ID: 2071y

Mr. Sadato Kadoya
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mazda (North America), Inc.
Research & Development Center
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is to provide you with a clarification of our letter to you dated November 3, l988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our letter advised you that Standard No. l08 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HBl light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(l) states that "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual [HBl] or adjustment of reflector aim with two [HBls]." To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 light sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(l). Standard No. l08 has been amended effective June 8, l989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(l) and (e)(l). Each has been revised to state "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector."

We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate.

The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:7/l0/89

ID: 2072y

Mr. Sadato Kadoya
Manager, Safety Engineering
Mazda (North America), Inc.
Research & Development Center
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

Dear Mr. Kadoya:

This is to provide you with a clarification of our letter to you dated November 3, l988, based upon your telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this Office.

Our letter advised you that Standard No. l08 did not preclude the use of replaceable bulb headlamps with adjustable reflectors. In reply, you have cited two provisions of the standard which appear in conflict with this interpretation. With respect to a headlamp equipped with one or two HBl light sources, S4.1.1.36(e)(l) states that "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual [HBl] or adjustment of reflector aim with two [HBls]." To similar effect with respect to HB3 and HB4 light sources is S4.1.1.36(f)(l). Standard No. l08 has been amended effective June 8, l989, and the corresponding requirements are now S7.5(d)(l) and (e)(l). Each has been revised to state "There shall be no mechanism that allows adjustment of an individual light source, or, if there are two light sources, independent adjustment of each reflector."

We believe that the revised wording of the new sections clearly allow the adjustment of single reflectors in single light source replaceable bulb headlamps, and dual reflectors in dual-light source replaceable bulb headlamps, provided that the reflectors are not capable of independent adjustment. Further, new S7.7.2.2 specifically addresses how moveable reflectors must operate.

The intent of these sections is to prohibit headlamp designs in which the bulb alone is adjusted to aim the headlamp since this is contrary to mechanical aim requirements, or, where there is more than one reflector in a headlamp, designs in which each reflector may be adjusted independently, since this is also contrary to achieving precise mechanical aim.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:7/l0/89

ID: 2073y

Mr. John E. Hammer
John E. Hammer & Associates
235 W. Hamilton Lane
Battle Creek, MI 49015

Dear Mr. Hammer:

This responds to your inquiry about the attachment of a rigid hood ornament onto a motor vehicle. You explained that you were developing an aftermarket kit to help prevent the theft of such hood ornaments. You asked about the legalities of an individual owner using such a kit to attach a hood ornament. As explained below, while the agency does not regulate the actions of an individual vehicle owner, you as the manufacturer will have responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Vehicle Safety Act").

A replacement hood ornament kit would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" under section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). That section defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle....

The Safety Act gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Although NHTSA has issued motor vehicle safety standards for certain types of motor vehicle equipment, there is no standard directly applicable to hood ornaments. Thus, the manufacture and sale of the aftermarket product to a vehicle owner for use with his or her vehicle would not be affected by the requirements of any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Although no standard directly applies to a hood ornament, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, /108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...

If using the hood ornament would adversely affect compliance with a safety standard, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would "render inoperative" a design element in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated /108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each /108 violation where a design element was "rendered inoperative." However, the provisions of 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Act by using the hood ornament kit even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle or equipment.

Second, you will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if you offer this product for sale. As a manufacturer, you will be subject to the requirements of //151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Section 102(11) of the Vehicle Safety Act defines "defect" as "any defect in performance, construction, components, or materials in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment." (emphasis added). Section 102(1) defines "motor vehicle safety" as "the performance of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment in such a manner that the public is protected against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring as a result of design, construction or performance of motor vehicles..." (emphasis added).

If you or the agency determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign.

The agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects, except in the context of a defect proceeding. I note that hood ornaments typically are constructed to yield to pressure so as to reduce the risk of injuries to pedestrians. Therefore, it is possible that a rigid, non-yielding ornament might be considered a safety related defect if the rigid design were determined to pose an unreasonable safety risk.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#108(a)(2)(A)#102(4)#102(11) d:l0/6/89

ID: 20747.ztv

Mr. George Manset
Director of Engineering
Martin Industries
P.O. Box 128
Florence, AL 35631

Dear Mr. Manset:

This is in reply to your letter of September 14, 1999, to Rich Van Iderstine, with respect to whether your prospective location of taillamps on utility trailers complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your current practice is to locate taillamps "on the very rear of the trailer (which have total lengths of 96" and 132")." You are considering locating these lamps in the fenders "which are 12" and 30" from the rear on the respective trailers." You observe that for many trailer designs, with tilt features and loading ramps, "it isn't always practical to be located directly on the rear." Mr. Van Iderstine tells us that these designs may also affect the location of other rear lighting equipment such as stop and turn signal lamps, and perhaps license plate lamps and clearance lamps as well.

Paragraph S5.3.1 of Standard No. 108 requires motor vehicle lighting equipment to be mounted in the location specified in Table II or Table IV of Standard No. 108. Each Table requires stop, turn signal, clearance, and taillamps to be mounted "on the rear." Further, S5.3.2 requires each lamp to be located "so that it meets the visibility requirements specified in any applicable SAE Standard." The applicable SAE Standards are indicated in Table I and Table III.

As you know, lamps must be designed to meet minimum candlepower specifications measured at various test points. In general, the visibility of lamps must not be obstructed by any part of the vehicle throughout the photometric test angles for the lamp, unless the lamp is designed to comply with all photometric and visibility requirements with the obstructions considered. Further, the signal from lamps on both sides of the vehicle must be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 deg. to the left to 45 deg. to the right. To be considered visible, the lamp must provide an unobstructed projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex at least 2 sq. in (12.5 sq. cm.) in extent, measured at 45 deg. to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

Enclosed are three letters which address issues raised by your question. You will see from our letter of January 29, 1996, to Tommy Reeder, that it is not necessary to locate lamps literally on the extreme end of a tilt bed trailer provided that the photometric and visibility requirements of Standard No. 108 are met in the location chosen. We informed Jack Rademacher on August 22, 1990, that we interpret "on the rear" as meaning the trailing edge of the rear fender, providing the visibility requirements were met. If your taillamps meet all the visibility requirements when mounted in the trailing edge of a rear fender 12 inches from the extreme end of the trailer, we would consider the lamps as mounted "on the rear." However, our letter of January 8, 1990, to Howard Kossover stated that lamps mounted 27 inches from the rear edge of the vehicle were not mounted "on the rear" as the standard specifies; further, we had reservations whether the visibility requirements could be met in that location. This means that your contemplated location of 30 inches would not comply with Standard No. 108 as we have interpreted it.

If you have any questions, you may phone Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:108
d.11/16/99

ID: 2074y

Mr. Sadato Kadoya
Mazda Research & Development of North America, Inc.
1203 Woodbridge Avenue
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

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. l08, 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

ref:l08 d:l0/6/89

ID: 20754ogm

Patrick M. Raher, Esq.
Hogan and Hartson, L.L.P.
Columbia Square
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Raher:

This is in response to your inquiry regarding the visual and audible seat belt warning requirements incorporated into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your letter describes the operation of the visual and audible warning systems in the 2000 model year Mercedes-Benz M-Class vehicle. In this vehicle, the visual and audible warning system may operate in one of two modes depending on whether the driver fastens his or her seat belt before or after turning the ignition key to the "on" or "start" position. You indicate that if the driver enters the vehicle and turns the key to the "on" or "start" position prior to fastening his or her seat belt, a visual warning will flash and an audible warning will sound for eight seconds or until the driver fastens his or her seat belt. If the driver enters the vehicle, fastens his or her seat belt and then turns the key to the "on" or "start" position, the visual warning will flash for 4 to 8 seconds and the audible warning will sound for approximately two seconds. You ask if the latter mode of operation, which you describe as "a vehicle start up systems check" complies with the requirements of Standard No. 208, particularly the provisions of S7.3 of that standard.

