ID: aiam5540

"Dear Mr. Farmand: This responds to your letter of April 27, 1995. You letter concerns a law suit in which you represent plaintiffs injured in an automobile accident. In this law suit, the counsel for the defendant has moved to amend his answer to assert that 49 CFR 571.208, paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) requires each state to allow for mitigation of damages in any seat belt use law and that paragraph preempts the Florida mandatory seat belt law. According to your letter, the Florida law 'does not allow a mitigation of damages defense with respect to an alleged failure to wear a seat belt.' As explained below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration agrees with you that the Florida safety belt use law is neither expressly nor impliedly preempted by Federal law. Purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2) Before discussing the issue of preemption, I want to discuss the background and purpose of Paragraph S4.1.5.2(c)(2). That paragraph was added to Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) as part of a final rule issued July 17, 1984 concerning automatic restraints (49 FR 28962). That final rule required all new cars to have automatic protection (air bags or automatic belts) starting in the 1990 model year. The final rule included a provision that the automatic restraint requirement would be rescinded if the Secretary of Transportation determined, not later than April 1, 1989, that a sufficient number of States had enacted belt use laws meeting certain minimum criteria to cover at least two-thirds of the U.S. population (paragraph S4.1.5). Under S4.1.5, the Secretary was not required to make any determination about any State safety belt laws. In fact, the Secretary never did so, in part because not enough States adopted mandatory seat belt use laws of any sort prior to April 1, 1989. Because no determination was made under S4.1.5, the automatic restraint requirements are now in effect for all passenger cars. The minimum criteria were set forth in S4.1.5.2 of Standard No. 208. One of the criteria was 'a provision specifying that the violation of the belt usage requirement may be used to mitigate damages...' (S4.1.5.2(c)(2)). However, S4.1.5 neither purported to require nor was intended to require States to enact safety belt use laws. In addition, S4.1.5 did not require that any State safety belt use laws had to incorporate the minimum criteria of S4.1.5.2. Paragraph S4.1.5 merely provided that the Secretary would rescind the automatic restraint requirement if he or she determined that a sufficient number of States enacted laws which met the criteria of S4.1.5.2 by April 1, 1989. Preemption The Florida safety belt use law is not and never has been either expressly or impliedly preempted by Federal law. Standard No. 208 was issued under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 which expressly preempts state laws only to the extent provided by section 30103. That section provides for the express preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards that are not identical to Federal standards. However, the Florida seat belt law is not a motor vehicle safety standard within the meaning of Chapter 301, since it does not regulate motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance. Accordingly, the Florida law is not expressly preempted. The Florida law is not impliedly preempted because (1) Congress has not occupied the field of regulation of the behavior of motor vehicle occupants, and (2) the Florida seat belt law does not conflict with any Federal law or interfere with the objectives of Federal law. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5638

"Dear Congressman Clement: Thank you for your letter of October 3 1995, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Dale Allen Pommer concerning his attempts to have a third seat belt installed in the back seat of his 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer. Mr Pommer has been told that this cannot be done because of safety laws. You requested comments on Mr. Pommer's letter. As explained below, there is no Federal prohibition against the modification Mr. Pommer would like done to his vehicle. However, Federal law does place some limits on how the modification is done. The installation of additional seat belts must be done in a way that does not compromise the performance of the existing seat belts. Some background information about the agency may be useful. NHTSA has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum standards, and may be exceeded by manufacturers. Federal law prohibits the manufacture or sale of any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. After the first retail sale, there is a limit on the modifications that can be made by certain businesses to vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from 'knowingly making inoperative' any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard (49 USC 30122). In general, the 'make inoperative' prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that it does not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. A safety belt is an item of motor vehicle equipment and all safety belts sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as a replacement part. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The additional belt which might be added to Mr. Pommer's vehicle must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 209. In addition to Standard No. 209, the agency has issued two additional safety standards which apply to new vehicles and affect safety belts: Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer would have been required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at each rear designated seating position. A 'designated seating position' is defined by NHTSA regulations as: any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion...Any bench or split-bench seat ...having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions. Since the 1983 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer had a rear bench seat with 49.5 inches of hip room, that seat was required to have a minimum of two lap belts. The 'make inoperative' prohibition discussed earlier would not prohibit a business from adding a third seat belt to Mr. Pommer's vehicle. In addition, the anchorages would not have to comply with Standard No. 210. However, in adding the third seat belt, it is possible that the existing belts and anchorages would have to be relocated. The businesses contacted by Mr. Pommer may be concerned that the belts and anchorages could not be removed and replaced without 'making inoperative' the compliance of those belts and anchorages. I hope this information has been helpful. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam3784

