ID: 9977

Mr. David Ori, Manager
Bureau of Motor Vehicles
Vehicle Control Division, Room 104
T&S Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120

Dear Mr. Ori:

This responds to your letter to Mr. James Gilkey of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 to certain limousines. You were concerned about the permissibility of applying sun screening or window tinting to such vehicles during the original manufacturing process, and during the "second stage or alteration phase of the manufacturing process."

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under this authority, NHTSA issued Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials," to specify performance requirements for various types of glazing and to specify the location in the vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. One provision in Standard No. 205 requires a minimum of 70 percent light transmittance in any glazing area requisite for driving visibility. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the vehicle's windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulations are set forth in 49 CFR Part 567. Under this regulation, each manufacturer is required to certify that its motor vehicles comply with all applicable Federal safety standards, including Standard No. 205. As you correctly state, second stage manufacturers and alterers also have certification responsibilities. Specifically, a final stage manufacturer is responsible for certifying a vehicle pursuant to 49 CFR '567.5. Accordingly, you are correct that a final stage manufacturer is

required to certify that its finished product, including the glazing materials, complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

A person who alters a previously certified new vehicle also must certify that the altered vehicle complies with all applicable standards. 49 CFR '567.7. However, this provision does not apply to the "addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components ... or minor finishing operations, such as painting." NHTSA views the addition of window tint film as a "minor finishing operation." Accordingly, a person adding such tint film would not be considered an alterer and therefore would not be subject to certification responsibilities.

However, aside from certification responsibilities, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. ' 30112a, "a person may not...sell, offer for sale, [or] introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce...any motor vehicle...unless the vehicle...complies with [all applicable standards]." Thus, it would be a violation of the statute to sell a new vehicle whose windows which are requisite for driving visibility had been tinted to allow less than 70 percent light transmittance.

Moreover, with respect to vehicles that are no longer new, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business "may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard." Thus, a person in any of these categories may not apply tint film that would cause the light transmittance of the glazing requisite for driving visibility to be under 70 percent.

You stated your belief that limousines that seat less than 10 persons may not be equipped with any sun screening or window tinting product, since such products would violate Standard No. 205. We wish to clarify one aspect of your statement. Limousines that seat less than 10 persons are considered "passenger cars" under NHTSA's regulations. NHTSA considers all windows in a passenger car to be requisite for driving visibility; accordingly, all windows in a passenger car/limousine must have a minimum 70 percent light transmittance. However, please note that tinting may be used in these vehicles, provided the tinted windows meet the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement.

You further asked whether a limousine that seats 10 or more persons is subject to the Federal window tinting requirements. A limousine with a capacity of more than 10 persons is considered a "bus" under our regulations. There are specific requirements in Standard No. 205 that apply to buses (or bus/limousines). Under these requirements, only the windshield and the windows to the immediate left and right of the driver are considered to be requisite for driving visibility (if they are equipped with dual outside mirrors satisfying section S6.1(b) of Standard No. 111), and thus subject to the minimum 70 percent light transmittance requirement. The windows to the rear of the driver in a bus/limousine, including the rear side and rear windows, are not required to meet the light transmittance requirement. Accordingly, Standard No. 205 does not prohibit the use of tinted glazing materials for bus/limousine windows to the rear of the driver when the vehicle is equipped with dual outside mirrors larger than those usually used on passenger cars.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:205#567 d:9/7/94 The agency defines "passenger car" as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less." In turn, "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." A "bus" is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

ID: 9984

Victor Larson, P.E.
Cryenco, Inc.
3811 Joliet Street
Denver, CO 80238

Dear Mr. Larson:

This responds to your FAX of May 17, 1994, with reference to the application of conspicuity material to the sides of cryogenic tank trailers.

You point out that the only side mounting surface for striping that is perpendicular to the road is at the center of the tank, approximately 90 inches above the road surface. You ask for confirmation of your interpretation that conspicuity material can be placed at this location "if that is the only available mounting area" and that it is not necessary to add additional structure for the sole purpose of providing a lower vertical mounting surface.

We confirm your understanding. Standard No. 108 specified an original mounting height for conspicuity material as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for conspicuity treatment that is outside the specified range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers should mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers, in order to achieve the full conspicuity benefits of the material. In the case of your tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at a belt line that is 90 inches above the road surface would be considered to have been mounted as close as practicable to the upper specification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility

in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frame, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

You inform us that some trailers have rear and midship cabinets that could be used, in conjunction with the belt line location, to provide a location for striping, although this would result in a non-aligned striping pattern. With respect to trailers equipped with cabinets, you asked whether compliance would be satisfied if only the belt-line location is used. The answer is yes, provided that the requirement of paragraph S5.7.1.4.2(a) is met, i.e., which provides that "the strip need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered and the spaces are distributed as evenly as practicable." Since the strip need not be continuous, this would allow discontinuities in a strip mounted at 90 inches in which the cabinets were not used.

Your final question is the required orientation of striping for conspicuity; some of your customers have requested placement of material at a downward angle of approximately 30 degrees to accommodate their graphics better. The standard does not explicitly address the issue of orientation. However, as noted in response to your first question, trailer manufacturers should mount conspicuity material in a vertical plane, or as nearly thereto as the trailer shape allows, so that the full conspicuity benefits of the material may be realized. If there is no available vertical surface on which the material can be mounted, we urge that a wider stripe of conspicuity material be used to provide the minimum required performance at the installed downward angle. The manufacturer of the conspicuity material which you use should be able to determine whether an increase in the width of the striping would allow the material mounted at or near the downward angle that your customer prefers to provide performance comparable to a narrower strip mounted in a vertical plane.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:10/14/94

ID: 9990

Mr. Alberto Negro
Chief Executive Officer
Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A.
39300 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3473

Dear Mr. Negro:

This responds to your letter of May 16, 1994, asking if Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection "allows the advisory information required by ... S4.5.1 to be printed in English and also in one or more foreign languages."

