ID: aiam4790

"Dear Mr. Roden: This responds to your questions about the requirement for key-locking systems in section S4.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). As explained below, the enclosed copy of the agency's recent final rule amending this provision may be relevant to your inquiry (55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990). By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ('Vehicle Safety Act,' 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000 for a related series of violations. One such Federal safety standard is Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Your first question asked whether section S4.2(b) requires key locking systems to prevent removal of the ignition key except when the transmission is in the 'park' position. Section S4.2(b) currently requires such vehicles to have a 'key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent...(b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle, or both.' However, the agency has recently amended section S4.2(b) to read as follows: Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a 'park' position, the key-locking system shall prevent 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. You should be aware that this amendment takes effect on September 1, 1992. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) merely requires that when the key is removed, the key-locking system must prevent steering or forward self-mobility, or both. This provision does not address the issue of the transmission's position at the time of key removal. In contrast, under the recent amendment applicable to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) requires automatic transmission vehicles to prevent 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. Your second question asked whether a replacement key-locking system is required to comply with Standard No. 114. Because Standard No. 114 applies to new motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment, the standard does not in itself require aftermarket replacement systems to comply with its requirements. However, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly 'rendering inoperative,' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. Your third question asked how long the key locking system is required to perform under S4.2(b) of the standard. The Vehicle Safety Act only requires manufacturers to assure that vehicles and equipment comply with applicable safety standards at the time of the first consumer purchase. However, please note that if at any time a manufacturer or the agency determines that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, which could result from the failure of a system to operate properly, the manufacturer is required to notify all product purchasers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1414. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4789

"Dear Mr. Roden: This responds to your questions about the requirement for key-locking systems in section S4.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). As explained below, the enclosed copy of the agency's recent final rule amending this provision may be relevant to your inquiry (55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990). By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ('Vehicle Safety Act,' 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000 for a related series of violations. One such Federal safety standard is Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Your first question asked whether section S4.2(b) requires key locking systems to prevent removal of the ignition key except when the transmission is in the 'park' position. Section S4.2(b) currently requires such vehicles to have a 'key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent...(b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle, or both.' However, the agency has recently amended section S4.2(b) to read as follows: Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a 'park' position, the key-locking system shall prevent 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. You should be aware that this amendment takes effect on September 1, 1992. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) merely requires that when the key is removed, the key-locking system must prevent steering or forward self-mobility, or both. This provision does not address the issue of the transmission's position at the time of key removal. In contrast, under the recent amendment applicable to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) requires automatic transmission vehicles to prevent 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. Your second question asked whether a replacement key-locking system is required to comply with Standard No. 114. Because Standard No. 114 applies to new motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment, the standard does not in itself require aftermarket replacement systems to comply with its requirements. However, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly 'rendering inoperative,' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. Your third question asked how long the key locking system is required to perform under S4.2(b) of the standard. The Vehicle Safety Act only requires manufacturers to assure that vehicles and equipment comply with applicable safety standards at the time of the first consumer purchase. However, please note that if at any time a manufacturer or the agency determines that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, which could result from the failure of a system to operate properly, the manufacturer is required to notify all product purchasers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1414. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: nht95-5.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 28, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey S. Bakst, Esq -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/6/95 letter from Jeffrey S. Bakst to Dorothy Nakama (occ 11412)

TEXT: This responds to your request for the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on two questions related to litigation in which you are currently involved, that refer to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. The two questions and our responses are set out below.

You advise us that you are "dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988." You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that in December 1990, your client was injured while driving the Dodge Ram truck. You fu rther informed Ms. Nakama that our October 26, 1995 interpretation letter to Hugh Bode, Esq. addressed Mr. Bode's questions stemming from the same accident and lawsuit as yours.

Question 1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem? If yes, what must a ma nufacturer do for the purchaser?

The answer to the first part of this question is yes. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30118(c):

A manufacturer of a motor vehicle . . . shall notify [NHTSA] by certified mail, and the owners purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle . . . if the manufacturer --

(1) learns the vehicle contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety . . .

Under 49 U.S.C. @ 30120, where such notification is required, the manufacturer "shall remedy the defect . . . without charge when the vehicle is presented for remedy." The vehicle manufacturer may choose to remedy the defect by repairing the vehicle, rep lacing it with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. The requirement that the remedy be provided without charge does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first purchaser more than eight years prior to the manufacturer's defect determination.