Dear Mr. Sweeney: This responds to your letter of November 22, 1983, regarding th application of Safety Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) to the new Kubvan minivan you intend to manufacture and distribute. You state in your letter that the Kubvan is a minivan designed primarily for delivery and utility service. You ask whether the Kubvan must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt protection under S4.2.2.2 of the standard.; You state that Grumman Olson has built both left hand and right han drive models of the Kubvan. The right hand drive models are intended for use by the United States Postal Service (USPS). You add that Grumman Olson also plans to sell right hand vehicles to any and all interested customers.; Section 4.2.2.2 requires trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less t provide a lap and shoulder belt protection system, except for those 'vehicles designed to be exclusively sold to the United States Postal Service.' As correctly stated in your letter, all Kubvans sold to customers other than the USPS must be equipped with a lap and shoulder belt assembly. However, based on the intent of S4.2.2.2 and the unique operating needs of the USPS, right hand Kubvans sold to the USPS need only be equipped with a lap belt system.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4695

Dear Mr. Maeda: This is in reply to your letter of September 28, l990 requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Table IV of the standard establishes a minimum 'edge to edge separation distance' between turn signal lamps and tail or stop lamps installed on motorcycles. You have asked whether the edge in question is the outer edge of the lamp assembly itself, or the edge of the reflector in the lamp. The minimum edge to edge separation distance is measured from the edge of the illuminated surface of one lamp to another, that is to say, from the edge of the effective projected luminous area of one lens to the edge of the effective projected luminous area of the other. It is unclear from the drawing you enclosed of the 'tail/brake lamp' whether the edge of its effective projected luminous area of the lens is at the edge of the reflector, or at the edge of the lamp (as appears to be the case with the 'turn signal'). If the former, the distance is measured between the edge of the tail/stop lamp reflector to the edge of the turn signal lamp assembly as you have initially indicated. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam0881

Dear Mr. Dershko: This is in response to your requests of July 12 and August 25, 1972 for interpretations of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I regret the delay in our response.; *S5.1.2* Minimum Surface Dimensions The installation of a metal bar across the rear corner windows so tha the minimum surface dimension between the bar and the edge of the glazing would be less than 8 inches would exclude the window from the window retention requirements of S5.1, as you suggest.; *S5.3.2* Emergency Exit Release The motion of the release mechanism, which you clarified in a telephon conversation on October 13 with Mr. Kevin Cavey of the Motor Vehicle Programs staff at NHTSA, meets the directional and clearance requirements of S5.3.2, since the initial motion is perpendicular to the exit surface and the required 2-inch clearance is afforded during the operation of the mechanism.; *S5.5.2* Emergency Exit Identification You are correct in your assumption that normal nighttime illuminatio may include reading lights and that it is not the intent of the standard to require self-illuminated exit identification.; *Figure 3* Access Regions for Exits Without Adjacent Seats You are correct in assuming that Figure 3B requires a 2-inch clearanc around the release mechanism and is not intended to specify the required outline for a rear shelf.; Sincerely yours, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-4.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GEORGE F. BALL -- GM OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: NOVEMBER 28, 1988 LETTER FROM BALL TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your letter seeking our opinion as to whether a new minivan GM plans to introduce (referred to as the GM 200 minivans in your letter) could be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for the purposes of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. In your letter, you indicated GM's belief that this new minivan should be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis.