On March 10, 1994, NHTSA published a notice responding to petitions for reconsideration of the September 2, 1993 final rule which amended Standard No. 208 to require air bag labels (59 FR 11200). In that notice NHTSA stated:

NHTSA interprets the labeling requirements of the September 2 final rule as requiring manufacturers to supply the information in English. Once this requirement is met, manufacturers may supply the same information in other languages, so long as it does not confuse consumers. As long as the non- English language label is a translation of the required information, NHTSA does not interpret it to be "other information." However, manufacturers are not permitted to include additional information in the non- English label.

I am enclosing a copy of that notice for your information.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208 d:6/8/94

ID: 99aiam3.ogm

Mr. George L. Parker
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
1001 19th St. North
Suite 1200
Arlington, VA 22209

Dear Mr. Parker:

The Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards, L. Robert Shelton, has asked me to respond to several concerns that the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) has raised in both correspondence and in a meeting with the agency on August 19, 1998, regarding the interpretation of Standard 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, and the compliance test procedures for that section. Your letter asks that the agency:

• again consider limiting multiple impacts in cases in which target areas are near each other,
• clarify the definition of "convertible roof frame" in the context of Standard 201,
• provide guidance on the position of sun roofs for targeting purposes,
• clarify the procedure for relocating target areas when those targets must be moved, and
• address what AIAM considers to be unacceptable potential variability between target area locations as derived by manufacturers for certification testing and by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for compliance testing.

In the August 19, 1998, meeting, AIAM and other industry participants presented additional information relating to multiple impacts. They also raised issues concerning lower face and cheek contact during testing, and procedures for relocating targets in the event that movable seat backs make a target area inaccessible for testing.

Multiple Impacts

Your letter indicates that AIAM shares the concern raised by the (former) American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) regarding multiple impacts and that you wish to raise an additional point on this issue. As your letter indicates, AAMA filed a petition for reconsideration in response to the April 8, 1997, final rule modifying the head impact provisions of Standard 201. The AAMA petition, filed on May 23, 1997, requested in part that the agency consider limiting impacts for certain target areas to one impact per individual piece of trim. In its petition, AAMA contended that test impacts may result in damage to trim components that may extend beyond the area in the immediate vicinity of the impact point. AAMA also stated that impacts by the lower face and other portions of the Free Motion Headform (FMH) that are outside of the forehead impact zone may also damage trim so that the ability of the vehicle to withstand an impact at an adjacent target area is compromised. Your letter refers specifically to the potential for an impact by the lower face to cause collateral damage to a second target area when the first is being tested. You state that the lower face and the forehead impact zone of the FMH are approximately 200 millimeters apart and that the existing limitation in S8.14(c) excluding impacts into target areas that are separated by 150 mm or less does not preclude a second impact into a target area that has been damaged by lower face contact resulting from an impact to a nearby target area. Due to this phenomenon, you argue that impacts should be limited to one impact per component.

As you are undoubtedly aware, NHTSA published a denial of the AAMA petition on April 22, 1998. (63 FR 19839) In denying the AAMA petition, the agency noted that AAMA had not submitted any data supporting its position and that the agency continued to believe that the 150 mm minimum distance between target areas was sufficient to prevent overlapping impacts. Accordingly, NHTSA denied the AAMA request to limit impacts to one impact per component.

AAMA presented additional data relating to the consequences of contact between lower portions of the Free Motion Headform and interior trim components during the August 19, 1998, meeting. These data indicate that contact between the lower portion of the FMH and interior trim during testing of one target area may degrade the performance of the trim in the area of the contact to an extent that it may be difficult, if not impossible, for the vehicle to meet the specifications of Standard 201 when tested at a target area in the vicinity of the lower face contact.

The agency recognizes that Standard 201 does not require that a component sustain multiple impacts at a single target area without any degradation in performance. S8.14(c) currently provides that no impact may occur within 150 mm of another impact. This distance was selected because of the possibility that collateral damage could occur when the forehead impact zone of the FMH, which is 125 mm wide, makes contact with an intended target point. In setting this distance, NHTSA did not consider the length of the FMH as well as its width. The agency will initiate rulemaking to consider the possibility of amending the Standard to provide that on certain vertical interior surfaces, notably pillars, roll bars and stiffeners, a target area that is within 200 millimeters of another target area, measured from the center of each target, that has been impacted by the FMH during a compliance test shall be not be tested. The proposal would be limited to vertical surfaces since lower face impacts are most likely to occur on vertical surfaces where the distance between the lower face and the forehead impact zone becomes an issue. However, in cases in which a target on one side of the vehicle is not used because of its proximity to another impact area, the corresponding target on the other side of the vehicle will be used. By testing in this fashion, the agency will be able to test all target points to the requirements of Standard 201 without requiring that targets meet these requirements in multiple impacts.

Lower Face Contact and HIC Calculation

Another item of concern discussed at the August 19, 1998, meeting was the effect of lower face or cheek contact on the measurement of compliance with the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) specified for Standard 201. AIAM, AAMA and others are concerned that, in a number of test configurations, the lower portion of the FMH "face" contacts the vehicle interior either at the same time or very shortly after the forehead impact zone of the FMH contacts a target area. They allege that the contact between the lower portion of the FMH "face" and the vehicle interior in these circumstances results in additional acceleration that may cause the resultant HIC to be higher than it would be if the contact were between the forehead impact zone and the intended target area alone. AAMA recommended that in cases in which the injury reference values are exceeded during compliance testing and it is subsequently determined that early lower face involvement is the cause, the test be rerun with an increased off-set angle sufficient to create an identifiable degree of separation time between forehead impact and the lower face contact. Data developed by General Motors and presented at the August 19, 1998, meeting were used to support the contention that an off-set angle of 25 degrees is needed to delay lower face impact beyond the HIC calculation time period. During that same meeting, Mitsubishi presented an example of a series of tests in which impacts to an upper roof target area resulted in contact between the lower face of the FMH and a nearby B-pillar target, BP-1. According to Mitsubishi, the lower face contact occurred within 6 milliseconds of the forehead striking its intended target, and the accelerations resulting from both impacts could not be distinguished. The result of these two cumulative impacts was purportedly to increase the HIC score to fifty percent above that measured when no lower face contact occurred.