Question 2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the "two sources of energy" are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from th e accelerator control in use, does the carburetor fail to comply with FMVSS 124?

The relevant portion of FMVSS No. 124 (S5.1) provides as follows:

There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. In the event of failure of one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the throttle shall return to the idle position within the time limits specified by S5.3, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating fo rce.

Under the standard, with either energy source severed or disconnected, the standard requires that the remaining energy source return the throttle to the idle position within the specified time from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver re moves the opposing actuating force.

NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (at (202) 366-2832), is the office within NHTSA which has the authority to investigate whether there is a noncompliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We are not in a position to render an o pinion as to whether the facts you describe indicate the existence of a safety-related defect.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our October 26, 1995 letter to Hugh J. Bode, Esq. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 28, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey S. Bakst, Esq -- Attorney at Law

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 12/6/95 letter from Jeffrey S. Bakst to Dorothy Nakama (occ 11412)

TEXT: This responds to your request for the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on two questions related to litigation in which you are currently involved, that refer to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. The two questions and our responses are set out below.

You advise us that you are "dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988." You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that in December 1990, your client was injured while driving the Dodge Ram truck. You further informed Ms. Nakama that our October 26, 1995 interpretation letter to Hugh Bode, Esq. addressed Mr. Bode's questions stemming from the same accident and lawsuit as yours.

Question 1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem? If yes, what must a manufacturer do for the purchaser?

The answer to the first part of this question is yes. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. @ 30118(c):

A manufacturer of a motor vehicle . . . shall notify [NHTSA] by certified mail, and the owners purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle . . . if the manufacturer --

(1) learns the vehicle contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety . . .

Under 49 U.S.C. @ 30120, where such notification is required, the manufacturer "shall remedy the defect . . . without charge when the vehicle is presented for remedy." The vehicle manufacturer may choose to remedy the defect by repairing the vehicle, replacing it with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. The requirement that the remedy be provided without charge does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first purchaser more than eight years prior to the manufacturer's defect determination.

Question 2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the "two sources of energy" are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control in use, does the carburetor fail to comply with FMVSS 124?

The relevant portion of FMVSS No. 124 (S5.1) provides as follows:

There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. In the event of failure of one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the throttle shall return to the idle position within the time limits specified by S5.3, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force.

Under the standard, with either energy source severed or disconnected, the standard requires that the remaining energy source return the throttle to the idle position within the specified time from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force.

NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (at (202) 366-2832), is the office within NHTSA which has the authority to investigate whether there is a noncompliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We are not in a position to render an opinion as to whether the facts you describe indicate the existence of a safety-related defect.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our October 26, 1995 letter to Hugh J. Bode, Esq. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 11412a

Jeffrey S. Bakst, Esq.
Attorney at Law
2406 Auburn Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45219-2702

Dear Mr. Bakst:

This responds to your request for the views of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) on two questions related to litigation in which you are currently involved, that refer to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124, Accelerator control systems. The two questions and our responses are set out below.

You advise us that you are "dealing with a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 truck manufactured by Mitsubishi in Japan, sold in July, 1988." You informed Dorothy Nakama of my staff that in December 1990, your client was injured while driving the Dodge Ram truck. You further informed Ms. Nakama that our October 26, 1995 interpretation letter to Hugh Bode, Esq. addressed Mr. Bode's questions stemming from the same accident and lawsuit as yours.

Question 1. If the manufacturer discovers a safety-related problem after the vehicle has been sold to the first purchaser in good faith, does the manufacturer have a legal duty to notify NHTSA and/or the purchaser of this problem? If yes, what must a manufacturer do for the purchaser?

The answer to the first part of this question is yes. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C.' 30118(c):

A manufacturer of a motor vehicle . . . shall notify [NHTSA] by certified mail, and the owners, purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle . . . if the manufacturer --

(1) learns the vehicle contains a defect and decides in good faith that the defect is related to motor vehicle safety . . .

Under 49 U.S.C. '30120, where such notification is required, the manufacturer "shall remedy the defect . . . without charge when the vehicle is presented for remedy." The vehicle manufacturer

may choose to remedy the defect by repairing the vehicle, replacing it with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refunding the purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. The requirement that the remedy be provided without charge does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first purchaser more than eight years prior to the manufacturer's defect determination.

Question 2. Assume there is a safety-related defect in a brand new carburetor that results in engine overspeed. If the "two sources of energy" are not sufficient to return the throttle to idle position when the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control in use, does the carburetor fail to comply with FMVSS 124?

