ID: aiam0930

Subject: Your memorandum of November 9, 1972, regarding th Certification regulation.; In your memorandum of November 9 you discuss a statement in a TBE Bulletin, brought to your attention by Mr. Edward Bristol of the Bristol=Donald Company, Newark, New Jersey, which Mr. Bristol interprets as holding a manufacturer responsible for a safety defect if an operator overloads a vehicle, exceeding its GVWR and GAWR's. You ask us to forward you copies of any correspondence with Mr. Bristol or TBEA regarding this matter.; We have attached a recent letter to TBEA, dated November 22, 1972 which clarifies our position, and should alleviate Mr. Bristol's concern. Our position on this issue has been that a manufacturer who properly derives his GVWR and GAWR cannot be held responsible for noncompliance with the certification regulations or a safety defect.; From: Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0931

Subject: Your memorandum of November 9, 1972, regarding th Certification regulation.; In your memorandum of November 9 you discuss a statement in a TBE Bulletin, brought to your attention by Mr. Edward Bristol of the Bristol=Donald Company, Newark, New Jersey, which Mr. Bristol interprets as holding a manufacturer responsible for a safety defect if an operator overloads a vehicle, exceeding its GVWR and GAWR's. You ask us to forward you copies of any correspondence with Mr. Bristol or TBEA regarding this matter.; We have attached a recent letter to TBEA, dated November 22, 1972 which clarifies our position, and should alleviate Mr. Bristol's concern. Our position on this issue has been that a manufacturer who properly derives his GVWR and GAWR cannot be held responsible for noncompliance with the certification regulations or a safety defect.; From: Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: key-like object

Gerald Plante, General Manager
Fuji Heavy Industries USA, Inc.
PO Box 6000, Subaru Plaza
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your inquiry regarding the definition of "key-like object" in relation to the buckle release requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Specifically you asked if the tongue from a safety belt buckle would be considered a "key-like object" for purposes of the standard. As explained below, a buckle tongue would conform to the definition of "key-like object" under the system you described.

On December 8, 2004, we amended FMVSS No. 208 to require all designated seating positions in rear seats, other than side-facing seats, be equipped with Type 2 integral lap/shoulder safety belts (69 FR 70904). For certain folding and removable seats, the standard permits use of a release mechanism that detaches both the lap and shoulder portion at either the upper or lower anchorage point, but not both (See S4.1.5.5.2, S4.2.7.2, S4.2.7.4, and S4.2.7.5 of FMVSS No. 208). The standard also specifies that detachment must be by means of a "key or key-like object".

In a phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you asked how the agency defines "key-like object". In a follow-up letter you specifically asked whether a tongue from an adjacent buckle would meet the definition of "key-like object".Your letter described a "release mechanism in which the shoulder belt portion [of a safety belt] is detached by inserting the tongue from another belt into a narrow slot".The photographs you provided illustrate a buckle with a narrow slot on the side that would accept the corner of a tongue from another belt.

In specifying the requirement for a "key or key-like object," we were concerned about the potential for inadvertent release of a safety belt. This potential is particularly acute with typical push-button releases, which can be released with the push of a finger. We stated that manufacturers may choose to use the door or ignition key since these keys are always likely to be in the driver's possession when the belt needs to be detached. However, to provide flexibility in design we also permitted use of a "key-like object".

The standard does not define "key-like object", but the preamble to the December 2004 final rule notes that a design in which an object must be inserted into a small hole in order to release a latch would comply with the requirement (69 FR 70908). Although your system has a slot as opposed to a hole, it also requires use of an object other than an occupants finger to release the latch. Under your system, a buckle tongue (or similarly shaped object) must be placed in the appropriate slot to release the latch, and therefore functions as a "key-like object".