NHTSA does not intend to initiate rulemaking to increase the offset angles beyond those currently contained in Standard 201. In the August 18, 1995, final rule establishing new specifications for Standard 201 (60 FR 43031), the agency indicated that the final rule allowed a five degree lower face offset for targets on the A-pillar and other targets that are not pillars and a ten degree offset for any other pillar. The offset angle provisions were inserted into Standard 201 after several manufacturers submitted comments indicating that early lower face contact could change measured acceleration levels when compared to impacts on an identical target in which lower face contact did not take place. Tilting the FMH in this fashion would create an offset clearance that would delay lower face contact beyond the time of the HIC calculation, which NHTSA found occurred within 20 milliseconds. The five and ten degree offset angles also did not fundamentally alter the kinematics of the FMH other than to delay lower face contact, so that the safety consequences of allowing the use of these angles were not significant. As inserting the five and ten degree offset angles did not have real safety consequences, the agency felt it was appropriate to do so.

Although the data presented at the August 19, 1998, meeting indicate that the existing five and ten degree offsets may not be sufficient to prevent lower face contact during the time of HIC calculation, the agency has reconsidered its earlier position implying that accelerations from lower face contact occuring within 20 milliseconds of forehead impact should not be included in the HIC score. NHTSA has reviewed the research data used during development of Standard 201 to construct the transform function used in calculating HIC when the FMH strikes a vehicle interior. These data include the results from testing in which the FMH was launched into padded and unpadded surfaces mounted at different angles to represent the interior of a vehicle. In some of these impacts, portions of the lower face of the FMH struck portions of the target structure during the period in which the HIC calculation was taking place. As these data were used to develop the method of determining HIC scores in Standard 201, consideration of the effects of impacts of the lower front surface of the FMH on interior surfaces has already been integrated into the transform function. Because the transform function provides the means for determining HIC when the FMH strikes an interior surface, any implication that lower face contact should not be allowed during the time of the HIC calculation because that contact would improperly influence HIC, is contrary to the research data used in developing the Standard. Accordingly, lower face impacts should be included in Standard 201's evaluation of vehicle performance in those instances in which lower face contact results in a higher HIC score.

In real-world crashes, contact between the vehicle interior and portions of the head other than the forehead is common. The agency believes that the interests of safety demand that countermeasures be developed so that impact accelerations do not produce a HIC greater than 1000 in those instances in which the impact occurs over a larger area of the head. While the offset angles now contained in Standard 201 do not significantly reduce impact speed or the kinetic energy resulting from impact, further increases in the lower face offset could have significant safety consequences. Adopting a 25 degree offset, as suggested by AAMA, would reduce the effective impact speed of the FMH by 10 percent and the kinetic energy of the impact by 18 percent. In addition, allowing the FMH to rotate freely during HIC calculations would also dissipate a small portion of the total kinetic energy. Adopting AAMA's recommendation would be equivalent to a 20 percent reduction in the intended allowable impact energy.

While our review of the underlying data indicates that the use of any offset angles is unnecessary, NHTSA does not presently plan to initiate rulemaking to eliminate the existing offsets, as retaining them does not have any negative impact on safety. Increasing the present offset angles beyond that which is currently specified in Standard 201 could, however, have significant safety consequences. The agency is therefore retaining the existing offset angles and is rejecting the suggestion that they be increased.

Impacts with Glazing

Chrysler engineers presented a front header impact test at the August 19, 1998 meeting in which the FMH struck a front header target and then glanced off the target and contacted the windshield. The particular configuration of the front header and the windshield resulted in the FMH striking the target area at a relatively shallow angle, making a glancing impact with the target area, and then contacting the windshield. The resultant HIC was over 1000, while subsequent impacts to the front header which did not involve the FMH striking the windshield produced a HIC of less than 1000.

Standard 201 is not intended to prevent injuries resulting from impacts with glazing. The current test procedure provides that during testing, window glass is to be placed in the down position. In the case of stationary glazing, such as windshields, rear windows, fixed quarter windows or glazing other than sun roofs, it may not be possible to move the glass to prevent impacts with the FMH when an adjacent target area is tested. If the glazing cannot be moved and the anterior portion of the FMH strikes the glass near or at the same time that the forehead impact zone strikes the target, and thereby affects the HIC, NHTSA will regard the test as invalid.

Definition of Convertible Roof Frame

Your letter also asks that NHTSA clarify the definition of "convertible roof frame" as used in S6.3(a) of Standard 201. That section defines "convertible roof frame" as the "frame of a convertible roof." Section 6.3(a) excludes convertible roof frames and roof linkage assemblies from meeting the impact requirements of S6.1 through S6.2. You wish to know if the definition of "convertible roof frame" includes cross members and braces as these components can be considered to be part of the roof frame and suggest that "cross members and roof braces should be excluded because they are difficult to target and test. . ." because they would tend to vibrate or deflect with impact. Finally, you indicate that these structures "are not likely to offer significant head impact risk."

Under common usage, a frame is considered to be a rigid structure formed of relatively slender pieces joined together to provide major support to a building or structure. Under the commonly accepted meaning of "frame," the cross members and braces of a convertible roof would be considered to be part of the "frame" as they are integrated into the larger structure that provides shape and support for the roof itself. Accordingly, as convertible roof frame is presently defined in Standard 201, such braces and cross members are, by definition, excluded from testing.

AIAM is also concerned about hard top convertible roofs. The agency addressed the issue of hard top convertible roofs in its April 22, 1998, denial of the petition filed by ASC, Incorporated.

As indicated in that notice, NHTSA believes that integrated or hard top convertible tops can and must meet the requirements of Standard 201.

Window and Sunroof Position for Targeting and Impact Testing

As observed in your letter, S8.2(c) of Standard 201 indicates that movable sun roofs are placed in the fully open position for compliance testing. However, the Standard does not address the position of movable sun roofs for targeting. AIAM asks if movable sun roofs are placed in the open or closed position for targeting purposes and suggests that NHTSA intended that movable sun roofs be placed in the closed position when targets are located. This conclusion is based on AIAM's view that certain targets, such as the front header target (FH2) could be located at the sunroof opening. AIAM believes that if this target is located on a sunroof opening with the sunroof open, manufacturers would have to test using test configurations in which the head form would travel through an area above the roof line prior to impact. In AIAM's view, such a test configuration "would not be realistic in the real-world" and goes beyond the intent of the Standard to provide protection against the "interior" head impact.