While acknowledging that S7.3 of Standard No. 208 indicates that an audible warning may only sound when the key is turned to the "on" or "start" position and the driver's belt is not fastened, you submit that the two second audible signal present in the Mercedes-Benz vehicle when a belted driver turns the key to the "on" or "start" position is not an audible warning as that term used in Standard No. 208. Instead, you indicate that the two second audible warning is a limited duration signal that provides the driver with notification that the audible belt warning system is functioning properly. In your view, the two second duration of this "check" signal is sufficiently shorter than the 4 to 8 second warning established by S7.3 so that drivers will neither be confused or annoyed by a signal that sounds when the belt is fastened, even though this is the same signal that is activated when the belt is not fastened. In addition, as S7.3 specifies that the audible warning shall be 4 to 8 seconds in length, you submit that a shorter or longer signal is permissible.

The agency does not agree with your suggested interpretation. Paragraph S7.3 of Standard No. 208 requires a seat belt warning system that activates a 4 to 8-second warning light when the vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position (condition "a"), and a 4 to 8-second audible signal when condition "a" exists and the driver's lap belt is not fastened (condition "b"). Under the mode of operation you describe as occurring when the seat belt is fastened prior to the key being turned to the "on" or "start" position, the audible signal would be activated when ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position and when the driver's lap belt is fastened - when both conditions "a" and "b" exist. However, it would also be activated when a driver's belt is fastened - when condition "a" alone exists.

The functioning of the audible signal when the driver's belt is fastened is not permissible under the standard. The rulemaking notices which led to adoption of the current requirement stated that the agency's intent was that the audible signal operate only if the driver's lap belt is not in use. The agency expressed that same intent in the standard by specifying the light was to function when ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position and the audible signal was only to sound when the ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position and the driver's belt remains unfastened. To interpret the standard to permit the audible signal to operate when the ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position condition regardless of whether the belt is fastened would be to make purposeless the specification that the audible signal sound only when a belt is not fastened.

Further, as NHTSA has emphasized in past interpretations and rulemaking notices, the audible warning signal is most effective when employed judiciously. In establishing the warning signal requirements, restrictions were placed on the operation of the audible warning signal in consideration of the irritation factor associated with the signal but not with the light. To provide a reminder and incentive for safety belt use and to avoid subjecting the conscientious belt user to having to hear an audible reminder to do something that he or she has already done, the agency specified that the signal would not function if the driver's safety belt was fastened.

Your letter indicates that Mercedes-Benz believes that the operation of the audible warning when the driver's belt is fastened serves a valuable purpose, i.e. it purportedly serves as a "vehicle start-up systems check" that alerts the driver that all warning systems are operational. The sounding of the audible warning is, you contend, no different from that illumination of various warning light telltales that are activated when the ignition key is first switched to the on position. Mercedes-Benz believes, therefore, that the sounding of the audible warning for a 2 to 4 second period at this time will neither confuse or annoy drivers any more than the flashing of a telltale at the same time. You further submit that the agency has never indicated, either by regulation or interpretation, that an audible warning that sounds for less than the regulatory time frame of 4 to 8 seconds is prohibited. Last, you indicate that most drivers fasten their belts after turning the ignition switch to the "on" position. In such a case, these drivers would never be subjected to the audible warning that would occur in the Mercedes-Benz vehicle when the belt is already fastened.

NHTSA disagrees with your view of the utility of the audible warning sounding when a belt is already fastened. An examination of the owner's manual for the 2000 model year M-Class vehicle does not reveal any mention of an audible warning "check" function. Without denying the importance of a functioning belt warning system, NHTSA believes that operation of the audible belt warning when the belt is fastened could both confuse and aggravate drivers. This phenomenon becomes particularly acute where, as here, vehicle users are not informed as to the nature and purpose of the "check" signal. The agency also disagrees with your view that our regulations and past interpretations indicate that any such audible warning that is shorter or longer in duration than 4 to 8 seconds when a belt is already fastened is permissible. Both the regulations and our past interpretations make it clear that the audible warning may only sound for 4 to 8 seconds when the ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position and the driver's belt remains unfastened. In regards to your contention that most drivers will never be subjected to the superfluous audible warning, we note that the requirements for belt warnings are intended to establish performance that will adequately protect all drivers.