The system you described, therefore, would comply with the "key-like object" requirement in S4.1.5.5.2, S4.2.7.2, S4.2.7.4, and S4.2.7.5 of FMVSS No. 208. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.616/05

ID: nht94-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 9, 1994

FROM: Womack, John -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bloomfield, John -- Manager, Engine Management, Legislation and Certification, Lotus Cars, Ltd. (ENGLAND)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached To a Letter Dated 10/28/93 From Rachel Jelly To John Womack

TEXT: This responds to the letter from Ms. Rachel Jelly, formerly of your company, concerning low volume CAFE exemptions. I apologize for the delay in our response. Ms. Jelly asked whether Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. (Bugatti) and Lotus Cars, Ltd. (Lotus), bot h of which are controlled by the same holding company, may submit separate low volume CAFE exemption petitions requesting two alternative standards. The answer to this question is no. Since any alternative CAFE standard would apply to Bugatti and Lotus together, a single combined petition must be submitted for a single alternative standard.

The reasons for the above response are discussed in the attached letter from NHTSA to Mr. Lance Tunick, of Bugatti. Mr. Tunick's letter to NHTSA raised issues that are of concern to both Bugatti and Lotus. Thus, NHTSA's response to Mr. Tunick should ad dress Lotus' concerns about filing for alternative CAFE standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If there are any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-2.48

DATE: 11/03/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: G. THOMAS OWENS -- SENIOR ENGINEERING REPRESENTATIVE, AETNA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-9-92 FROM G. THOMAS OWENS TO OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 7764)

TEXT: This responds to your letter requesting information regarding the legal aspects of school bus safety standards. Specifically, you requested a book or pamphlet containing the requested information.

By way of background information, under the provisions of the National "Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to promulgate Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, in order to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries that result from motor vehicle crashes. In 1974 Congress enacted the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 which, by amending section 121 of the Safety Act, directed the issuance of motor vehicle safety standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, applicable to all school buses. Those standards became effective on April 1, 1977 and are included, along with the rest of the agency's safety standards, in 49 CFR Part 571.

The Safety Act defines a school bus as a vehicle that "is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools." NHTSA further defines a school bus as a motor vehicle designed for carrying eleven or more persons, including the driver, and sold for transporting students to and from school or school-related events. See 49 CFR 571.3.

It is a violation of Federal law for any person knowingly to sell as a school bus any new vehicle that does not comply with all applicable Federal school bus safety standards. On the other hand, once a vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, it may be used to transport school children without violating Federal law, even though it may not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. That is because individual states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles. Therefore, to ascertain whether one may use noncomplying vehicles to transport school children, one must look to state law. It is this agency's position that vehicles meeting Federal school bus safety standards are the safest way to transport school children.

Please find enclosed a pamphlet issued by this agency entitled Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, which summarizes our safety standards. Specifically, the following standards include requirements for school buses:

Standards 101 through 104;

Standards 105 (school buses with hydraulic brakes)

Standards 106 through 108; Standards 111 through 113;

Standard 115;

Standard 116 (school buses with hydraulic service brakes);

Standards 119 and 120;

Standard 121 (school buses with air brakes);

Standard 124;

Standard 131 (effective September 1, 1992);

Standards 201 through 204 (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less);

Standard 205;

Standards 207 through 210;

Standard 212 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less);

Standard 217;

Standard 219 (school buses with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less);

Standard 220;

Standard 221 (school buses with GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds);

Standard 222;

Standards 301 and 302.

Some of the above-listed standards have unique requirements for school buses, including, but not necessarily limited to, Standards 105, 108, 111, 217, and 301. Other standards are applicable only to school buses, such as Standards 131, 220, 221, and 222. Standard 131 was promulgated on May 3, 1991 and may be found at 56 Federal Register 20370. It requires all school buses manufactured after September 1, 1992, to be equipped with stop signal arms. Standard 220 establishes requirements for school bus rollover protection. Standard 221 establishes strength requirements for school bus body panel joints. Standard 222 establishes minimum crash protection levels for occupants of school buses. Under the provisions of Standard 222, small school buses, that is those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must be equipped with lap belts. For large school buses, those with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through "compartmentalization," a concept which calls for strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats.