NHTSA believes that those targets that may be located at a sunroof opening should be located with the vehicle in the same condition as during testing. The sunroof should therefore be in the open position. The agency does not share AIAM's view that this procedure is contrary to the intent of the Standard or would produce an absurd result. Pursuant to S8.13, the headform may be launched against a target from any point inside the vehicle, limited only by the approach angle limits specified for that target. While the use of certain vertical approach angles may result in a portion of the head form traveling along a path above the roof line of the vehicle as it travels from a point inside the vehicle, the agency believes that the likelihood of this occurring is small. NHTSA also observes that as the headform originates inside the vehicle, such an impact could occur in real world impacts.

Measured Along the Vehicle Interior Requirement

As set forth in the August 18, 1995 final rule, S8(b) contained the procedure for relocating targets when it was not possible for the forehead impact zone of the FMH to contact a target. That procedure specified that the target could be relocated to any point within a 25 mm circle, measured along the vehicle interior, from the center of the original target. Your letter states that the April 8, 1997, final rule, which amended the procedures in S8(b) (and redesignated the section as S10(b)) for relocating target areas, modified the relocation procedure to allow movement within a sphere rather than a circle. You observe that the procedure continues to provide that the radius of sphere is determined by measuring from the center of the original target area along the vehicle interior and contend that this directive is inconsistent with the April 8, 1997, amendment, as that amendment changed the acceptable relocation area from a circle to a sphere. In your view, measuring the radius of this sphere along the interior would defeat the purpose of specifying a sphere rather than a circle.

We agree with your view. The existing language's specification that the distance be measured along the vehicle interior, which restricts the measurement to following the contour of an interior surface, is not consistent with the use of a sphere for relocating targets. Accordingly, the agency has deleted the reference to "measured along the vehicle interior" found in S10(b) through a technical amendment.

Variability in the Location of Head Impact Target Areas

Your letter also voices AIAM's concern that neither Standard 201 or the compliance test procedure addresses the potential for variation in the location of target areas as determined by manufacturers and the agency when compliance testing is performed. AIAM indicates that the potential for variation between both vehicles and target locations when performed by different parties jeopardizes the ability of manufacturers to certify their vehicle with a high degree of confidence. To address this difficulty, AIAM suggests that NHTSA specify an allowable variation within the 12.7 mm diameter size of the target marker and adopt a set of procedures for the agency to follow in locating target areas. In this suggested procedure, the agency would locate target areas through obtaining drawings of the target areas for a vehicle from the manufacturer and then reach a mutual agreement with the manufacturer regarding the "correct" target locations prior to any agency testing. Once this procedure is concluded, you also urge the agency to further reduce the potential for variations by using the manufacturer's drawings to locate the seating anchorage points to serve as a reference for locating targets with the use of a coordinate measuring machine. AIAM also suggests that a coordinate measuring machine be used to locate CGF1, CGF2, and CGR, reference points that are located in mid-air, to limit inaccuracies that may result from inaccuracies from other measurement and location methods.

The agency acknowledges that the potential for variation between the location of target areas as determined by the manufacturer and the agency exists. NHTSA is also aware that a certain degree of variation may occur between different vehicles manufactured to the same design. Nonetheless, the agency declines to adopt the procedures suggested in your letter. It is the intent of Standard 201 to ensure that proper protection is provided by the various components addressed by the standard and not merely a few target points. In adopting target points rather than zones, the agency rejected the argument that even zones would create unduly burdensome test conditions. (60 FR 43037). Moreover, the existing procedures for locating target areas were carefully developed by the agency and further refined since their inception to address manufacturer arguments that use of larger target areas would require an extensive amount of testing to verify compliance. While some degree of variation between different examples of the same vehicle or between target locations fixed by different entities performing tests is inevitable, NHTSA believes that such variations are not likely to be unpredictable or large. If the agency were to use manufacturer supplied drawings to locate target areas for compliance testing, it would be providing manufacturers with an undue degree of control over the compliance testing process and acting in derogation of the overall purpose of the Standard. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to assure compliance within the range associated with the target points.

The agency observes that the Standard 201 laboratory test procedure contains certain tolerances which, to a degree, address the issue of variability. However, your member companies should be advised that test procedures are not rules, regulations or agency interpretations regarding the meaning of a safety standard and are not intended to limit the requirements of any applicable standard.

Movable Seat Backs

During the August 19, 1998, meeting, concerns were also raised about the possibility of movable seat backs preventing access to target areas and preventing contact between the forehead impact zone of the FMH and the intended target. It is the agency's position that in the case of potential interference between a movable seat back and a target area, the movable seat back should be placed in any adjustment position that may be attained while the vehicle is in motion.

Accordingly, if a seat back may be reclined for comfort or is hinged to allow ingress or egress to an area of the vehicle, targeting and testing of target areas near that seat back will be conducted with the seat back in any position within the range of adjustment or movement.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of this office at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:201
d.2/19/99

ID: a00473beltminder_cmc

Mr. Bruce H. Carraway, Jr.
Carraway Safety Belt Company
14 Kings Bridge
Atlanta, GA 30329

Dear Mr. Carraway:

This responds to your letter requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) work towards requiring that ignition interlock belt-minder systems be installed in all new motor vehicles. As discussed below, the agency believes that improving safety belt use rates with vehicle-based incentives can best be accomplished through voluntary installation of such devices.

According to your letter, you are considering a system that would prevent a driver from starting a vehicle unless all occupants were buckled up. Your letter described a system that would employ seat sensors to alert a driver if any vehicle occupant has not fastened his or her safety belt. An interlock system then would prohibit the vehicle from being started until the safety belt is buckled at each occupied seat. You then ask the agency to:

Please introduce a bill, or, have someone on your transportation committee that handles highway safety to introduce a bill, and, pass a law requiring [such safety belt interlock systems] for all new vehicles.

NHTSA considers safety belt use as its top priority in occupant protection. For each percentage point gain in national usage, we estimate that we will prevent about 250 fatalities. In 2003, safety belt use reached its highest level ever, with a national use rate of 79 percent. This was an increase from the 75 percent use rate reported in 2002. To achieve this rate, we relied on an array of programs that we have developed over the past few years, such as the Click It or Ticket program. We continue to support and promote programs to increase the use of safety belts. In March of this year, we announced the availability of $36.4 million in grants for states that develop innovative projects to increase safety belt use.