I hope that this is responsive to your request. If you have any further questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.7/12/00

ID: 20759.drn

Mr. Matthew Dombrowski
St. Anne's Infant and Maternity Home
4901 Eastern Avenue
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Dear Mr. Dombrowski:

This responds to your letter asking for a copy of "the recently approved rule or law regarding the use of 15 passenger vans for the transportation of children to or from preschool through grade 12." At the outset, let me state that there is no new Federal law that regulates how children must be transported. Instead, as explained below, we have recently reexamined how our requirements apply to certain buses used to transport school children.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles. Our statute at 49 U.S.C. 30112 requires any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all applicable standards. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new "school bus" must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the safety standards applicable to school buses. Our statute defines a "schoolbus" as any vehicle that is designed for carrying a driver and more than 10 passengers and which, NHTSA decides, is likely to be "used significantly" to transport "preprimary, primary, and secondary" students to or from school or related events. 49 U.S.C. 30125. By regulation, the capacity threshold for school buses corresponds to that of buses -- vehicles designed for carrying more than ten (10) persons. For example, a 15-person van that is likely to be used significantly to transport students is a "school bus." Persons selling or leasing new 15-person vans for such use must sell or lease a van that meets our school bus standards.

In determining whether a dealer must sell a school bus to a facility, we distinguish between facilities that provide educational programs and those that are strictly custodial. We do not consider facilities that provide custodial programs to be "schools." However, in recent interpretations (see the attached July 23, 1998 letter to Mr. Don Cote) we have stressed that, even if a bus were sold to a facility that provides custodial care, if that facility were purchasing the new bus to use significantly to transport students to or from a school or events related to a school, a dealer knowing of this purpose would be required to sell a school bus.

Because our laws apply only to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, we do not prohibit schools or other facilities from using large vans to transport school children, even when the vehicles do not meet Federal school bus safety standards. However, each State has the authority to set its own standards regarding the use of motor vehicles, including school buses. For this reason, Maryland law should be consulted to see if there are regulations about how children must be transported.

In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country, and that we therefore strongly recommend that all buses that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting NHTSA's school bus safety standards. In addition, using 15-person vans that do not meet NHTSA's school bus standards to transport students could result in liability in the event of a crash.

I am enclosing NHTSA's publication: "School Bus Safety: Safe Passage for America's Children." This brochure explains the safety enhancements of a school bus that makes school buses safer than "conventional vans." There are small school buses available that seat 15 children. While school buses are more expensive than large vans, we believe that the cost difference is not so large that it should prevent facilities from acquiring school buses. The cost range for 15-passenger school buses is approximately $30-32,000, compared to $25-28,000 for 15-passenger vans. The longer service life for school buses will offset a part of this difference.

Our belief that vehicles providing the safety of school buses should be used whenever transporting children in buses is shared by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). At a June 8, 1999, public meeting, the NTSB issued the attached abstract of a special investigative report on nonconforming buses. The NTSB issued the report after investigating four crashes in 1998 and 1999 in which 9 people were killed and 36 injured when riding in "nonconforming buses." NTSB defines "nonconforming bus" as a "bus that does not meet the FMVSSs specific to school buses." Most of the victims, including eight of the fatalities, were children.

In the abstract of its report, the NTSB issued several Safety Recommendations, including the following that was directed to child care providers such as the National Association of Child Care Professionals, the National Child Care Association, and Young Mens' and Young Women's Christian Associations:

Inform your members about the circumstances of the accidents discussed in this special investigation report and urge that they use school buses or buses having equivalent occupant protection to school buses to transport children.

I am also enclosing NHTSA's February 1999 "Guideline for the Safe Transportation of Pre-school Age Children in School Buses." This guideline establishes NHTSA's recommendations for how pre-school age children should be transported in school buses.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's programs, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:VSA#571.3
d.10/22/99

ID: 2075y

Mr. David W. Raney
Environmental Activities Manager
Saab-Scania of America, Inc.
Saab Drive
P. O. Box 697
Orange, CT 06477

Dear Mr. Raney:

Thank you for your letter requesting our interpretation of 49 CFR Parts 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, and 543, Exemption from Theft Prevention Standard. I apologize for the delay in this response.