Should you wish copies of our safety standards, I am enclosing for your information a fact sheet prepared by this office entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions in this regard, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam3139

Dear Mr. Keshav: This is in reply to your letter of September 2, 1979, to Franci Armstrong asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. SAE Standard J588e August 1970 is the referenced standard for turn signal lamps. Paragraph 4.2 of J588e requires that as mounted on the vehicle 'The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam'. You mentioned that on some motorcycles sold in the United States this requirement is satisfied only with the handlebar in the straight ahead position but not when turned to the full lock position. You asked whether this complies with Standard No. 108.; Table IV specifies that the minimum edge to edge separation between th headlamp and turn signal lamp on motorcycles is 4 inches. Most manufacturers have interpreted this requirement to mean that the separation is permanent, and have supplied turn signals that are mounted stationary with the headlamp, and that turn with it so that the separation distance is maintained. Therefore, the configuration you describe would not comply with Standard No. 108 because Federal requirements for location and mounting of lighting equipment are intended to apply to a vehicle under all its operating conditions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4521

"Dear Mrs. Collins: This is a response to your letter of January 15 1988. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. In your letter, you described yourself as a parent of school-age children, and as a volunteer who drives children to school-related activities in your 1986 Plymouth Voyager mini-van. You stated that in the 1986-1987 school year, the U.S. Department of Transportation decided that Voyager Mini-Vans were 'unsafe.' You go on to say that 'the classification of M.P.V. was used on all mini-vans,' and suggest that it is a mistake to characterize your Voyager as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) because it is more like a passenger car than a truck. You concluded by asking us to change the decision that the Plymouth Voyager mini-van is unsafe. You raised other concerns in telephone conversations with Joan Tilghman, a member of my staff. First, I will address the request in your letter that the Department change what you believe is a decision concerning the safety of your vehicle. Then, I will address the matters you raised in conversations with Ms. Tilghman. Let me begin by assuring you that the agency has never stated that the Plymouth Voyager is 'unsafe.' Except in the context of a specific enforcement proceeding, NHTSA does not make blanket determinations that vehicles are 'safe' or 'unsafe.' Instead, we establish safety standards, and manufacturers must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable standards. If we determine that a group of vehicles fails to comply with an applicable standard, or that a group of vehicles contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, we order the manufacturer to recall the vehicles. Again, we make these determinations only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. There has been no such proceeding with respect to the 1986 Plymouth Voyager. With respect to your suggestion that it was a mistake to classify the Voyager as an MPV, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine, in the first instance, what a vehicle's classification should be. Chyrsler has classified the Voyager as an MPV, and so must certify that the Voyager meets all Federal safety standards applicable to that vehicle class. We have no information which suggests that Chrysler's classification of the Voyager is incorrect under our classification criteria. In your conversations with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that the Tallahassee, Florida school district will not permit parents to transport school children to school-sponsored or school-related events in MPVs, such as the Voyager. However, you stated that the district will permit parents to transport children to school-sponsored or school-related events in passenger cars. You said that the school district is following a recommendation by this agency that Florida school districts not condone transporting children to school-related events in buses other than certified school buses. Your understanding is that NHTSA made this recommendation to the State of Florida in an April 25, 1986 letter to Mr. Arnold Spencer, and repeated the recommendation in an August 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Larry McEntire. I have enclosed copies of both letters for your information. As you see, NHTSA made no such recommendation in either letter. Instead, we explained that we do not regulate the use of vehicles by owners, nor do we require the use of particular vehicles for particular purposes. There is no Federal prohibition against vehicle owners using their own vehicles to transport school children to school-related events. We also noted that the individual States have authority to establish any such regulations, in accordance with the principles of federalism set out in our Constitution. The State of Florida had already made its own decision to adopt and implement this policy before we were contacted by either Mr. Spencer or Mr. McEntire on this subject. Any changes to that policy would also reflect a decision by the State of Florida, not the Federal government. In the letter to Mr. Spencer, we made the observation that Florida's policy that school boards not condone transporting school children in vehicles that are not certified as complying with our school bus safety standards, 'is consistent with our belief that school buses certified to our school bus safety standards are the safest means of transportation for school children.' This was not a recommendation to the State of Florida, but a statement of our belief about the superior safety afforded to school children by buses that are certified as complying with our school bus standards. That belief continues to be supported by data showing that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are the safest form of ground transportation in the United States because the passenger seats are 'compartmentalized' (special seat padding and spacing, and high seat backs), and because of the vehicle's size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus. I am sending you information on the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is an experimental program in which we test light-duty vehicles, MPVs among them, to see how well they perform in a high-speed crash. You will find test results for vehicles that NHTSA has tested over the past few years, including results for the 1984 and 1987 Plymouth Voyager. Also, you will find the agency's April, 1988 report to Congress titled, 'Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.' I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam2978

