ID: 77-5.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joseph J. Levin Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Edward Foster

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your recent letter to President Carter concerning the installation of a bench seat in a cargo van was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for reply. You were apparently told by your local Ford dealer that Federal law prohibits the installation of a seat in the cargo area of a van vehicle.

The Ford dealer's representation to you was incorrect. There is no Federal law that precludes installation of a seat such as your letter describes; although, depending on the time and manner of the installation, the seat might be subject to Federal safety standards.

If the vehicle manufacturer (Ford) or your dealer installs the seat prior to the time you take possession of the vehicle, either will have to certify that the vehicle, including the seat, is in compliance with all applicable safety standards, as provided in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Specifically, the installation of the seat would require compliance with Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages. If done by your dealer, he would be required to attach a label or tag to the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle was in compliance with all safety standards, including the three just mentioned (49 CFR 567.7).

If you first take possession of the vehicle, you or your dealer may then install an additional seat without certifying compliance with Federal safety standards (15 U.S.C. 1397). Your dealer would, however, be subject to section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, which provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that the dealer would not be permitted to destroy the vehicle's conformity to any safety standard by his installation of the additional seat. We do strongly recommend that, for the safety of your child, you assure the seat and safety belts conform to the minimum performance requirements of our safety standards.

Perhaps it is the policy of Ford Motor Company and its dealers not to install additional seats in cargo vans because of the responsibilities mentioned above. The policy is not, however, a Federal law. I suggest you show this letter to your local dealer.

SINCERELY,

President Jimmy Carter

Dear Mr. President:

My husband will be starting a new independent business within the next several weeks that requires him to use a cargo van. We have ordered a 1978 Ford van and need a standard back seat directly behind the driver area. We were told it was a newly passed Federal law that prohibits the installation of a seat in the cargo area. Having exhausted our efforts locally and within our area, we are now in a position to seek assistance from the only person left to aid us in acquiring a seat for our van.

We are the parents of a severely retarded child twelve years of age who is unable to sit normally in a regular seat. We therefore are left to improvise by seat-belting him into a standard seat for transporting him from the various places in the reclinger position.

As I am employed in a part-time position in Delivery, ten miles from our home, it is necessary to use the van on those days for his father to bring him home while I work.

We are therefore requesting your assistance in acquiring a seat for our van by authorizing the Ford Motor Company to install a seat behind the driver equipped with seat belts for the convenience of a handicapped child Please consider this special privilege we are requesting and it is our hope that placing yourself in the same position you will be able to understand the plight.

Your simple attention to this request will be greatly appreciated as our order has not been processed as of this date and we need your authorization to complete our order.

Thanking you in advance.

Mary Edwards Foster

P.S Our order was placed with the Reavis Ford, Inc.

January 21, 1975

To Whom It May Concern:

Christopher Lee Foster, son of Mr. & Mrs. Edward L. Foster is severly physically and mentally retarded with I Q definitely under 40.

Hilda H. Bailey, M. D.

ID: 23415

[       ]






Dear [       ]





This responds to your letter in which you ask whether a vehicle you are developing could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Our answer is provided below.

You requested that certain information be kept confidential, to protect specific future product plans. As Mr. Dion Casey of my staff explained to you in a telephone call on March 8, 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide confidential interpretations. All of our interpretations are publicly available. In situations where future product plans are at issue, we can limit our discussion of the product to the minimum necessary to support the interpretation. We can also withhold the identity of the requester. In the aforementioned telephone conversation with Mr. Casey, you agreed to this approach and to the description below (to be made public) of the vehicle at issue.

By way of background information, 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 the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may examine the appropriateness of the manufacturer's classification in the context of an enforcement action. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe the vehicle would be classified for the purposes of our safety standards. It is important that you understand that these tentative statements regarding classification are based solely on our understanding of the information presented in your letter to us. These tentative statements about the vehicle's classification may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the vehicle described in your letter could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." Thus, to meet the definition of multipurpose passenger vehicle, a vehicle must be constructed either (1) on a truck chassis, or (2) with special features for occasional off-road operation.

