ID: nht94-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 22, 1994

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

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

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 igni tion 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 sh ifted 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 attemp ted 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 s tates 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 b e 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 m eans 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 rem ovable 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, a s 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 re movable 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 delaye d 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 fai lure. 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 per mit 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 inst alled, 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 intende d, 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 Prea mble 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-oper ated 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 insta lled, 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 b y 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: nht94-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 18, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Paul L. Anderson -- President, Van-Con, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/2/94 From Paul Anderson To John Womack (OCC-9923)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of May 2, 1994, requesting information on which of the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release (57 FR 49413; November 2, 1992, and 57 FR 57020; December 2, 1992), would appl y to Type A-1 school buses. Your letter notes that Type A-1 school buses have a capacity of 16-20 passengers and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds.

The recent amendments to Standard No. 217 set new requirements for the provision of emergency exits based upon the seating capacity of the school bus (S5.2), set performance requirements for emergency exit window and emergency roof exit release (S5.3), r evised the extension requirements for side doors and set extension requirements for emergency roof exits (S5.4), and revised the identification requirements (S5.5). The effect of each of these amendments on Type A-1 school buses is discussed separately below.

Provision of Emergency Exits (S5.2)

The recent amendments listed above revised S5.2.3 to specify the number and type of exits required on school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. This section states:

The area in square centimeters of the unobstructed openings for emergency exit shall collectively amount to at least 432 times the number of designated seating positions in the bus. The amount of emergency exit area credited to an emergency exit is base d on the daylight opening of the exit opening.

The section also specifies the type of emergency exits which must be installed to meet this requirement. All school buses, including Type A-1 school buses, are required to have either a rear emergency exit door or a side emergency exit door and a rear p ush-out window. These are the same exits required by Standard

2

No. 217 before the recent amendments. After deducting the daylight opening of the front service door and the required exit(s), any remaining exit area must be provided by installing additional exits in the following order: (1) a side emergency exit door , (2) a emergency roof exit, and (3) any combination of emergency exit doors, emergency roof exits, and emergency exit windows.

Please note that, while these new requirements apply to all school buses, it is unlikely that a 20 passenger school bus will require additional exits. Under the new requirements, a school bus with 21 designated seating positions (20 passengers plus the driver) is required to provide 9,072 square centimeters of exit area. A school bus with a front service door and either of the mandatory options (rear emergency exit door or side emergency exit door and rear push-out window) should easily exceed this am ount. To illustrate, in the past, the agency has estimated that the average front service door has a daylight opening of 12,916 square centimeters. For school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, a rear emergency door that is the minimum size re quired to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,270 square centimeters. A side emergency door that is the minimum size required to meet the extension requirements has a daylight opening of 6,954 square centimeters. A rear push-out window that is the minimum size required has a daylight opening of 5,002 square centimeters.

Emergency Exit Release (S5.3)

The recent amendments added performance requirements for the release mechanisms for emergency exit windows and emergency roof exits on school buses. As explained above, the recent amendments should not require either of these types of exits to be instal led on Type A-1 school buses. However, if either of these types of exits are voluntarily installed on Type A-1 school buses, the release mechanisms must comply with these requirements. In the recent amendments to Standard No. 217, some of the performan ce requirements, including the release requirements in S5.3, apply to "each" emergency exit. This language extends these requirements to any emergency exit door in a school bus, including voluntarily installed ones. Other requirements apply to "require d" emergency exits. (See, for example, S5.5.3(c) discussed below.) Those requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits.

Emergency Exit Extension (S5.4)

The amendments of the extension requirements also apply to Type A-1 school buses. The recent amendments revised the extension requirements for side doors on school buses with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) and set extension requirem ents for emergency roof exits on school buses with a GVWR

3

of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds). These amendments also affect school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, as the requirements specify that these vehicles are to comply with the same requirements as school buses with a GVWR of more th an 10,000 pounds (except for the minimum size for rear emergency exit doors).

If a Type A-1 school bus has a side emergency exit door, that exit is required to comply with the amended requirements concerning access to the exit. Under the new requirements, side emergency exit doors are required to provide an opening at least 114 c entimeters high and 61 centimeters wide. In addition, an aisle 30 centimeters wide (referenced to the rear edge of the door) must be provided from the longitudinal centerline of the bus to the exit. A seat bottom is allowed within this aisle if it flip s up when not in use such that it no longer is within the aisle. Finally, no portion of a seat or restraining barrier may block access to the latch.