Your company has concluded that this minivan will be constructed on a truck chassis for several reasons. First, you state that this chassis has "truck attributes" that make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis would be. The examples of such truck attributes set forth in your letter were an integrated ladder-type frame with full-length longitudinal rails and supporting cross-members, an extended width rear axle, a powertrain certified as complying with the light-duty truck e missions standards, and a flat load floor. Second, you state the chassis is a truck chassis because a cargo van version of this vehicle will be marketed and sold for commercial use. Third, you provided an analysis showing that this minivan will have cer tain chassis and body characteristics similar to those characteristics of minivans that are now produced and classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on its manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA do es not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively stat e how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards. It is important for GM to be

2

aware that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on the information presented to the agency by GM, and the tentative classifications may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquir e additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the GM 200 minivan family could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the safety standards, because it will be constructed on a truck chassis. The fact that a cargo van version of the G M 200 will be marketed and sold for commercial use is evidence that the common chassis is a truck chassis. Additionally, the front to rear longitudinal side rails and supporting cross-members that are not present on the A-car chassis shows the GM 200 mi nivan chassis design is more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operations than the A-car chassis. Finally, the characteristics of the GM 200 chassis appear to be similar to the characteristics of other chassis that have been identified as "truck chass is" by their manufacturers. Accordingly, assuming that your description of the GM 200 chassis is accurate, it appears to us that this minivan is constructed on a truck chassis.

The version of your letter to me that has been placed in the public docket has all the information for which you requested confidential treatment deleted from it.

ID: 1984-3.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

Mr. John B. Walsh Head, Regulations & Emissions Laboratory Government Relations Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp. 3251 East Imperial Highway Brea, California 92621

Dear Mr. Walsh:

This is in reply to your letter of October 31, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office, asking for confirmation of a 1972 agency interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

In pertinent part, Table III of Standard No. 108 requires that, at a minimum, a motorcycle be equipped with one taillamp, one stop lamp, and four turn signal lamps. Table IV directs that the stop lamp and taillamp be placed on the vertical centerline, and that the turn signal lamps be placed on each side of the vertical centerline with a minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between the turn signal lamp "and tail or stop lamp." Table IV expressly permits dual stop and taillamps "symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." No express exception is made to the 4-inch spacing requirement if dual stop or taillamps are installed, raising the question whether the minimum distance must be maintained no matter what the rear lighting configuration may be.

You have called to our attention an interpretation of July 1, 1972, that Motor Vehicle Programs of this agency provided Stanley Electric Company Ltd. In that instance the proposed rear lighting configuration consisted of two combination stop, turn signal, and taillamps placed on either side of the vertical centerline. The agency opined that the minimum separation distance was not applicable to combination lamps when there was "no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline." You have asked for confirmation that this remains the agency's view.

As you have pointed out Suzuki's proposed design of a unit combining amber turn signal lamps with red stop and taillamps is similar to current passenger car practice where the minimum distance requirement does not exist. Therefore, this will confirm that the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches between turn signals and stop and taillamps applies when single stop and taillamps are installed on the vertical centerline, but not when dual stop and taillamps are installed on either side of the centerline.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORPORATION

October 31, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vinson Room 5219 Office of Chief Counsel, NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 700 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Subject: Request for Confirmation of Interpretation -FMVSS 108

As we discussed by telephone on 31 October, this is to request confirmation that a July 1972 interpretation of FMVSS 108 applies to the motorcycle rear lighting configuration described below.

Table IV of FMVSS 108 requires that motorcycle rear turn signals be separated by 9 inches or more (centerline to centerline, and that minimum edge to edge distance from the turn signal to the tail or stop lamp be 4 inches or more. These requirements contemplate the typical motorcycle rear lighting configuration of a centrally located combination tail lamp/stop lamp and separate turn signal lamps on each side of the tail/stop lamp.