Dear Mr. Schmitt: This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1979, with respect t Yamaha's plan to equip its motorcycles with a hazard warning signal system.; You have cited S4.5.5 of Standard No. 108 which requires that th hazard warning signal 'operate independently of the ignition or equivalent switch'. Because of the ease with which such a switch can be operated on an open vehicle such as a motorcycle by a person other than the vehicle operator, you would like to integrate the warning system with the ignition switch, so that it will flash when the ignition is in the 'on' or 'off' position, but not the 'off-lock' position unless the key is inserted.; As you noted, the Standard does not require that a motorcycle b equipped with a hazard warning system. Should you voluntarily install the system on a motorcycle, there is no legal requirement that it conform to the requirements specified in Standard No. 108. Because of this, although we appreciate your wish to meet the requirements of the standard, we offer no opinion on your system and are willing to defer to your judgment in this matter.; We are confident that Yamaha would not install such a system withou insuring that the charging system has an adequate capacity, otherwise, the turn signal system might be viewed as 'additional ... motor vehicle equipment ... that impairs the effectiveness' of required lighting equipment, within the prohibition of S4.1.3.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0795

Dear Mr. Petler:#In a telephone call subsequent to receiving our answe of July 20 to your letter of July 11, you indicated that you were concerned with a different question from the one we answered regarding the Suzuki handlebar switches you enclosed. The question you had in mind was whether the direction of movement of the switches was sufficiently vertical to satisfy the requirement for 'up' and 'down' positions.#The switches you submitted move in an arc at approximately 45 degrees from the vertical. Since they have in that position a substantial vertical component, we consider that they would conform in that respect with the requirements of the standard.#Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel;

ID: 1982-1.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: K-D Lamp Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION

NOA-30

Mr. Chris Tuerck Assistant Chief Engineer K-D Lamp Company 1910 Elm Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45210

Dear Mr. Tuerck:

This responds to your letter asking whether your sample turn signal and hazard switch design complies with the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Your letter states that the switch is used primarily on Class 7 and Class 8 trucks and truck tractors. We therefore assume that it would only be used on trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more. We make that assumption because Standard No. 101-80 includes requirements for a vehicle's displays in addition to its controls if it has a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, it is our opinion that the sample switch does comply with the labeling requirements of Standard No. 101-80.

The sample turn signal and hazard switch is designed to be clamped onto a vehicle's steering column to the left of the driver and looks something like a box. We assume that the box is to be installed so that the side of the box which has two pushbuttons on it, marked 'R' and 'L,' is on the left. Pressing the 'R' pushbutton, which is located toward the back, activates the right turn signal. Pressing the 'L' pushbutton, which is located toward the front, activates the left turn signal. Both buttons must be pushed simultaneously for the hazard warning signal.

Most of the identification for the switch is located on top of the box. Just above the right turn pushbutton is a thick black arrow pointing to the right. Just above the left turn pushbutton is a thick black arrow pointing to the left. Above each pushbutton there is also a triangle outlined in black, i.e., the hazard warning symbol specified by Table 1 of Standard No. 101-80. Between those identifications is located a pushbutton, identified by the use of both words and symbols, which clears the turn signals or hazard warning signal. The top of the box also includes three jewel-type pilot indicators which indicate when the turn signals or hazard warning signal are activated and additional labeling explaining the method of operation for the hazard warning signal.