In addition, if an emergency roof exit is installed in a Type A-1 school bus, it is required to provide an opening at least 41 centimeters high and 41 centimeters wide under the new requirements.

Finally, all emergency exit doors, including emergency exit doors on Type A-1 school buses, are required to have a positive door opening device.

Emergency Exit Identification (S5.5)

Finally, the recent amendments revised the identification requirements (S5.5) for exits on all school buses, including Type A-1 school buses. As revised, each required emergency exit is required to be marked with the words "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit," as appropriate. For emergency exit doors, the location of this marking was not changed by these amendments. For emergency window exits and emergency roof exits, location requirements were added. In addition, each required emergency exit must b e outlined with retroreflective tape. Please note however, that the identification requirements do not apply to voluntarily installed emergency exits (i.e., exits in excess of those required by S5.2.3).

You should be aware that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the retroreflective tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. I have enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, NHTSA will not take enforcement measure s

4

regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

To summarize and answer your specific questions, Type A-1 school buses typically would not be affected by the recent amendment requiring either emergency roof exits or emergency window exits. However, required emergency exits (including a rear emergency exit door) are required to be outlined with retroreflective tape. In addition, all exits (required and voluntary) must comply with the new performance requirements for release and extension.

With respect to your receipt of an oral interpretation from agency staff, I would also like to emphasize that, to the extent there are questions concerning the meaning of any NHTSA standard or regulation, the only agency interpretations which are authori tative and which therefore can be relied upon by manufacturers are those issued in writing by the Chief Counsel. We have reminded agency staff not to make formal, or informal, oral statements that might be misinterpreted by manufacturers as official age ncy guidance on which they may safely rely.

Please note that recent delay of the effective date of the recent amendments applies only to provision of emergency exits (S5.2) (59 FR 22997; May 4, 1994). The other amendments were effective on May 2, 1994. I also note that the May 4 notice does not s tate "that it only applys (sic) to School Buses with capacity of 24 to 90 passengers." The notice does refer to tables in a previous NPRM which listed the types of exits required under the proposal for buses with a capacity in that range.

I have also enclosed a copy of the recent final rules for your use. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosures

ID: 3064yy

Mr. David McCormick
First Company
9571 Alden
Lenexa, KS 66215

Dear Mr. McCormick:

This responds to your letter to Stephen Wood, our Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, seeking information about any provisions of Federal law that might apply to a belt positioning device for children. Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that this device attaches to the seat back of the rear seat and includes an adjustable cushioned head support and an adjustable "convenience center," which serves to reroute the belt to offer a better belt fit for a child occupant of the position.

For your information, I have enclosed two letters in which we have provided a general description of how Federal requirements might apply to belt positioning devices. The first is a February 11, 1988 letter to Mr. Roderick Boutin and the other is a November 22, 1988 letter to Ms. Claire Haven. These letters explain the applicable Federal requirements and the letter to Mr. Boutin sets forth some safety concerns applicable to that particular design. In addition, I have enclosed an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment that explains how to obtain copies of our safety standards and other regulations.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

D. 7/1/91

ID: nht87-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Guy Vander Jagt

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Guy Vander Jagt U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-2209

Dear Mr. Vander Jagt:

Thank you for your November 3, 1986, letter on behalf of your constituent, Miss Reva Darling of Ludington, Michigan, who asked about requirements for safety belts on buses used for school transportation and other purposes. Your letter has been referred t o my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

Miss Darling is interested in extending the applicability of Michigan's safety belt use law to belts on "public" buses. She believes that safety belts should be installed on school buses and buses used by transit and charter companies, and suggests that funding be made available to encourage the installation of belts on those vehicles.

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your inquiry. By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, NHTSA is authorized to develop motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, inclu ding school buses and charter and transit buses. Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type of vehicle; for example, different requirements apply to passenger cars than to buses. For buses generally, our requirements only specify that a safety belt must be installed for the bus driver. They do not require safety belts for passengers on large buses used for pupil transportation and other purposes.