The vehicle you are developing would be constructed on a chassis that is substantially the same as the chassis used for a current 4-door SUV that is classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The current 4-door SUV is available in both 4WD and 2WD. The manufacturer can classify the current vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle because it is constructed on a truck chassis. This chassis uses a ladder-frame construction and was developed to provide the vehicle with cargo-carrying capability as well as to permit rough road and off-the-road vehicle operation. The new vehicle would use the same basic body but would be an electric vehicle. Other than the powertrain, only minor modifications to the chassis of the current vehicle would be made. For example, brackets would be added to hold the batteries. The new vehicle would have substantially lower running clearance due to the use of the space beneath the vehicle to provide storage for the vehicle's batteries.

Given the similarities between the existing SUV and the new vehicle, it is our opinion that, assuming that the existing SUV is properly classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle by virtue of being constructed on a truck chassis, the modifications between the existing SUV and the new vehicle are sufficiently minor that the new vehicle can also be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

I hope you find this information useful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Dion Casey of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.4/5/02

ID: 6972

Mr. Lance Watt
Director of Engineering
The Flxible Corporation
970 Pittsburgh Drive
Delaware, Ohio 43105-2859

Dear Mr. Watt:

This responds to your letter of February 11, l992, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to several scenarios regarding the wiring and use of optional brake retarder transmissions on city transit buses manufactured by your company.

In your current design, the retarder is designed so that it is electrically operated during the initial travel of the service brake pedal. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, the service brakes are activated, and this in turn illuminates the stop lamps. You have enclosed a copy of my letter of September 20. 1990, confirming that this design conforms to Standard No. 108, specifically S5.5.4 which states that "The stop lamps on each vehicle shall be activated upon application of the service brakes."

Since that time, several additional scenarios have presented themselves. First, some customers have requested that the transmission retarder be activated when the accelerator pedal is released, rather than when the brake pedal is applied. In this configuration, the stop lamps would not be illuminated, "and therefore, following vehicles may be unaware of this sudden reduction in vehicle speed", unless the service brakes were also applied. However, some customers wishing this option would like to have the stop lamps illuminated by the retarder, that is to say, when the accelerator is released. Second, some customers have also requested a retarder cut-off switch in order to disable the retarder during icy or slippery road conditions. In such a case, the stop lamps would also be activated at the time of accelerator release "with minimal if any change in vehicle forward speed, and again, potentially with no intent on the part of the driver to use the service brakes." To date, your company has resisted these requests, but these customers, without a specific NHTSA interpretation on the point, threaten to declare your company a nonresponsive bidder on transit bus procurements. You have asked whether a noncompliance with section S5.5.4 would result "if the stop lamps were activated without depressing the brake pedal as requested by our customers."

The purpose of the retarder feature is to provide supplemental braking to city transit buses. This braking results in the deceleration of the vehicle. A stop lamp is defined by SAE Standard J1398 MAY85 Stop Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width as one that indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." Whenever the brake retarder is activated with the intent of diminishing speed by braking, Standard No. 108 does not require that the stop lamps be activated. The only mandate of the standard (S5.5.4) is that when the service brakes are applied, the stop lamps must be illuminated.

Nor does Standard No. 108 prohibit illumination of the stop lamps by release of the accelerator pedal followed by activation of the retarder. This is because the intention of the driver is to diminish speed by the braking action of the retarder. We distinguish this situation from the one in an interpretation provided Larry Snowhite, Esq. on January 25, 1990, in which a device activated the stop lamps whenever the accelerator pedal was released, regardless of the intent of the driver. Activation of the stop lamps initiated by release of the accelerator pedal is permissible only when the intent of the driver is to reduce the speed of the vehicle by an immediate subsequent act of braking, whether that is achieved through his use of the service brake system, use of retarders, or a combination of the two.