With respect to vehicle-based safety belt incentives, Congress has provided the agency with specific direction. As part of the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974, Congress adopted a provision prohibiting NHTSA from requiring, or permitting as a compliance option, either ignition interlocks designed to prevent starting or operating a motor vehicle or buzzers that sounded for a period of more than 8 seconds after the ignition was turned to the "start" or "on" position (codified at 49 U.S.C. 30124).

This provision was the result of opposition from various members of Congress and from members of the public to the belt-induced interlocks and audible alerts that manufacturers were installing in their vehicles to meet the existing compliance options in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Opposition was based on two factors: first, the low rate of belt use among the American public, 10 to 14 percent, meant that large portions of the population were subjected to either a 60 second audible warning or an ignition interlock; second, the available occupant detection technologies were insufficiently developed to determine reliably whether the two front outboard seating positions were occupied and the belt was being used by the occupant of a given seating position.

However, the legislative history indicates no intent on the part of Congress to prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily installing either interlocks or other belt system use-enhancement features. With increases to the national belt use rates since 1974, and improvements in occupant recognition technology, we believe voluntarily-installed systems can be very helpful in increasing belt use. The voluntary installation of belt reminder systems is not contrary to existing law, unduly complicated or expensive, or likely to result in a public backlash that would lead Congress to prohibit the use of such systems.

We do not believe the statutory prohibition against NHTSA mandating belt reminder systems should serve as a deterrent to manufacturers voluntarily installing vehicle-based incentives to improve seat belt use. In fact, NHTSAs Administrator,Dr. Jeffrey Runge, has sent letters to vehicle manufacturers encouraging them to enhance their vehicle-based systems. Based on the number responses from the vehicle manufacturers to Dr. Runges initial inquiries, we are gratified to report that many manufacturers appear to be moving in the direction of voluntarily-installed systems. See NHTSA Docket No. 13226 at http:\\dms.dot.gov. Further, we have facilitated the voluntary installation of such systems through a series of legal interpretations that would allow manufacturers to install both enhanced warning systems and vehicle interlocks. See letters to Mr. Robert C. Lange, February 28, 2003; Name withheld, September 13, 2002; and Mr. Bob Snyder, May 25, 2001 (enclosed).

We believe that by encouraging the voluntary installation of belt minder systems consistent with statutory provisions, we can improve safety belt use rates while avoiding the opposition to these systems experienced in the 1970s.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:208
8/13/04

ID: ACSBcmc

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) to an auxiliary child shoulder belt system (ACSB) for use with belt positioning boosters. Specifically, you ask whether the ACSB would be regulated as a Type 2a shoulder belt or as a child restraint system. As explained below, the ACSB would be regulated as a Type 2a shoulder belt.

Background

Your letter states that the ACSB would be an add-on shoulder belt that would allow the use of belt positioning boosters at seating positions equipped with lap belts only. You state that:

The add-on shoulder belt would be equipped with a standard buckle and length adjustment. It would easily attach to the lap belt buckle, and hook onto the standard top tether anchor for the rear outboard seating position using a standard tether hook.

You also state that the add-on shoulder belt would be recommended for children between 50 and 80 pounds. The add-on shoulder belt would not be originally installed in vehicles but would be provided as an aftermarket product.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to ensure that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts you provided in your letter, and addresses some or all of the specific issues you raised. If we have not addressed an issue, you should not assume that we have concurred with a position you have expressed on that issue.

Your letter asks about the applicability of four standards; FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, and FMVSS No. 213, Child restraint systems. I have addressed each standard below.

FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210

Your assertion that FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 would not apply to the ACSB is correct. FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to this product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Because the ACSB would not be part of the vehicle as manufactured or sold, FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210 would not be applicable. However, please note that any commercial business that would install this product would be subject to the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in 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.

None of the above named businesses would be able to install this product if installation would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with an FMVSS.[1]

FMVSS No. 209

Under FMVSS No. 209, the add-on shoulder belt would be classified as a Type 2a shoulder belt. Unlike FMVSS Nos. 208 and 210, FMVSS No. 209 is an equipment standard and applies to all seat belt assemblies regardless of whether the seat belts are originally installed in a vehicle or installed after the vehicle has been purchased.

FMVSS No. 209 defines a Type 2a shoulder belt as an "upper torso restraint for use only in conjunction with a lap belt as a Type 2 seat belt assembly."[2] As you state in your letter, this product would provide upper torso restraint and would be intended for use in conjunction with a lap belt only, making it a Type 2a shoulder belt. Type 2a shoulder belts are generally not permitted as original equipment under FMVSS No. 208.[3] However, this general prohibition under FMVSS No. 208 is a vehicle standard and does not prohibit the sale of Type 2a shoulder belts as aftermarket equipment.

You would be required to certify that the ACSB complies with the applicable sections of FMVSS No. 209. Under S4.1(c) of FMVSS No. 209, a Type 2a shoulder belt is required to "comply with applicable requirements for a Type 2 seat belt assembly in S4.1 to S4.4, inclusive." While only those requirements raised by your letter are discussed below, keep in mind that the ACSB would be required to comply with all of the applicable requirements in S4.1 through S4.4.

S4.1 Requirements

S4.1(f) Attachment hardware

Type 2a seat belt assemblies have specific hardware requirements under FMVSS No. 209. However, because of the design and the intended manner of use of the ACSB, it would not be required to provide the attachment hardware specified under S4.1(f) of FMVSS No. 209. S4.1(f) requires that a seat belt assembly must include:

all hardware necessary for installation in a motor vehicle in accordance with Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J800c, "Motor Vehicle Seat Belt Installation," November 1973. However, seat belt assemblies designed for installation in motor vehicles equipped with seat belt assembly anchorages that do not require anchorage nuts, plates, or washers, need not have such hardware, but shall have 7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13UNC-2A attachment bolts or equivalent metric hardware.

