit use of an ignition key-operated shift override device in all vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" provision. We do not believe that the agency for the first time intended, without comment, to limit a shift override device "operated by the key used to control the vehicle" only to vehicles whose steering is prevented when the key is removed from the ignition. Although the steering prevention concern expressed in the Preamble was confined to key-less shift override devices, the Final Rule might be interpreted to limit even an override device operable by the ignition key to a vehicle whose steering is prevented when the key is removed. However, since an ignition key-operated shift override device requires use of that key, it could also be argued that the key is no longer removed from the vehicle, and is required to be used by someone who is authorized and therefore steering need not be prevented.

SUGGESTION

In the event that the agency concurs with my interpretation, in some future rulemaking the agency may also wish to clarify the regulation as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after removal of the key.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or, provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed, by another means which, when installed, is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

CONCLUSION

General Motors would like the flexibility to offer automatic transmission-equipped vehicles with a "park" position and an ignition key-operated shift override device in vehicles that would only prevent forward self-mobility after key removal as allowed by FMVSS 114 S4.2(b). Repeated Preamble comments regarding such a key-operated override device would permit this design. Your concurrence with this interpretation would be appreciated.

As always, we are prepared to discuss this matter further with you. If there are any questions, please contact me at (313) 974-1610.

ID: nht94-7.31

DATE: March 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dale E. Dawkins -- Director, Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs, Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/7/94 from D. E. Hawkins to John G. Womack (OCC-9540)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of January 7, 1994, requesting confirmation that Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, "would permit the sun visor air bag caution label required in S4.5.1(b) to be combined with the utility vehicle information sticker required by 49 CFR Part 575.105."

Your letter notes that you are aware that both General Motors and Ford petitioned the agency to amend S4.5.1(b)(2) of Standard No. 208, as amended by a September 2, 1993 final rule, to permit the utility vehicle label on the sun visor. A March 10, 1994, final rule responding to the petitions for reconsideration amended S4.5.1(b)(2) to allow the installation of a utility vehicle label that contains the language required by 49 CFR Part 575.105(c)(1).

While the utility vehicle label will continue to be allowed on the sun visor, the language of the final rule does not allow the combination of the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label. The September 2 and March 10 final rules specify (1) that no information other than that in the air bag maintenance label is allowed on the same side of the sun visor as the air bag warning label, and (2) that other than the air bag alert label or a utility vehicle label, no other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor. Thus, the clear language of the final rules do not permit the utility vehicle label and the air bag warning label to be on the same side of the sun visor.

Your letter asked the agency to treat it as a petition for rulemaking if the language of the final rules do not allow combination of the labels. You will be notified of our decision to grant or deny your petition.

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.