However, a configuration where the stop lamps operate in the absence of service brake application or activation of a retarder system (as appears to occur when a retarder cut off switch has been activated) would be subject to S5.1.3 of the standard. This prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. In this instance, the retarder cut off feature would permit the stop lamps to send the false signal that the operator intended to stop or reduce vehicle speed when, in fact, there was no intent to do so.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:108 d:4/10/92

ID: 7066

Mr. Kevin J. Stoll
Technical Advisor
Russell Products, Inc.
21419 Protecta Drive
Elkhart, IN 46516-9704

Dear Mr. Stoll:

This responds to your letter of February 27, 1992, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking several questions relating to center high-mounted stop lamps.

Your questions are:

"1. Are the LED (light emitting diode) being used for third brake light legal? If so, what are the specifications so that they can be used as a third brake light?"

A center high-mounted stop lamp whose illumination is provided by LEDs is legal, provided that the light meets the photometric specifications for such lamp specified in Figure 10 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, and all other requirements.

"2. a. Where are the truck manufacturers ie. GM, Ford, Dodge locating the third brake light on pickup trucks?

b. What effect will this have on truck cap manufacturers and the dealer responsibility to the consumer?

c. Can the dealer wire directly to the existing third brake light harness used to light up the factory third brake light?"

With respect to (a), the center lamp may be installed at any point on the rear vertical centerline of pickup trucks. Because this requirement is not effective until September 1, 1993, we have no specific knowledge as to where the manufacturers of pickup trucks will locate the lamps.

With respect to (b), NHTSA discussed the relationship of center high-mounted stoplamps to aftermarket slide-in campers or caps in the preamble to the final rule adopting the requirement. I enclose a copy of the rule (56 FR 16015) with our discussion highlighted on pages l6017 and 16018. After reading this material, if you have further questions regarding the effect on truck cap manufacturers and dealers, we shall be pleased to answer them.

With respect to (c), we assume that the situation you envision is that a truck cap has been manufactured with a center stop lamp and the dealer is installing the cap on a pickup truck. If the cap is being permanently installed, the dealer may wire the cap's lamp directly to the existing center lamp light harness, as the cap lamp is intended as a surrogate for the original lamp. If the cap is removable, the dealer may also wire in the manner you discuss, provided that when the cap is removed (and the cap lamp disconnected) the original lamp will perform in conformance with Standard No. 108. The specific connections to be made should be done in accordance with the vehicle manufacturer's recommendations.

"3. a. We have a customer that would like to mount a flush mounted third brake light in the rear glass window of a truck cap. This window is used also as the rear access door to get to the truck bed from the outside of the truck.

b. This would allow the third brake light to be moveable and not stationery. If a consumer would have an object in the bed of the truck with the window in the open position, allowing for the third brake light to be left in an upward position and no longer viewed from the rear. Would this application be approved?"

The agency has no authority to approve or disapprove specific designs. We can advise you as to whether designs appear to conform or not to conform with the applicable laws of our agency. Conformance with Standard No. 108 is determined with respect to the vehicle in its normal operating state. With respect to your question, this would be with the pickup cap window in its closed position. Thus, your design does not raise a question of conformance with Standard No. 108.

"4. Could you please enter Russell Products, Inc. on your mailing lists for all future updated rulings on third brake lights passed or discussed at all committee meetings?"