We have not required large buses to have safety belts for passengers because we have not found sufficient justification for such a requirement, given that buses have excellent safety records. This safety record arises in part from the fact that, in crash es with other vehicles, buses tend to be substantially heavier than the other vehicle while cars tend to weigh approximately the same as the vehicle with which they crash. As a result, the crash forces experienced by bus occupants tend to be less than th ose experienced by car occupants. Also, because of the elevated stating positions in large buses, bus occupants sit above the area typically damaged in a collision with another vehicle. Further, we require large school buses to provide passenger crash pr otection with higher and stronger seats, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. That approach, together with the other attributes of large school buses, provides adequate levels of crash protection in school buses without safet y belts. I have enclosed a copy of a NHTSA publication, "Safety Belts in School Buses," which addresses in more detail the issue of whether safety belts should be required on school buses.

NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions that wish to order safety belts on their own large buses from doing so. Although large buses are not required by Federal law to have passenger safety belts, bus owners are free to purchase their buses with safety belts installed if they believe their particular circumstances warrant such installation. However, we have no reason at this time to believe that such an installation is necessary as a Federal requirement applicable to all transit buses.

Miss Darling asks whether there have been any proposals to apply Michigan's safety belt use law to public buses. Safety belt use requirements art a matter of State rather than Federal law. Therefore, Michigan state officials would be able to answer Miss Darling's particular question concerning the state law.

On a final matter, Miss Darling suggested that funding be made available to equip buses with safety belts. For your information, while the Administration has not proposed any legislation affecting school buses, H.R. 749 (introduced in the 99th Congress) proposed incentive grants to the States encouraging the adoption and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in school buses. H.R. 749, however, was not enacted.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

The Honorable Guy Vander Jagt House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Vander Jagt:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Miss Reva Darling.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate your contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Edward J. Babbitt Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

Mr. Ed Babbitt Director of Congressional Affairs Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W., Room 10406 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Babbitt:

I have enclosed a copy of correspondence I received from a constituent, Miss Reva Darling, relative to seat belts in public buses.

As you will note, Miss Darling is interested any information on this issue. I would appreciate any information or comments you may be able to provide in response to her query.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

With all good wishes,

Sincerely,

Guy Vander Jagt Member of Congress

Rep. Guy Vander Jagt 2334 Rayburn Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Rep. Vander Jagt,

Hello, my name is Reva Darling and I am a junior in high school. I am writing in regard to the recent seatbelt law established in Michigan last year.

My question is this: Has there been any proposals in conjunction with applying this law to public buses? By buses, I am referring to both charter and/or school related buses. I believe that funding to make seatbelts possible on these vehicles is highly worthwhile considering the number of passengers and lives involved. I would appreciate any information that you could send me about hi s.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Reva Darling

Reva Darling 2456 S. Meyers Rd. Ludington, MI 49431

ID: nht78-1.12

DATE: 12/29/78

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

TO: R. E. Dietz Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 21, 1978, requesting interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

In your first set of questions, you ask about the application of the display requirements to trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more. Those requirements do not apply to such trucks. Under S5 of the standard, the only trucks required by the standard to comply with the display requirements are those with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds.

In your second set of questions, you pose various questions about the identification and illumination of controls. In the first question, you ask whether the turn signal control symbol must be placed on the control itself. The answer is "no." S5.2.1 provides that the symbol shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. You also ask if there is any size requirement. The answer is again "no." There are no size requirements for any of the control symbols.

In your second question, you ask about the size requirements for the hazard warning signal control. As indicated above, there are no size requirements. As to illumination, S5.3.1 provides that hand-operated controls mounted on the steering column are not required to be illuminated. Thus, neither the turn signal control symbol nor the hazard warning control symbol need be illuminated. With regard to the nonmandatory red lens between the turn signal control symbol, if that lens is intended to call attention to the location of the hazard warning control, we urge that it be triangular. If it is intended to call attention to the turn signal control, we urge that the shape be made less similar to the hazard warning symbol to avoid confusion.

In your third question, you asked about the relationship between the control and display requirements in FMVSS 101 and those in FMVSS 108. The agency will soon issue a notice dealing with this issue.