You asked two questions. Your first question concerned the scope of the exemptions granted under Part 543. You noted that the Saab 9000 car line has been determined to be a high theft car line. Accordingly, Part 541 requires that both the original equipment and the replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 be marked with certain information. Your letter states that your company marked both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 in the 1987 and 1988 model years.

For the 1989 model year, the Saab 9000 was granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, pursuant to the provisions of Part 543. Your company understands that this exemption means that the original equipment parts on the Saab 9000 are no longer required to be marked. However, the replacement parts for the Saab 9000 that are produced in 1989 and thereafter pose a more difficult problem. On the one hand, Saab could consider these parts as replacement parts for the 1989 models, which would mean these parts are exempted from the parts marking requirement. On the other hand, these parts could also be considered as replacement parts for the 1987 and 1988 Saab 9000 line, which would mean the parts have to be marked because no exemption applies for such parts.

The answer to your question is that once a high theft line is granted a Part 543 exemption in whole from the parts marking requirements of Part 541, as the Saab 9000 was, the replacement parts for that line are also exempted from the parts marking requirements even if those parts can be used as replacement parts for the high theft line during model years for which no exemption applies. NHTSA addressed this issue in the preamble to the September 8, 1987 final rule establishing Part 543 (52 FR 33821), as follows:

Section 602(d)(2)(A) of Title VI (of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act) states that the vehicle theft prevention standard can not require 'identification of any part which is not designed as a replacement for a major part required to be identified under such standard.' (Emphasis added.) As long as a manufacturer is producing a car line under an exemption granted in whole, there is no requirement to identify major parts otherwise subject to the theft standard; therefore, NHTSA can not require marking replacement parts. 52 FR 33828.

Applying this reasoning to your company's situation, Saab was free to discontinue marking both the original equipment and replacement major parts for the Saab 9000 as soon as the Part 543 exemption took effect, provided that Saab actually installed the antitheft device described in its petition as original equipment on 1989 Saab 9000 vehicles.

Your second question asked whether the manufacturer of a high theft car lines that has been granted an exemption from the parts marking requirements, pursuant to Part 543, may discontinue the installation of the antitheft device and resume parts marking in some future model year. We addressed this issue in detail in a May 4, 1988 letter to Ms. Deborah Bakker, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. A manufacturer of a high theft line that has received an exemption under Part 543 is required to either install the antitheft device as standard equipment on every vehicle in that line produced during a model year or to mark all original equipment and replacement major parts for that line produced during the model year. As long as Saab marked all of the original equipment and replacement parts produced in a model year for the Saab 9000, your company is free to stop installing the antitheft device on those cars.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref: Parts 541, 543 d:l0/l2/89

ID: 20778.drn

Jacqueline Glassman, Esq.
Senior Staff Counsel
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
1000 Chrysler Drive   CIMS 485-14-18
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2766






Dear Ms. Glassman:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of S4.5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection. I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether a warning referenced in S4.5 is required when the driver's door is opened and the metal key is in the "accessory" position of a vehicle's ignition switch when that position is not between the "on" and "lock" positions. Our answer is yes.

The purpose of Standard No. 114 is to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from unauthorized operation of a motor vehicle, and from the rollaway of parked vehicles with automatic transmissions as a result of children moving the shift mechanism out of the "park" position. To further these purposes, S4.5 of the standard provides that: "A warning to the driver shall be activated whenever the key required by S4.2 has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened." ⁽¹⁾ The purpose of the provision is to prevent, as far as possible, drivers from inadvertently leaving the key in the ignition lock when the car is unoccupied. See, e.g., 34 FR 9342 (June 13, 1969).