We do not maintain a mailing list of any sort. However, "rulings" are not "passed" at "committee meetings" but are published in the Federal Register, initially as proposed rules affording a minimum of 45 days in which to comment. After evaluation of comments, a final rule may be published, with an effective date no earlier than 30 days after issuance. We believe it likely that any future proposals and amendments would be publicized, and that you would be likely to hear of them. There are no current plans to amend these requirements.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108 d:4/27/92

ID: 7135

Mr. Michael J. Sens
Researcher
S.E.A., Inc.
7349 Worthington-Galena Road
Columbus, OH 43085

Dear Mr. Sens:

This responds to your letter to me dated March 26, 1992, in which you sought our interpretation of whether the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components; 214, Side Door Strength; and 216, Roof Crush Resistance--Passenger Cars,, applied to a 1985 American Motors Corporation (AMC) Jeep CJ- 7. You stated in your letter that AMC classified the vehicle as a "sport utility vehicle" and that it came with a soft top or an optional fiberglass top, both with removable side doors.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act), 15 U.S.C., 1381, et seq., as amended, authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. In accordance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify that their products comply with all such standards.

Each safety standard applies to specified "types" of motor vehicles and/or motor vehicle equipment. Motor vehicles are classified into the following types: passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. A definition for each motor vehicle type is set forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Thus, a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was required to comply with all safety standards that applied to its vehicle type at the time of its manufacture. In order to determine what safety standards applied to the vehicle, it is first necessary to establish its classification under Part 571.3.

The Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions.

While AMC may have marketed the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 as a "sport-utility vehicle," it classified it as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in Part 571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." It is our opinion that AMC's classification was appropriate, given that the 1985 Jeep CJ-7 is a 4-wheel drive vehicle with an approach angle of 33o, departure angle of 25o, breakdown angle of 18o, axle clearance of 7.8", and minimum running clearance of 8.1", and thus clearly has special features for occasional off-road operation.

With specific reference to the three standards you inquired about concerning possible applicability to a 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7, Standards 214 and 216 applied only to passenger cars at the time the CJ-7 was manufactured. See S2 of Standard 214 and and S3 of Standard 216. Since the 1985 AMC Jeep CJ-7 was classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle and not a passenger car, those two standards, by their terms, did not apply to it.

Standard 206, on the other hand, did apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles as well as passenger cars. However, S4 thereof provided in pertinent part: ". . . [C]omponents on folding doors, roll-up doors, doors that are designed to be easily attached to or removed from motor vehicles manufactured for operation without doors, . . . need not conform to this standard." You indicated that the Jeep CJ-7 came with removable side doors, and we understand that the vehicle was manufactured for operation without doors. Accordingly, the AMC Jeep CJ-7 came within the above-quoted exception to Standard 206 and was not subject to its requirements.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:571#567#206 d:4/17/92

ID: 7174

Mr. Michael F. Hecker
Micho Industries
P.O. Box 1791
Goleta, CA 93116

Dear Mr. Hecker:

This responds to your letter of April 2, 1992 concerning possible interpretations of section S5.1.4(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, as it applies to the R-BARR Passenger Restraint System (R-BAR). (While your letter refers to section S5.1.2(c), you clarified in a telephone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff that your concerns relate to section S5.1.4(c).) The R-BAR is a padded restraining device, and the ends of the device attach to the rear of a school bus seatback. The device folds down for the purpose of restraining the passengers seated in the next rearward seat. Your letter states that Micho Industries believes that:

A. The standard is not applicable to the R-BAR passenger restraint.

B. The R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222.

To support these statements you offer the following reasons:

1. The R-BAR is not a fixed position device, nor is it a rigid component of the seat structure.

2. In the event of a rear impact, the R-BAR incorporates a design that allows it to move upward, and away, from the adjoining seat which would thus allow the minimum clearance as intended.

3. The standard in question (571.222, section S5.1.4(c)) was written without the authors having the benefit of knowledge of this type of device and thus allowances were not included for its possible use.

The issue of whether Standard No. 222 is applicable to a device such as the R-BAR has been addressed previously by this agency. Enclosed are copies of four letters concerning similar devices (Mr. Joseph F. Mikoll, November 3, 1988, and March 10, 1989; The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino, January 8, 1990; and Mr. Scott K. Hiler, January 31, 1991). Those letters make it clear that if a device such as the R-BAR is installed in any new school bus, the school bus manufacturer must certify that the vehicle meets all applicable safety standards with the device installed. The letters also make it clear that such devices may not legally be installed in used school buses by commercial establishments such as repair businesses if the effect of such installation is to take the vehicle out of compliance with any safety standard.