SINCERELY,

R. E. DIETZ COMPANY

September 21, 1978

Nelson Erickson Office of Motor Vehicle Programs

Dear Mr. Erickson:

This is a request for further information and clarification of new rule 49 CFR 571.101-80 Controls and Displays.

Our questions and concerns pertain principally to our new 16-35 turn signal switch (drawing enclosed), which went into production this year. This type of hang-on switch is used only on Class 7 trucks which are in the weight range of 26,001 to 33,000 pounds GVWR and Class 8 trucks which are over 33,000 pounds GVWR.

1. I understand that since Class 7 and 8 trucks exceed 10,000 pounds GVWR, display requirements of 55.1 in Column 1 of Table 2 do not apply. Is that correct?

2. If correct, then do Columns 3 and 4 apply?

3. If Column 3 applies, then FMVSS 108 sends us to SAE J-589 for turn signal switches which references J-588, which calls for an illuminated area (shape unidentified) equivalent to a 3/16" diameter circle. Is that correct?

4. Column 3 also sends us to FMVSS 108 which refers us to J-910 for hazard switches, which calls for an illuminated area (shape unidentified) equivalent to a 1/2" diameter circle. Is that correct?

If the above statements are correct, then 571.101-80 (in which "the agency has decided that vehicles over 10,000 pounds GVWR need not meet display requirements of this standard") seems to be retaining display requirements. It appears that the intent is that neither Column 3 nor 4 are meant to apply. Is that correct?

Regarding identification and illumination of controls -

1. Would you say that double arrows on the device meet the requirements? If not, is it necessary that they be printed on the lever itself? If so, can they be on the lever axis or must they be on the arc which a point on the lever travels when the lever is moved to the right or left turn position. If there any size requirement?

2. As you can see from our drawing, there is approximately 5/8" of hazard button which extends out from our lever. The thickness of the button varies from 3/16" at the bottom to 1/16" at the top. What size does the identifying symbol have to be? If we could find a plastic which would transmit some light out to the end, would that be considered meeting the specification? If we cannot find a design solution to this requirement, what recourse do we have short of a complete re-design and re-tooling?

3. Finally, I must ask again for clarification of the relationship between 571.101-80 and FMVSS 108. It appears that one could meet all of the requirements of 571.101-80 but be found failing to conform to FMVSS 108. Is it the intent of 571.101-80 to be an addition to the requirements of FMVSS 108.

Your earliest response to these questions would be appreciated since it appears that we may have some significant changes to make.

Donald W. Vescio, Sr. Director of Engineering

(Illegible Lines)

UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED THE FOLLOWING (Illegible Words)

THREE PLACE DECIMALS (Illegible Word) .006

TWO PLACE DECIMALS (Illegible Word)

DIETZ (registered) R.E. DIETZ CO. SYRACUSE N.Y.

TITLE: 16+35 TURN SIGNAL SWITCH ASSEMBLIES SHEET: 016-35600

3. 16-35 TURN SIGNAL SWITCH IS DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO SAE J 589(b), SAE J 910(b) AND SAE J 588 (e) PARAGRAPH 4.5. IT CONFORMS WITH FMVSS 108 AND IS DESIGNED TO MEET NEW PROPOSED FMVSS STANDARDS FOR PILOT INDICATORS.

HAZARD BUTTON (Illegible Word) PLASTIC

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 24724_PruittTray

Ms. Ondiya Pruitt
956 Zion Circle
Roswell, GA 30075

Dear Ms. Pruitt:

This responds to your letter asking about safety regulations for a "car seat tray" that you wish to manufacture. The documents you have provided indicate that the tray is intended to provide an "eating/play surface that can be positioned within the reach on an infant or young child that is sitting in a child restraint seat."From the sketch you provided, it appears that the tray attaches to the child restraint by flexible straps. You state that the tray would be sold to owners of child restraints through stores selling baby products and related items.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has used its authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicles. (This standard is found in volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 571.213.^[1]) Each new child restraint system, which includes "car seats," must be certified as complying with the requirements of Standard No. 213. This means that, if your car seat tray were sold as part of a new child restraint, the child restraint would be required to comply with all of the requirements of the standard with the tray attached.