Because the attachment hardware required under S4.1(f) is needed for permanent installation of the seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle, we interpret S4.1(f) to apply only to seat belt assemblies designed for permanent installation. In this instance, the ACSB is designed to attach to a vehicles existing tether anchorage with the tether hook supplied with the ACSB, allowing for installation when a belt-positioning booster is placed in a seating position that has a lap belt. (The requirements for the tether hook are discussed later in this letter regarding S4.3.) Additionally, in the past we have not required seat belt buckles to comply with requirements that are obviously inapplicable.[4] Because the ACSB is not designed for permanent installation, it would not have to comply with the hardware requirements of S4.1(f) of FMVSS No. 209.

S4.1(g) Adjustment

The add-on system would not have to be certified as complying with the adjustment requirements of S4.1(g) of FMVSS No. 209, which requires Type 2a seat belt assemblies to be capable of fitting up to the dimensions of a 95^th percentile adult male. S4.1(g) contemplates seat belt assemblies that would be permanently installed in motor vehicles. Permanently installed belts need to fit a wide range of occupants. Conversely, the ACSB would be recommended for use only with a booster seat and only for children weighing between 50 and 80 lb. Because of this limited and specific recommended use, the ACSB would not be required to comply with the adjustment requirements of S4.1(g) of FMVSS No. 209. However, as discussed below, the ACSB must be labeled with information about the size of the occupants for whom it is intended.

S4.1(k) Installation instructions and S4.1(l) Usage and maintenance instructions

S4.1(k) and S4.1(l) of FMVSS No. 209 require appropriate installation and use instructions to be provided with the add-on shoulder belt. S4.1(k) requires the ACSB to be accompanied by an instruction sheet providing sufficient information for its proper installation. As such, in this case these instructions would have to including a statement that the assembly is for installation only in motor vehicles with an upper tether attachment point that meets the applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 225. S4.1(l) requires that written instructions on proper use accompany the assembly. Because proper use of the ACSB would only be with a booster seat and only for children up to 80 lb, the instructions would be required to specify as such. Also under S4.1(l), a warning would have to be provided stating that the system is not to be used without a lap belt or by occupants weighing over 80 pounds. In addition, we suggest that you consider placing warning labels on the belt to inform occupants of the weight and use restrictions.

S4.2 Requirements for Webbing

FMVSS No. 209 establishes several requirements for the webbing used in a Type 2a shoulder belt. These include width, strength and elongation requirements.

S4.2(a) Width

S4.2(a) establishes a minimum width for specific portions of webbing in a seat belt assembly, including a Type 2a belt. Seat belt assembly webbing must be a minimum of 46 mm in width, except for portions that do not touch a 95^th percentile adult male. S4.2(a) ensures that belt webbing coming into contact with an occupant spreads the load imposed by the belt in a crash. By requiring webbing to spread rather than concentrate the load, the belt width requirement helps minimize the possibility of webbing-caused injury. The shoulder belt portion of the add-on belt meets the minimum width, but the attachment webbing for the add-on buckle is of narrower width.

You state that the narrower webbing is not intended to apply restraint force to the occupant and is of a short, non-adjustable length. If the narrower webbing would not apply restraint force to the occupant, then the webbing need not meet the minimum width requirement.

S4.2(b) Breaking strength and S4.2(c) Elongation

You state that the ACSB buckle is attached to the lap belt with a short loop of 25 mm wide webbing. You concluded that because the ACSB buckle webbing would be used solely as a loop in the assembly, the strength and elongation requirements should be applied to the webbing as a loop and not to a single piece of webbing. We disagree. After the ACSB buckle is attached to the vehicles lap belt, it would be possible for the ACSB buckle attachment to experience a substantial portion of the loading along a single piece of webbing, not the loop. If the webbing were to break at a point on a single strap, the anchoring could fail. In addition, the load may not be distributed equally across both sections of the loop. One section could experience a higher load than the other. Because of these potential consequences, the strength and elongation requirements of S4.2(b) and S4.2(c) would be applied to a single piece of the ACSB buckle webbing and not to the webbing as a loop.

S4.3 Requirements for Hardware

S4.3(c) Attachment hardware

The tether hook used to anchor the add-on shoulder belt to the tether anchorage at an adjacent seating position would be considered a "quick-disconnect" type of attachment hook under FMVSS No. 209 and would be required to meet certain strength requirements. The tether hook is a single hook and would be capable of quickly connecting to, and disconnecting from, the tether anchorage, which acts as an eye bolt. Under S4.3(c)(3) of FMVSS No. 209, seat belt assemblies having single attachment hooks of the quick-disconnect type for connecting webbing to an eye bolt shall be provided with a retaining latch or keeper ("keeper"). "Keepers" must be certified as not moving more than 2 millimeters (mm) in either the vertical or horizontal position when force is applied as specified in S5.2(c)(3). The "keeper" requirements ensure that the attachment hardware does not disconnect when loaded. Because the tether hook used with the add-on belt would function as a quick-disconnect type of attachment hook for a Type 2a seat belt, the tether hook spring clip would be required to comply with the "keeper" strength requirements under FMVSS No. 209.

FMVSS No. 213

In your letter, you ask if the add-on shoulder belt would be defined as a child restraint system (CRS) under FMVSS No. 213 if it were recommended for children between 40 and 80 lb. Because this assembly would be a Type 2a assembly, it would be excluded from the definition of a CRS. S4 of FMVSS No. 213 defines a CRS as any device, except a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat or position children who weigh 50 lb or less.[5] (Emphasis added.) The add-on shoulder belt is intended for use in conjunction with a lap belt. Under the intended use, the entire assembly would provide pelvic and upper torso restraint and function as a Type 2 seat belt assembly. As a component of a Type 2 assembly, this product would not be a CRS under FMVSS No. 213. We note that while the ACSB is currently excluded from the definition of a CRS, Antons Law (Pub. L. No. 107-318; 2002) requires NHTSA to consider whether to include injury performance criteria for booster seats "and other products for use in motor vehicles for the restraint of children weighing more than 50 pounds" under FMVSS No. 213.