With respect to your assertion that the R-BAR complies with the intent of Standard No. 222, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that prescribe objective requirements. Under the Act, manufacturers must certify that their products comply with the requirements of all applicable standards and not merely with some alleged "intent" of a standard. Further, manufacturers may not certify products based on speculation that the agency would have established different requirements had it known of a particular design.

With regard to your specific concerns about S5.1.4(c), that section states that when a seat back is subjected to a specified force, "(t)he seat shall not deflect by an amount such that any part of the seat moves to within 4 inches of any part of another passenger seat in its originally installed position." In the enclosed letter to Mr. Hiler, the agency stated that "once the restraining bar is attached to the seatback, it is part of the seatback." Therefore, the R-BAR would be considered a part of the seat subject to the requirements of S5.1.4.(c)

Section S5.1.4(c)'s requirements are not limited to rigid components of a seat, and therefore the fact that the R-BAR is not a fixed position device is not relevant to the applicability of those requirements. With respect to your argument that the device will move upward and away in the event of a rear impact, Standard No. 222 sets forth a specific test procedure for the requirement specified in S5.1.4(c). Manufacturers are required to certify that a vehicle complies with the requirements of the standard when tested in accordance with that test procedure.

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,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:222 d:5/14/92

ID: 10-000710 A.Killian,Jr. (Standard No. 205)

ID: 10006

Mr. Paul L. Anderson
President
Van-Con Inc.
P.O. Box 237
Middlesex, NJ 08846-0237

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This responds to your letter of May 19, 1994, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of S5.5.3(c) of Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. Section S5.5.3(c) reads:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white or yellow in color ...

Your letter states that you are unable to continuously outline the perimeter of the rear emergency doors on your school buses due to the proximity of door hinges, tail light lenses, and a rubber gasket between the bottom edge of the door and the bumper. You ask:

Would we be in compliance with Reflective Tape requirements of FMVSS 217 if we put a continuous strip of tape across the top of both Emergency Rear Doors on the roof cap above the doors and down the left and right side of the double door opening with breaks in the tape for door hinges & tail light lenses. This would outline the Emergency Rear Doors on three sides. No tape would be put across the bottom?

As an alternative, if the above is not acceptable, could we put tape across the bottom on the doors?

As explained below, your planned placement for the top and sides of the door, and your alternative placement for the bottom of the door would be acceptable. In a July 7, 1993 letter to the Blue Bird Body Company, NHTSA stated:

NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) to allow interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets,

rubrails, hinges and handles, provided, however, that the following requisites are met. In the November 2, 1992, final rule, NHTSA indicated that the purpose of the retroreflective tape would be to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Accordingly, the retroreflective tape may have interruptions if they satisfy both of these purposes. The occasional breaks in the tape you described would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. However, the tape should be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter... When rivets are present, NHTSA will defer to a manufacturer's decision to apply the retroreflective tape immediately adjacent to the rivets, rather than over the rivets, if the manufacturer decides that this will increase the durability of the tape.

According to this July 1993 letter, interruptions in the retroreflective tape to avoid and/or accommodate hinges (such as the hinge on the side of the rear emergency door) and other functional components are permitted if the interruption does not negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or does not reduce the conspicuity of the bus. NHTSA considers tail light lenses to be "functional components" which do not have to be covered by the retroreflective tape. (Indeed, placement of the tape on the tail light lense could affect the efficacy of the light.) The interruptions in the tape for these components would not appear to negatively affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exits, or reduce the conspicuity of the bus. Thus, the interruptions are permitted for the tape along the sides of your door.