As Part of A New Child Restraint

It does not appear that a new child restraint could meet Standard No. 213 with the tray installed. Section S5.2.2.2 of the standard prohibits any fixed or moveable surface in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain a test dummy in a 20 mile per hour test (see also S6.1.1(b)(2) and S6.1.2(a)(2)). The requirement is to prevent items that could injure a child in a crash from being installed where they could be impacted by a child. It appears that your tray would not be able to restrain the test dummy in the test. If so, a child restraint with the tray would not comply with Standard No. 213. In other words, a manufacturer of a child restraint could not sell such a tray as a part of its new child restraint system.

Also, a new child restraint with the tray attached to it might not comply with S5.2.4 of Standard No. 213. S5.2.4 requires any rigid part of the child restraint that can be contacted by the head or torso of the dummy in the dynamic test to have a height of not more than 3/8 inch above any adjacent surface, and have no exposed edge with a radius of less than 1/4 inch. If the head or torso of a restrained dummy could impact the tray, these requirements apply.

Further, child restraint systems recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213. That paragraph requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummys head during a crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these child restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes.

Aftermarket Item

If your product will be sold to consumers as an aftermarket item, Standard No. 213 does not apply to it, since the standard only applies to new child restraints and not to accessory items. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to a tray.

However, while Standard No. 213 does not apply to the child restraint tray, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety-related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. If information indicated that a child seat accessory exposed occupants to an unreasonable risk of injury, the agency might conduct a defect investigation which could lead to a safety recall.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. 30122. This section prohibits them from installing the tray if it "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard, such as Standard No. 213. It appears unlikely that your product would be attached to a child restraint by persons in the aforementioned categories. However, if such a person were to attach the tray, he or she could violate 30112 if the child restraints compliance with Standard No. 213 were compromised.

The "make inoperative" prohibition of 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Thus, child restraint owners could attach the tray without having to meet Standard No. 213. However, we urge consumers not to degrade the safety systems of their vehicles or equipment.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:213
d.11/26/02





---




^[1] The agency recently proposed a number of revisions to the standard, including proposals for incorporating new test dummies and extending the standard to apply to restraints recommended for use by children up to 65 pounds. 67 FR 21806 (May 1, 2002).

ID: nht92-9.15

DATE: February 10, 1992

FROM: Jeff Ruff -- Director of Fleet / Government Sales, The Braun Corporation

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Jeff Ruff (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Several months ago I wrote you voicing my concern with FMVSS 208 and how it affects the transportation needs of the physically challenged. My concern in that letter was the head clearance needed for wheelchair passengers and our inability to cut the "B" pillar support brace from the chassis.

Since my first letter, we at The Braun Corporation have been busy adapting the new vehicles to the needs of our customers. One of our more recent observations concerns the location of the front passenger shoulder belt anchorage point. As you will see in the pictures, the original anchorage point for this vehicle was above the front side cargo door. Because the transportation needs of the physically challenged sometimes demand extended doors for added head clearance, this anchorage point must be moved. The obvious choice for relocating this is at the "B" pillar. (Please note picture.) However, when relocating the anchorage point the OEM FMVSS 208 certification is voided.

Please advise us as to how our industry can adapt to this requirement. I would appreciate a response to not only this letter, but the letter dated October 30, 1991.

Your immediate response to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

ID: aiam4567

Dear Mr. Kadoya: This is in reply to your letter of August 24, l989 with respect to an interpretation of paragraph S5.3.1.8 of Standard No. 108, as it applies to the location of center highmounted stop lamps. The paragraph requires that no portion of the lens shall be lower than 3 inches below the rear window, if the lamp is mounted below the rear window. Your letter depicts two areas in which a lamp lens may be mounted, denoted '(A)' and '(B)'. In both, the lower edge of the rear window is curved. In '(A)', the boundary of the allowable area is curved, and follows the curve of the lower edge of the rear window at a parallel distance of 3 inches. In '(B)', the boundary of the allowable area is a straight line which measures 3 inches from the end of the lower edge of the rear window, but which is greater than 3 inches at all other points because of the curve of the window. The initial requirement of paragraph S5.3.1.8 is that the highmounted lamp be 'mounted with its center on the vertical centerline of the passenger car as the car is viewed from the rear.' This means that the 3-inch distance is measured from the lower edge of the rear window that is at the vertical centerline. Thus, your '(A)' is the correct location because the boundary line is 3 inches directly below the center point of the vertical centerline, and your '(B)' is not acceptable because its boundary line is more than 3 inches below that point. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: nht80-3.23

DATE: 07/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 29 1980

NOA-30

Mr. Roger Maugh Automotive Safety Director Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Maugh:

This is in response to your request for our comments concerning the prototype automatic belt system on the demonstration vehicle you brought to the agency several weeks ago. You were particularly concerned about past agency comments regarding automatic belt designs of this type that are so easily disconnectable.