In closing, the agency encourages approaches that may increase the use of child restraint systems, provided that the approaches comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and do not compromise the safety of motor vehicle occupants. As with any product that is designed to attach to an existing device on a vehicle, we urge you to consider ways to reduce the likelihood of misuse of the product. Further, the use of an additional buckle on a product used to restrain children could increase the difficulty in releasing the child in an emergency situation. We appreciate your concern in thoroughly considering these and all other safety issues.

If you have any other questions please contact Chris Calamita of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:209#213
d.4/8/03





---




[1] It is unclear whether additional loading from the ACSB would adversely impact the vehicles existing belt and anchorage systems. You should determine if the ACSB would negatively impact compliance with FMVSS Nos. 208, 210, or 225, Child restraint anchorage systems.

[2] Under FMVSS No. 209 S3, a Type 2 seat belt assembly is a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints.

[3] The agency determined that the integrated assemblies of Type 2 seat belts are safer than the Type 2a shoulder belts. Original equipment Type 2a shoulder belts may only be used at the driver seating position of vehicles intended to accommodate a wheel chair (58 FR 11975; March 2, 1993).

[4] See letter from Frank Berndt to Donald J. Gobeille, dated April 4, 1976, in which the agency states that buckles that are unlikely to contact the steering wheel in a crash situation do not have to meet the crush requirements of S4.3(d)(3) of FMVSS No. 209.

[5] The agency is considering amending the definition to include devices recommended for use by children 65 lb or less. (67 FR 21836.)

ID: ADA3

Ms. Victoria Krull
Executive Director
Adaptive Driving Alliance
4218 W. Electra Lane
Glendale, AZ 85310

Dear Ms. Krull:

This is in response to your letter of March 11, 2002, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567.You state that the Adaptive Driving Alliance (ADA) is an organization that serves both manufacturers and dealers of vehicles for the handicapped and disabled, who are commonly referred to as members of the "adaptive driving" or "mobility" industry. You state that the ADA has learned that some final stage manufacturers and alterers may have sold to adaptive driving industry dealers vans with potential problems concerning their gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

As described in your letter, the assigned GVWR of these vehicles may be exceeded by the unloaded weight of the vehicle, when added to the weight of a full tank of gasoline and 150 pounds times the number of designated seating positions, without any cargo being added to the vehicle. You acknowledge that this presents a safety issue, in that an overloaded vehicle could be prone to failures of the suspension, axle, hubs, brakes, tires, rims, frame, and steering linkage. This has prompted you to ask a number of questions regarding the issue of gross vehicle weight, as it applies to vehicles manufactured or altered for use by the handicapped and disabled.

The Agency addressed your substantive questions regarding the computation of these vehicles GVWR in recent letters to Adaptive Mobility Inc. and Ride-Away Handicap Equipment Corporation. Copies of those letters are enclosed.

You have also asked what responsibilities a motor vehicle dealer has when it learns that a vehicle in its unsold inventory is overweight, and what responsibilities the vehicles manufacturer and alterer would have in that situation. As you point out in your letter, the situation you describe does not involve a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If the GVWR/GAWR information on the certification label is incorrect, the manufacturer responsible for the determination of that value whether a final stage manufacturer or an alterer could be subject to civil penalties for violation of the Agencys regulation.Regardless of whether the GVWR/GAWR information on the label is correct, the vehicle could be considered to contain a safety related defect if the overloading presents a risk of a safety problem (e.g., because the axle failed or stability problems, potentially leading to a crash). Both a final stage manufacturer and an alterer could be responsible for notifying owners and remedying the defect free of charge, if the defect was introduced into the vehicle as a result of the manufacturing operations they performed.

The manufacturer, which includes an alterer, whose manufacturing operations led to the defect is responsible for making a defect determination and notifying the agency pursuant to Part 573 of the Agencys regulations. The manufacturer is also responsible for notifying the dealer that the vehicle contains a safety related defect and is subject to the recall obligations under the Vehicle Safety Act. Federal law prohibits a dealer from delivering to a purchaser a vehicle with a safety related defect or noncompliance without first repairing the defect or noncompliance. A dealer who believes a vehicle may be built in the overloaded condition described in your letter may also want to consider the impact of any applicable state laws.

You also ask whether the Agency might consider the defect to be inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Although NHTSAs empowering statute alludes to the possibility of an inconsequentiality determination with regard to a defect, the granting of such a petition would be highly unusual. The Agency has only once granted such a petition.The Agency determined that a certification label containing erroneous GVWR information was inconsequential because the correct information was also provided and the error was apparent.Since the obligation to recall and remedy a defect under the Safety Act is premised on a determination that the defect relates to motor vehicle safety, it is highly unlikely that the Agency would grant an exemption from the recall and remedy requirements. This is especially true given a situation, such as that you describe, which poses "an obvious safety issue."

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:567
d.9/23/02

ID: AFTERMARKETWINDSCREEN

Mr. Rick Mckeon
P.O. Box 1845
Laguna Beach, CA 92652-1845

Dear Mr. Mckeon:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of United States safety standards to an "after-market product for the Mazda Miata intended to eliminate back-draft on the driver and passenger when the top is down or the plastic rear window is removed."

You ask whether the device must be transparent or translucent, or be a "screen" type material.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards.

NHTSA also has the authority to investigate and order recalls to remedy safety related defects in motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.

As far as we can tell from your letter, your product appears to be an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Our statute defines "motor vehicle equipment," in relevant part, as any system, part, or component "sold as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle" (49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7)(B)). An item of equipment is an accessory if it meets the following criteria:

1. A substantial portion of its expected uses are related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles; and
2. It is purchased or otherwise acquired, and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

Your back-draft eliminator appears to be an accessory because it was presumably designed with the expectation that a substantial portion of its expected use will be with motor vehicles. (We make this assumption because you designed the product for use in a Mazda Miata). Further, you state that the back-draft eliminator is an aftermarket product and, therefore, intended to be purchased and principally used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

The installation of a back-draft eliminator by a commercial entity is subject to certain restrictions. The Federal Vehicle Safety Act at 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business may not knowingly "make inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any FMVSS. Therefore, the back-draft eliminator could not be installed by any of those entities if such use would adversely affect the ability of a vehicle to comply with any FMVSS. I have enclosed an information sheet that describes how you can obtain copies of the FMVSSs. You should carefully review the FMVSSs, particularly FMVSS Nos. 111 and 205 as discussed below, to determine whether installation of your back-draft eliminator would affect a vehicle's compliance with the standards.^up>

Pursuant to NHTSAs authority, the agency has established FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for various types of glazing (called "items"), and specifies the locations in vehicles in which each item of glazing may be used. The standard also incorporates by reference an industry standard, the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26)."