The relevant portion of FMVSS No. 124 (S5.1) provides as follows:

There shall be at least two sources of energy capable of returning the throttle to the idle position within the time limit specified by S5.3 from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force. In the event of failure of one source of energy by a single severance or disconnection, the throttle shall return to the idle position within the time limits specified by S5.3, from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force.

Under the standard, with either energy source severed or disconnected, the standard requires that the remaining energy source return the throttle to the idle position within the specified time from any accelerator position or speed whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force.

NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, (at (202) 366-2832), is the office within NHTSA which has the authority to investigate whether there is a noncompliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. We are not in a position to render an opinion as to whether the facts you describe indicate the existence of a safety-related defect.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of our October 26, 1995 letter to Hugh J. Bode, Esq. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#124 d:12/28/95

ID: nht89-1.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/11/89

FROM: EDWARD P. KIRBY -- MASSACHUSETTS SENATE

TO: BARRY FELRICHE -- ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULE MAKING NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/16/89 ESTIMATED FROM BARRY FELRICE -- NHTSA TO EDWARD P. KIRBY -- SENATE; REDBOOK A33[4][B]; STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Mr. Felriche:

I enclose herewith a copy of a bill which I filed in the Massachusetts General Court and which has been referred to our Committee for Public Safety concerning the use of amber colored rear directional signals.

Obviously my legislation can only be a gesture since such matters are reserved for the Federal government under the Interstate clause of the United States Constitution. I filed it to make a point to have a forum in which to discuss it. As a result, I have learned that your department is considering a change in Section 571.108 of 47 CFR V regarding just that point.

In my experience as a driver I have seen numerous cases in which the lack of amber colored directional signals has led to confusion, when someone is pumping the brakes rhythmically on a vehicle equipped only with red signal lights on the rear. This l eads to the transmission of ambiguous indications of the driver's intent.

As a lawyer I have had two occasions to see the ambiguity resulting from brake pumping in cases in which some of the red rear signal bulbs were not working. At least when one yellow turn signal is not working one is not led to believe that the preced ing driver is planning a turn when he is not. He may be planning a turn that you cannot detect but you are not led to believe he will turn right when he is actually planning to turn left.

I hope that the regulations will be changed so that American manufacturers will place safety above their misguided application of aesthetic considerations. Frankly, I even think that amber signals' are themselves more attractive because they make sens e.

Thank you very much for your consideration of this letter.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure: Senate Bill No. 1217

By Mr. Kirby, a petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 1217) of Edward P. Kirby for legislation relative to the use of amber-colored directional signals on new motor vehicles. Public Safety.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

In the Year 1989

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Notwithstanding any general or special law, rule or regulation to the contrary, all new motor vehicles made or sold in the Commonwealth shall have amber-colored directional signals. this act shall take effect as of January 1, 1990.

ID: aiam2735

Dear Mr. Weiher: This responds to your December 12, 1977, request for confirmation tha an air-braked electric trackless trolley may be tested for compliance with S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, with its transmission selector control in the 'DRIVE' position if the drive wheels and motor are permanantly (sic) mechanically connected and the motor automatically provides retardation when the service brake control is depressed. Your other requests for interpretation have been answered by separate letters.; Section S6.1.3 of Standard No. 121 specifies: S6.1.3 Unless otherwise specified, the transmission selector control i in neutral or the clutch is disengaged during all decelerations and during static parking brake tests.; This test condition does not permit testing for compliance with th transmission selector control in the 'DRIVE' position. The performance levels of the standard were established at levels intended for the foundation brakes alone, exclusive of engine braking, and it is for this reason that the selector must be in neutral or the clutch disengaged. This is true both for vehicles with manual and automatic transmissions.; It does appear that a case may be made for testing the bus you describ with the selector in 'DRIVE'. One important factor would be whether the field in the motor generator is permanent or electrically induced. In the event you wish to petition for an amendment of S6.3.1, information of this nature should accompany your petition.; In response to your other question, the agency's July 10, letter t Flyer Industries remains valid.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4075