We are concerned about automatic belt designs whose release mechanisms are so similar to those of current manual belts that they may actually encourage disconnection by motorists. By the same token, however, we realize that an automatic belt design that is extremely difficult to disconnect could lead to frustration of a motorist who does not wish to use it and to permanent defeat of the belt system. This, of course, is also not desirable since it would deprive a subsequent vehicle occupant who wanted to use the belt of protection. We hope manufacturers will develop innovative systems that will minimize these conflicting concerns.

Regarding the particular design that you demonstrated at our meeting, the release mechanism appears to be in compliance with the current provisions of Safety Standard No. 208. This is not to say, however, that additional features to discourage disconnection of the system are not desirable.

We were also concerned with other aspects of your automatic belt. For example, when the vehicle door was open the belt webbing lay on the vehicle seat, making entry into the vehicle both confusing and difficult for a vehicle occupant. Since such a design requires the occupant to lift the belt webbing, it could prove to be very inconvenient, particularly if the occupant is carrying an object like a bag of groceries. As you are aware, the recent proposal concerning seat belt comfort and convenience included a specification for 3-inch webbing/seat clearance. Even more than three inches may be needed to insure that automatic belts are in fact automatic and convenient (I am enclosing a past agency interpretation on this subject). You should consider these points when making a final decision concerning this type belt design.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the brief examination of the belt system during our recent meeting. It is up to the vehicle manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and to certify that compliance.

Thank you for bringing this prototype automatic belt system to the agency for inspection.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4531

"Dear Mr. Reneau: This is a response to your undated letter which thi agency received in January 1988. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you presented a schematic and an engineering explanation of a power window system design and operation, and asked whether the system meets Federal safety standard 118, Power-operated Window Systems (49 CFR 571.118). Based on my understanding of the information enclosed with your letter, it appears that your power window system would comply with Standard 118. As I understand your system description, there are two electrical circuits that control power window operations. In the principal circuit, when the vehicle ignition key system is in the 'ON' or 'ACCESSORY' position, the power windows are operable. In most power-operated window systems, turning the ignition key to the 'OFF' position means that the power windows no longer are operable. However, in your system, a second, parallel circuit connects to the power window motor, and provides an energy source to allow an operator to close a power window when the ignition key is in the 'OFF' position. The parallel energy source permits operation only for a limited time period controlled by the electronic circuitry. My understanding is that with your design, the parallel circuit includes door switches which stop power window operation irrespective of the ignition key system position, whenever either vehicle front door is opened during the window closing sequence. According to your diagram and explanation, in such a circumstance, an operator must close the door, and return the ignition key to the 'ON' or 'ACCESSORY' position to reactivate the power window system. Paragraph S3 of Standard 118 specifies that power window systems may be closed only under certain listed conditions. One of those conditions is when the ignition key is in the 'ON' or 'ACCESSORY' position, as specified in S3(a). When the ignition key is in the 'OFF' position, the power windows may be closed only under the conditions described in S3(b) (by muscular force unassisted by a vehicle power source), S3(c) (upon activation of a key-locking system on the exterior of the vehicle), or S3(d). Paragraph S3(d) reads as follows: During the interval between the time the locking device which controls the activation of the vehicle's engine is turned off and the opening of either of a two-door vehicle's doors or, in the case of a vehicle with more than two doors, the opening of either of its front doors. Based on my understanding of the information you supplied, the only time the power windows in your system can be closed with the ignition key in the 'OFF' position is during the interval between engine deactivation and opening of either of the vehicle's front doors. Standard 118 expressly permits this, so your system appears to comply with that standard. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";