Your companys product, as described in your letter, would be considered either item 4 or item 5 glazing subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 205 and ANSI Z26 if constructed of a glazing material, e.g., plastic or glass. Item 4 glazing includes safety glazing material for use in motor vehicles in auxiliary wind deflectors at levels requisite for driving visibility. We would consider the back-draft eliminator to be at a level requisite for driving visibility if it is at a level through which any size driver may view the road and traffic to the rear of the vehicle. Under FMVSS No. 205 and the ANSI standard, item 4 glazing must comply with Test Nos. 10, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, and 24 of the ANSI Z26 as well as Test No. 2. Test No. 2 applies a 70 percent light transmittance requirement to areas of glazing that are at levels requisite for driving visibility. Item 5 glazing includes safety glazing material for use in motor vehicles in auxiliary wind deflectors. This glazing must comply with the Tests cited above for item 4 glazing except for Test No. 2.

NHTSA has also issued FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors, to establish performance and location requirements for rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Under this standard, your back-draft eliminator may or may not affect compliance of a vehicle with this standard, depending on its particular material, size or location within the vehicle. "Inside" rearview mirrors are required for "passenger cars" by the standard (paragraph S5.1). Since a passenger car, such as the Mazda Miata, must meet FMVSS No. 111's requirements by way of an inside rearview mirror, a back-draft eliminator could not obstruct the view provided by the inside rearview mirror (i.e., the mirror must continue to provide the scope of view required by the standard).

In addition, the manufacturer, whether your client or a licensee, is subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30120, which set forth the notification and remedy procedures for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Thus, if NHTSA or the manufacturer determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and for remedying the problem free of charge. This responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which the product is installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful. For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:205
d.6/7/02

^[1] The 'make inoperative" provision does not apply to equipment attached to or installed on or in a vehicle by the vehicle owner. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles.

ID: AIAM 003788 114

ID: AIAM.ekmy

Mr. Michael X. Cammisa
Director, Safety
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc.
1001 19th Street North, Suite 1200
Arlington, VA 22209

Dear Mr. Cammisa:

This is in response to your August 29, 2003 letter on behalf of the Technical Affairs Committee of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), requesting clarification and interpretation of the Early Warning Reporting (EWR) regulations, as set forth in 49 CFR Part 579, with respect to the submission of certain marketing survey information. In your letter, you described certain consumer survey forms that are provided by manufacturers to consumers that elicit consumer opinions of their vehicles' performance. As described, these forms are in a "bubble" format, are machine-read, often contain spaces for comment, and consumers sometimes attach separate pages in response. You raised four specific points with respect to the information gathered from these forms, that I repeat below, followed by NHTSA's interpretation.

1. "Machine-read 'bubble form' responses to consumer surveys, requesting scaled, qualitative evaluations or product performance." You request our confirmation that these not be counted in consumer complaint totals.

You explained that "[t]he purpose of the 'bubble form' surveys is to seek qualitative evaluations of consumer preferences, so that future vehicles may be designed to better meet consumer needs and desires." The forms request consumers' ratings of their vehicles' performance (e.g., on a scale of 1 to 5) in particular areas, with typical questions addressing engine sound, smoothness, acceleration, steering effort, and seat comfort, among others. Although you have not provided pro forma exemplars of the "bubble forms," you explained that they are completed in a manner analogous to a standardized test and the responses are machine-read.

You note that these surveys are submitted at the request of the manufacturer, but recognized our previously expressed view to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers of March 25, 2003, that the manufacturer's initiation of a communication is not determinative as to whether a communication is a complaint. Based on your description of the information sought in the forms used by your constituent manufacturers, the responses are likely to be "qualitative and general in nature."

In our view, the bubble portions of these consumer surveys do not fall within the meaning of "consumer complaint" as defined in the EWR regulations, 49 CFR  579.4(c). As you note, it would be unclear as to when or if a low a rating rises to the level of a "complaint," which would be dependent on the definitions and views of the consumers, and which would not be communicated by the standardized part of the form. As such, it is NHTSA's interpretation that the bubble portions of the survey forms, as you have described them, do not fall within NHTSA's definition of "consumer complaint." This is consistent with our letter of March 25, 2003 cited above.

2. "Comments written by consumers in the space designated for comment in the bubble form and expressing a complaint about a vehicle system covered by the early warning rule." You believe that these should be counted as consumer complaints.

You noted that the survey forms utilized by your constituent manufacturers "may have spaces at the bottom of the forms for consumers to write more detailed comments," in addition to the bubble portion. NHTSA agrees with your understanding that the comments provided in these spaces need to be reviewed by the individual manufacturers, like other communications, to determine whether they are complaints. If so, any complaints documented in these spaces must be reported if required by 49 CFR 579.21(c).

3. "Separate pages attached by the consumer to a bubble form and expressing a cognizable complaint."Again, you believe that these must be counted as consumer complaints.

You reported that a consumer might attach separate pages to the survey form documenting specific problems or dissatisfaction with a vehicle's performance. NHTSA agrees with your understanding, that the manufacturer is required to count any complaints contained in these separate, attached pages as "consumer complaints," and report such complaints according to the coded categories set forth in the EWR regulations.

4. You believe that "marginal notes written in spaces on machine read bubble forms that were not designated for recording comments need not be reviewed by manufacturers for possible inclusion in the consumer complaint counts."

You stated that consumers occasionally write comments or notes in the bubble portion of the survey forms, rather than in (or in addition to) the space designated for additional commentary or in separate pages. You further explained that the marketing contractors that manufacturers hire to tabulate the responses to these surveys are unable to capture such notes contained in the margins of the forms in their calculus of the responses. Under these circumstances, we agree that such marginal notes would not need to be counted in the manufacturer's report.

Should you have any further questions, please contact Andrew J. DiMarsico of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:579
11/6/03