Section S5.2.1 of Standard No. 101-80 states in relevant part:

Vehicle controls shall be identified as follows:

(a) Except as specified in S5.2.1(b), any hand-operated control listed in column 3 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol. Such a control may, in addition, be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Any such control for which no symbol is shown in Table 1 shall be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. The identification shall, under the conditions of S6, be visible to the driver and, except as provided in S5.2.1.1 and S5.2.1.2, appear to the driver perceptually upright.

Both the turn signal and the hazard warning signal are listed in column 1 of Table 1 and have symbols designated in Column 3. Therefore, Standard No. 101-80 requires that those controls be identified by the designated symbols.

The primary issue raised by your design is whether the turn signal control symbol specified by Table 1, a pair of arrows, may be split where there are independent controls for the left and right turn signals. As explained below, it is our opinion that the pair of arrows may be split in that particular circumstance.

The symbol for the turn signal control is the same as the symbol specified by Table 2 for the turn signal display. A footnote to Table 2 explains that while the pair of arrows is a single symbol, the two arrows will be considered separate symbols when the indicators for the left and right turn operate independently and may be spaced accordingly.

Table 1 does not include that footnote for the turn signal control. A turn signal control would normally be expected to consist of one button or lever and would be required to be identified by the pair of arrows as one symbol. It is our interpretation, however, that the two arrows may be considered separate symbols where there are independent controls for the left and right turn signals, as in your sample switch. Separating the two arrows in such an instance has the advantage of indicating the direction of the signal activated by each pushbutton.

Table 2 also includes a footnote that indicates that the framed areas of the turn signal display symbol may be filled in. While Table 1 has a footnote that indicates that the framed areas of several symbols may be filled in, the turn signal control is not among those listed. It is our interpretation, however, in light of the footnote in Table 2, that a manufacturer may fill in the framed areas of the turn signal symbol whether it is used for a control or a display.

Thus, the symbols used on the sample switch for the turn signal controls are those specified by Standard No. 101-80.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 13, 1981

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

ATTH: Mr. Frank Berndt-Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is a request for a legal opinion regarding compliance of our Model KD723 Turn Signal and Hazard Switch with FMVSS 571.101-80 Controls and Displays. It is a push button switch of the clamp on style (see attached Instruction Sheet) and is used primarily on Class 7 and Class 8 trucks and truck tractors. This switch has been manufactured by K-D Lamp Co. for approximately twenty years and is specified by the McLean Trucking Co. on all their new truck tractors.

The push button design had led to some problems in marking the switch to meet 571.101-80 requirements. We had tried and discussed various designs of labels which would properly identify the various switch functions and had arrived at a design which we felt would be satisfactory. At about the same time an order was received from GMC Truck and Coach for their version of this switch. We discussed the label with their engineers and they in turn submitted the label design to their legal department for review. Their legal department was of the opinion that the label would bring our Model 723 switch into compliance with FMVSS 571.101-80.

There are three jewel type pilot indicators in the center of the cover. The two (2) outer indicators are green and meet the size (area of 3/16" dia. circle) and functional requirements of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps which is a part of FMVSS 108. The same green indicators also meet the requirement of flashing simultaneously when the hazard system is turned on as specified in SAE Standard J910 Hazard Warning Switch. This standard is also a part of FMVSS 108. This latter function agrees in part with Note 2 under Table 2 of FMVSS 571.101-80. The center pilot indicator is red and serves only as a delineator between the two green indicators.

Early this year I visited with Mr. John Carson, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and Mr. Edward Glancy of your office to discuss the subject switch. They, quite properly did not offer any solutions for bringing the switch into compliance. They suggested that, when we developed a method and design for marking the switch, we send you all the pertinent information along with a print of the label and switch (print attached) and a sample switch with label to show the color scheme. They felt that the print and the sample switch would provide sufficient data so that your office could determine if the switch is in compliance with FMVSS 571.101-80. Under seperate cover we are sending the switch via UPS to your attention.

We apologize for being so late in requesting your opinion and respectfully ask that this matter be handled as expeditiously as possible since the final dead line of September 1,1981 is very near.

Sincerely,

Chris Tuerck Ass't. Chief Engineer