There are three exceptions to the general requirement of S4.5 that a warning must be activated whenever the key has been left in the locking system and the driver's door is opened. The exceptions set forth in S4.5(a) through (c), which were promulgated after the general requirement was adopted, provide that the warning to the driver need not operate:

(a) After the key has been manually withdrawn to a position from which it may not be turned;

(b) When the key-locking system is in the "on" or "start" position; or

(c) After the key has been inserted in the locking system and before it has been turned.

Your letter refers to vehicles manufactured by DaimlerChrysler in which the warning referenced in S4.5 does not operate when the key is in the "accessory" position. A drawing you provided of the ignition switch system in these vehicles shows the ignition switch aperture in the center, surrounded by the positions, in clockwise order from the left, "accessory" (at approximately the 7:00 position, if you imagine the round aperture as the face of a clock), "lock" (at 9:00), "off" (at 11:00), "on" (at 1:00), and "start" (at 2:00).

Your letter asserts that "the key is removed from the key locking system when it is turned to the 'accessory' position of the ignition switch." You suggest that this is because the key, in the "accessory" position, "does not permit normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, nor does it permit steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle" (you refer to the words of S4.2 of the standard, which states that removal of the key must have such an effect on the vehicle). Yet you acknowledge that the key remains in the ignition switch.

We do not agree that the key has been withdrawn from the key-locking system when it is in the "accessory" position. The fact that the key would have to be turned to activate the engine or to allow steering or forward self-mobility does not mean that the key is not in the key-locking system. The key would also have to be turned from the "lock" position, which you acknowledge is part of the key-locking system. Similarly, the fact that the "accessory" position is beyond the "lock" position is irrelevant, since the standard does not refer to the relative locations of the various positions in a key-locking system. The risks that Standard No. 114 is designed to protect against (theft and rollaway) are no less real when the key is in the "accessory" position than when it is left in other positions in the vehicle's ignition switch.

In asserting that the key-locking system includes only positions between "on" and "lock," you quote the following sentences from the preamble to the amendment to Standard No. 114 that added the exceptions to S4.5 (34 FR 9342, 9343 (June 13, 1969)):

It was the purpose of this provision to require activation of the warning device whenever the key is left in the lock in a position from which the lock can be turned. Once the driver has withdrawn the key beyond the position, he is presumably aware of the location of the key, and no warning need be given to him. (Your emphasis.)

However, contrary to your assertion, this language demonstrates that the standard applies when a key is left in the "accessory" position, since it is not disputed that "the lock can be turned" from that position. Indeed, the Federal Register notice from which you quote specifically refers to a situation when ". . . the key is so far removed as to be dangling from the locking mechanism" (34 FR at 9343), a position from which it could not be turned at all. Further, to the extent that your letter could be construed as suggesting that the exemption in S4.5(a) applies to this situation, we interpret the phrase "has been manually withdrawn" in S4.5(a) as referring to the action of removing, or attempting to remove, a key from the switch (resulting in, for example, a dangling key), not the turning of the key to a position that is within the switch, such as the "accessory" position. Interpreting the wording this way is consistent with the purposes of the amendment and with the standard itself.

NHTSA's denial of a 1969 petition for rulemaking from General Motors (GM) to amend the S4.5(a) exemption is illustrative. GM wanted us to allow the warning to be inoperative "after the key has been manually withdrawn from the normal operating position." It sought the amendment because on some then-manufactured GM vehicles, a driver could manipulate the ignition key into a position at which the warning buzzer would be deactivated, but the key would be able to turn the lock.

In denying GM's petition, NHTSA stated that the suggested amendment was contrary to the purpose of the requirement, which was:

. . . to make it virtually impossible for a driver inadvertently to leave his key in the ignition lock when he exits and thereby to reduce car thefts along with the high potential for accidental injury and death that stolen cars have. If it were possible for a driver to manipulate the key so as to render the warning inoperative while, at the same time, to continue to operate the vehicle with the key in the lock, the salutary purpose of the warning requirement would be defeated.

34 FR 19547 (December 11, 1969).

You present an analogous situation. A key in the "accessory" position is a "key in the lock." Allowing the warning to be inoperative in such a position, from which the key may be turned, would be contrary to the purpose of the warning requirement.