For some of today's wider motorcycles, however, we are contemplating a different rear lighting configuration, shown roughly in the enclosed sketch. This configuration would consist of a single lamp unit located near the outer edge of each side of the rear of the motorcycle. The inboard part of the lamp would be a red tail lamp/stop lamp combination, and the outboard part of the lamp would be an amber turn signal lamp. Turn signal lamp separation would typically be more than 24 inches, far exceeding the 9 inch minimum required by FMVSS 108, and providing clear indication of the direction of an intended turning maneuver. In essence, this rear lighting configuration is comparable to current practice in passenger car rear lighting.

In 1972, NHTSA indicated that

the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches is not applicable when the functions of tail, stop and turn are combined in a single lamp on each noneside of the motorcycle with no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline.

A copy of this interpretation is enclosed for your reference. Based on this interpretation, Suzuki has designed a configuration as shown in the sketch. We would ask you to confirm that the 1972 interpretation would apply to the configuration shown, in recognition that it is meaningless to require a 4 inch separation distance where it is impossible because of the combined construction of the rear lamp units.

We would greatly appreciate your prompt attention to this request.

Sincerely,

U.S. SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.

John B. Walsh Head, Regulations & Emissions Laboratory Government Relations Department

JW:ej

Enclosure "SKETCH INSERT HERE"

July 1972 N41-34 Mr. H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan Dear Mr. Miyazawa: This is in reply to your letter of July 5 concerning the requirements for stop and turn signal lamps on motorcycles. The answers to the questions you asked follow -- Question 1.

According to FMVSS 108 Table IV, it says, "minimum edge to edge separation distance between lamp and tail stop lamp is 4 inches." However, in the case of the above sketch where tail lamp, stop lamp and turn signal lamp are combined in one, can we ignore the above requirements of Table IV? The answer is yes; the minimum edge to edge separation distance of 4 inches is not applicable when the functions of tail, stop and turn are combined in a single lamp on each side of the motorcycle with no tail or stop lamp mounted on the vertical centerline. Question 2. Suppose the above lamp arrangement is acceptable, must each stop lamp meet the Class A turn signal lamp (red) -- SAE J575d, Table 1? Or, is complying the said requirements with the total of two lamps acceptable? The two stop lamps cannot be considered as multiple lamps, since it is required that the stop lamp be extinguished on the side when the turn signal is flashing. Each of the stop lamps must therefore meet the Class A photometric values specified in Table 1 of SAE J575d. Sincerely, Charles A. Baker for E. T. Driver, Director Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs

ID: aiam2120

Dear Mr. Webb: This is in response to your letters of November 12 and 13, 1975, i which you requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration immediately suspend the effectiveness of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, with respect to buses, without waiting until the end of a comment period. In a notice published November 13, 1975, 40 FR 52856, this agency proposed such a suspension with a 30-day comment period ending December 15, 1975.; Secretary Coleman has made clear his commitment to allowing adequat time for public comment on rulemaking actions. The normal minimum time for public comment on Department of Transportation actions has been established as 45 days. In this case, because of the special urgency of the matter, the period was reduced to 30 days. I believe we all recognize that this action is a significant one, affecting the performance and cost of most of the transit and intercity buses in the country. In these circumstances, it is our judgment that the 30-day period is the minimum that can be justified for comment by the interested public, and your request is therefore denied.; We also recognize, as you have pointed out, that for this short perio there may be some uncertainty and some interruption of normal activities within the affected industries. We will make every effort to reach and announce a decision as soon as possible after the end of the comment period.; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: aiam2244