Dear Mr. Sornson: This responds to your letter to Administrator Steed, asking this agenc to 'delay' its final selection of the Chrysler LeBaron GTS and Dodge Lancer car lines as 'high theft lines' for the purposes of 49 CFR Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. Section 603(a)(3) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3)) requires that all selections of lines initially introduced into commerce before the effective date of Part 541 (April 24, 1986) as high theft lines must be made final within one year after enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act. Neither that statutory requirement nor the implementing regulations adopted by this agency contain any provision that would allow this agency to 'delay' its final selection. Accordingly, your request is denied.; In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3) and 49 CFR Part 542, th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) informed Chrysler of its final selection of the LeBaron and Lancer lines as high theft lines by letter dated October 25, 1985. That letter was a final agency action on this question, again in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 2023(a)(3). There is no provision in the law allowing us to 'delay' final selections, so there is no basis for entertaining your request.; You stated in your letter that the best test of whether a car lin should be treated as a high theft line is its actual theft rate. We agree with that statement. However, it does not address the issue of how to treat car lines, such as your LeBaron GTS and Lancer, for which sufficient theft data are not available.; This agency has been told repeatedly by law enforcement groups that th theft rate for a car in its initial year of introduction is almost always lower than its theft rate in subsequent model years. This is because the vehicle population is relatively small, and experiences a lesser exposure to accidents and other damage than do lines which have been available for more than one model year. Accordingly, lines are less desirable targets for chop shops in their first year of introduction than they become in subsequent model years. Because of this phenomenon, NHTSA did not believe it appropriate to make selections of high theft lines based solely or primarily on preliminary theft data.; Under section 603(a)(3) of the Cost Savings Act, the agency wa required to select not later than October 25, 1985, (one year after the date of the enactment of Title VI of the Cost Savings Act) the high theft lines from among all lines introduced between January 1, 1983, and the effective date of the theft prevention standard. To meet this statutory deadline, NHTSA published a proposal to establish a new Part 542, *Procedures for Selecting Lines to be Covered by the Theft Prevention Standard*, at 50 FR 25603, June 20, 1985. Section 542.1 set forth six proposed criteria to be used in selecting likely high theft lines from lines such as the LeBaron GTS and the Lancer, which were introduced after January 1, 1983, and before the effective date of the theft prevention standard. These criteria were:; >>>1. Retail price of the vehicle line. 2. Vehicle image or marketing strategy. 3. Vehicle lines with which the new line is intended to compete, an the theft rates of such lines.; 4. Vehicle line(s), if any, which the new line is intended to replace and the theft rate(s) of such line(s).; 5. Presence or absence of any new theft prevention devices or systems. 6. Preliminary theft rate for the line, if it can be determined on th basis of currently available data.<<<; Chrysler's comments on the proposal stated, 'We generally concur wit the proposed procedures. In our opinion the information which the NHTSA is requesting from manufacturers in order to establish anticipated theft rates for their various car lines appears reasonable.' General Motors commented that the agency should adopt some weighting of these criteria, so that the process of selecting a line as a high theft line would be more objectively defined. General Motors specifically commented, 'Probably the only criterion which could be used with any degree of certainty in selecting vehicles ... is theft data.' In the final rule establishing Part 542, NHTSA responded to this comment as follows:; >>>As noted in the NPRM, these judgments of likely high theft lines ar partially subjective judgments. NHTSA concurs with GM's statement that neither price nor vehicle image alone can be strictly correlated to vehicle theft rates. However, NHTSA believes that the six criteria set forth in Appendix C considered together do form an objective basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. 50 FR 34831, at 34834, August 28, 1985.<<<; NHTSA continues to believe that the six criteria form an objectiv basis for predicting if a new line is likely to be a high theft line. When these criteria were applied to the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines, we concluded that criterion 1 did not point to the cars being either high or low theft, criteria 2 and 3 indicated the lines would be high theft, criteria 4 and 5 were not applicable, and criterion 6 indicated the cars would be low theft. On balance, then, the criteria indicated the lines will be high theft lines.; Accordingly, even if there were some authority to allow us to delay th October 25 final selections, we would still conclude that the LeBaron GTS and Lancer lines are likely high theft lines.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/12/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Don Fightmaster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 12, 1985 Mr. Don Fightmaster Director Division of Pupil Transportation Kentucky Department of Education Capital Plaza Tower Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Dear Mr. Fightmaster: Thank you for your letter to former Chief Counsel Frank Berndt concerning the school bus regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I regret the delay in our response. In your letter, you state that Kentucky is planning to contract with commercial bus companies to use Greyhound-type buses to transport deaf and blind students to and from State-operated schools for the deaf and blind. The buses would be used on established routes for 9 round trips per year. You asked for NHTSA's opinion regarding the leasing of Greyhound-type buses in this manner. I would like to begin by explaining that there are two sets of regulations issued by NHTSA that affect buses used for school transportation. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by this agency under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Vehicle Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to direct us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as emergency exits, seating systems, windows, and body strength. These standards became effective for buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, "school bus" is defined as "passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which...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..." (Emphasis added.) The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers of new school buses and their dealers or distributors from selling new buses for use as school buses if those vehicles do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards. Federal law would prohibit the sale of new Greyhound buses for use as school buses because those buses as currently manufactured do not meet the requirements of our safety standards for school buses. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that the applicability of the school bus safety standards to a particular vehicle is determined by looking at the intended use of the new vehicle at the time of its initial sale. Buses that are not likely to be "significantly used" to transport school students are not "school buses" subject to our school bus safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act would not prohibit leasing companies from leasing Greyhound buses to Kentucky for school transportation, if the buses, at the time of their initial sale, were not "likely to be significantly used" to transport school students. those buses would not be "school buses" subject to the school bus safety standards. On the other hand, new buses that are likely to be significantly used to transport school children would be school buses, and the parties selling the vehicles are required to sell complying school buses. If a leasing company were to buy a new bus, intending to use it to transport your students on 9 round trips a year, then we believe the use of the bus for school transportation would be "significant" within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act. Accordingly, the leasing company could not be sold a new Greyhound bus for this purpose. Although, from a legal standpoint, you are not prohibited from leasing certain Greyhound buses for school transportation, I would like to emphasize the importance that this agency attaches to the use of the safest possible means to transport school children. It remains our position that a school bus meeting the Federal school bus safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. While school buses have always been among the safest methods of transportation, the safety record of school buses has further improved in the years since buses began to be manufactured in accordance with the school bus safety standards. We urge you to consider arranging to have your deaf and blind students transported in complying school buses. The second set of regulations relating to school buses consists of the Highway Safety Program Standards (HSPS). They were issued under the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and apply to state highway safety grant programs. These standards, which are more in the nature of guidelines, have been adopted in varying degrees by the States. One of these standards is HSPS No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety. A copy of that standard is enclosed. I want to stress that HSPS No. 17 will affect you only if Kentucky has adopted it. Congress has given us discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS No. 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure

ID: 1984-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Branch Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. Suite 462 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your letter of January 20, 1984, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked whether Mazda may modify the display of shift lever positions for vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions to delete the gear lever indicator. As explained below, FMVSS No. 102 does not permit the deletion of the gear position indicator.

You should be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Your letter states that Mazda automobiles with automatic transmissions currently display the gear lever sequence and identify the shift lever position of the automobile. Based on the information in your letter, the agency understands that you propose to modify the display in such a way that "the actual gear selection would not be indicated (as is the case of current manual transmissions)." The pattern of the gear positions would be embossed either on the instrument panel or on the shift lever handle.

Paragraph S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 states that the "identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions...shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." Emphasis added. 49 CFR S571.102. NHTSA interprets "position" to mean the position of the gears in relation to each other and the position that the driver has selected at the time of selection. Therefore, the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator is required for automobiles equipped with automatic transmissions.

You should note that FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, also applies to the display of automatic gear positions. Paragraph S5 of the standard requires that, inter alia, each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck or bus less than 10,000 pounds GVWR with any display listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2 of the standard shall meet the requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of such display. Since "gear position" is listed under S5.1, and "Automatic Gear Position" is listed under Table 2, the requirements of FMVSS No. 101 apply to the display of shift lever positions in vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 20, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 102 - Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock and Transmission Braking Effect.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

In order to provide more flexibility in interior styling, Mazda is considering modifying the display of shift lever positions for automatic transmission equipped vehicles.

Currently, the display of gear positions is used simultaneously to indicate actual gear selection (located at the base of the shift lever on the center floor console). The modification would delete the display at the shift lever base and emboss the selection positions either on the instrument panel (visible to the driver) or on the shift lever handle. The gear sequence would remain the same as currently used and as described in Section 3.1.1. The actual gear selection would not be indicated (as is the case of current annual transmissions).

Mazda assumes this modification would still conform to the criteria described in Section 3.2 of Safety Standard 102. The result would be greater freedom in the area of occupant compartment design. Please comment on this assumption and any further relevent items.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Branch Manager

HN/ab