We also note that the legal position that you advocate in your letter is belied by the long-standing understanding by Chrysler Corporation (a predecessor of DaimlerChrysler) of the requirements of Standard No. 114. For example, Compliance Procedure CP-383, issued on February 18, 1988, "describes the method to be used in verifying compliance of the ignition and steering column key in-lock warning with the vehicle theft protection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (MVSS) 114 . . . ." That document states, "The Warning [to the driver] must operate when the ignition key is in the accessory, lock or off positions." (boldface type and underlining in original).

Similarly, DaimlerChrysler's Manufacturing Assurance Standards Safety/Emissions (MASSE) 11-3002, entitled "Seat Belt and Key-In Lock Warning Systems - All Vehicles," specifies in Section 1.1 (which explicitly refers to Standard No. 114), "A warning to the driver will be activated whenever the ignition key has been left in the locking system, the ignition is in the "OFF", "LOCK", or "ACC" position and the driver's door is opened." This is reiterated in the "Manufacturing Assurance Requirements," of MASSE 11-3002, which state (in Section 2.2) that the applicable "Vehicle Conditions" include placing the "Ignition key in ignition and in 'OFF' or 'Accessory' position." Moreover, the "Verification Sequence" for this requirement described in Section 2.3 specifies the following procedure: "Open the driver's door. THE BUZZER OR CHIME SHOULD ACTIVATE AN AUDIBLE WARNING." (emphasis in original). Thus, Chrysler's Compliance Procedure and MASSE unequivocally demonstrate that the company has long understood that Standard No. 114 applies when the key is left in the "accessory" position.

Ultimately, even apart from DaimlerChrysler's past understanding and its internal documents, the position advocated in your letter is inconsistent with common sense and experience. One primary purpose of the "accessory" position in automobiles is to allow drivers who have reached their destination to listen to the radio or perform a task requiring use of the vehicle's electrical system without running the engine. It is certainly foreseeable that a forgetful driver in that situation might inadvertently leave the key in the vehicle upon exiting if he or she were not alerted by a warning. It was to prevent such an occurrence that Standard No. 114 was adopted.

If you need further assistance, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel





ref:114
d.9/25/00

---

1. S4.2 requires each vehicle to 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.

ID: 20789sittightlockingclip

Mr. Cecil Creech
P.O. Box 507
Shadyside, MD 20764

Dear Mr. Creech:

This responds to your October 13, 1999, letter concerning a product that you are seeking to develop, called "the SitTight." You ask whether the product is subject to any Federal standards.

According to your letter, the SitTight is a device designed for use with vehicle belt systems, to tighten the vehicle seat belt used to attach a child restraint to the vehicle seat. From your sketches, the SitTight appears to consist of a spooling and ratchet mechanism that takes up slack in the belt system when used on a vehicle seat alongside a child restraint. It appears to be of a size that fits in the palm of a hand. The SitTight would be positioned next to the base of the child restraint, and both straps of a lap and shoulder belt would be fed through the slots in the SitTight. The consumer would move a handle on the SitTight up and down to tighten the seat belt to the correct tension. To remove the SitTight, the seat belt would be released.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, Congress has established a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information set forth in your letter.

There currently are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the SitTight. Our standard for "child restraint systems," Standard No. 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." The standard does not apply to accessory items, such as a device that is used with a child restraint to remove slack in the vehicle belt system.

While no standard applies to the SitTight, 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.

For your information, passenger vehicles manufactured since September 1, 1995, are required to have a locking mechanism for the lap belt or lap belt portion of lap and shoulder belts, to enable them "to be capable of being used to tightly secure child safety seats without the necessity of the users attaching any device to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle...." Further, we amended Standard No. 213 earlier this year to require child restraint systems manufactured on or after September 1, 2002 to be equipped with connectors that attach to an independent child restraint anchorage system in vehicles. The effect of this rule will enable child restraints to be attached to the vehicle seat without the use of seat belts. We believe that these requirements will address some of the same securement problems that you hope to address with the SitTight.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:213
d.11/24/99