Dear Mr. Tucker: This responds to Titan Trailer Corporation's March 2, 1976, questio whether certain bulk grain and feed meal trailers manufactured by Titan qualify as bulk agricultural commodity trailers that are permitted until June 30, 1976, to meet emergency and parking brake requirements other than those specified in S5.6 and S5.8 of Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; Sections S5.6 and S5.8 provide that a trailer manufactured before Jun 30, 1976, that is designed to transport bulk agricultural commodities in off-road harvesting sites and to a processing plant or storage location, as evidenced by skeletal construction that accomodates (sic) harvest containers, a maximum length of 28 feet, and an arrangement of air control lines and reservoirs that minimizes damage in field operations, is entitled to a specified option.; From the descriptive material enclosed, it appears that the Tita models 92 and 24 are designed for field use and conform to the criteria of skeletal construction that accomodates (sic) a harvest container, despite the fact that the container is permanently attached to the frame that surrounds it. It is not clear that the trailers are not more than 28 feet in length, or that the design positions air lines and reservoirs to minimize field-related damage. Assuming that the length, air lines, and reservoirs do meet these criteria, it appears that the trailers would qualify for the manufacturer option under S5.6 and S5.8.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-4.17

DATE: 01/09/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation - Wisconsin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 20, 1977, letter asserting that the Wisconsin requirement for minimum seat spacing does not conflict with the Federal requirement for maximum seat spacing found in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) specifies that no State shall have in effect a safety standard concerning an aspect of performance regulated by a Federal safety standard, unless the State standard is identical. The Act provides a limited exception to the above where a State or local municipality has a requirement which applies only to vehicles purchased for their own use and which imposes a higher standard of performance. Both Standard No. 222, which regulates maximum seat spacing, and the Wisconsin standard, which regulates minimum seat spacing, regulate the same aspect of performance. This position is supported by our statements in Notice 5 of Standard No. 222 (41 FR 4016) which expressed the opinion that seat spacing is the regulated aspect of performance (copy enclosed). Since your State standard is not identical to the Federal standard, it is the opinion of the NHTSA that it is preempted.

You should note that although you are not permitted to impose this State standard on all vehicles used in your State, the Federal government does not preclude you from purchasing any buses for your own use from among the several designs now in production. You could, therefore, purchase only those vehicles that afford you the minimum knee space you desire. You should note further that purchase for your own use has been interpreted to mean purchased by a contractor under contract to provide transportation for school children.

SINCERELY,

State of Wisconsin / DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES

September 20, 1977

Joan Claybrook, Administrator NHTSA Office of the Administrator

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

Re: Letter to you from Mr. Robert Kurre, Wayne Corporation Date September 2, 1977

The State of Wisconsin stoutly defends it's position that there is no point of conflict between the FMVSS 222 relating to seat spacing and the Wisconsin Administrative Code, MVD 17.

FMVSS dictates a maximum space permitted (for compartmentalization) for persons riding in school buses. The Wisconsin rule states a minimum distance that is permissible.

The engineering staff at Wayne Corporation was aware of these two non-conflicting standards as of February 23, 1977. It appears to us that this should have been adequate lead time to design and test seats that can meet both the federal and state standard.

To emphasize this point, we have been advised by one manufacturer of school bus bodies that they are meeting both federal and Wisconsin standards on buses manufactured after April 1, 1977. It is the State of Wisconsin contention that it is merely a matter of proper design by the manufacturer to meet both requirements.

The Wisconsin standard was developed because of the concern for adequate knee room in the seats. The federal standard has no minimum knee room, therefore, if a manufacturer wished to have, for instance only 20 inches of knee room, he could so produce a bus and not be in conflict with the federal standard. This is what we have prevented by the implementation of our minimum spacing measurement. We have observed buses built to less than the 24 inch minimum spacing and they are unacceptable for the cross section of pupil transportation in Wisconsin.

To carry this a bit further, the State of Wisconsin subscribes to the proposal that the federal government interpret the 20 inch measurement from the seating reference point be made at the closest point between the seat back rather than have this at the widest point.

We believe Mr. Kurre is in error by stating that the State of Wisconsin has a standard in conflict with a federal standard. We further believe that our 24 inch measurement is the extreme minimum that is necessary for transportation of any school children in Wisconsin

If I can supply you with additional information in this matter, please advise.

JAMES O. PETERSON Administrator

cc: Col. LEW V. VERSNIK; CARL H. ZUTZ