With regard to the bottom of your door, based on the pictures provided with your letter, it appears that there is no location available for the placement of retroreflective tape outside of the door's bottom edge. Since not outlining an entire side of an exit might affect a rescuer's ability to locate the exit and would reduce the conspicuity of the exit, the bottom side of the door must be marked with the retroreflective tape. In this situation, NHTSA interprets S5.5.3(c) as allowing placement of the retroreflective tape on the door itself, as near as possible to the lower edge of the door.

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

ref:217 d:6/8/94

ID: 15091.ogm

Mr. Jerry Roberts
Application Specialist
Vehicle Safety Systems
601 N.W. 25th Avenue
Ocala, FL 34475

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1997, concerning a seat belt system you have designed. You asked us to evaluate whether the design would comply with S7.1.2.1 of Standard No. 208.

By way of background information, 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, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The opinion provided below is based on the facts provided in your letter.

As described in your letter, the seat belt assembly at issue is a Type 2 assembly intended for use in forward-facing rear seats in conversion vans. The lower end of the belt is attached to the vehicle floor and the upper end is attached to a retractor mounted on the roof support. The belt itself is fed through a crescent shaped slot in a mounting plate fixed to the roof rail. This crescent shaped slot allows the belt to assume different positions relative to a seat occupant depending on the height at which the belt is latched when fastened. The arc described by the crescent shaped slot is "preferably at least 5 cm longer than the width of the webbing."

Standard No. 208 was amended in a final rule published on

August 3, 1994, (59 FR 39472) to improve the fit and increase the comfort of safety belts for a variety of different sized occupants. S7.1.2.1 of Standard 208 reads as follows:

As an alternative to meeting the requirement of S7.1.2, a Type 2 seat belt assembly shall provide a means of automatically moving the webbing in relation to either the upper anchorage, or the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso belt and the lap belt. The distance between the midpoint of the webbing at the contact point of the webbing and the anchorage at the extreme adjustment positions shall be not less than five centimeters, measured linearly.

According to your letter, the crescent-shaped slot located in the guide plate near the upper anchorage automatically moves the webbing in relation to the upper anchorage when the belt is latched around different sized users. This guide plate, which attaches to vehicle structure at the roof rail, is also an anchorage. S3 of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, defines a seat belt anchorage as "...any component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, attachment hardware ..."

If the distance, measured linearly, between the midpoint of the webbing at the contact point with the guide plate at the extreme adjustment positions is greater than five centimeters, it appears that your design would meet the requirement of S7.1.2.1. However, as an alternative means of providing the adjustment specified in S7.1.2, S7.1.2.1 requires that a Type 2 assembly shall provide a means of automatically moving the webbing in relation to the upper anchorage or the lower anchorage nearest the intersection of the torso and lap belts. If, in operation, the system you have designed does not automatically move the webbing in relation to the upper anchorage to accommodate occupants, the system you have designed would not meet S7.1.2.1. I note, however, that NHTSA is not able to make such a determination from looking at your drawings. Any determination of compliance would require testing of the system as installed in a vehicle.

NHTSA compliance testing has also revealed that guide plates, d-rings and other guiding devices can tear or sever webbing under the severe loads experienced in an impact. The guide plates incorporated in your design should therefore be constructed in a fashion which will minimize this risk.

You should also be aware that under 49 U.S.C. 30118-30122, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge. Compliance with applicable standards does not relieve the manufacturer of responsibility in the event a defect exists.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d:7/10/97

ID: 18019.ogm

Mr. Christopher J. Roberts
Leoci & Meisenberg, P.A.
2256 Heitman Street
Fort Myers, FL 33901-3744

Dear Mr. Roberts:

This is in response to your letter requesting information about standards for motorcycle helmets, particularly those manufactured after 1980. In addition to information relating to standards for motorcycle helmets, you have also asked if the agency maintains records of helmets that have been recalled and how you might obtain copies of these records.

By delegation from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), NHTSA is the Federal Government agency responsible for improving safety on our Nation's highways. As part of our efforts to achieve that goal, we are authorized, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111, to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). These standards require minimum levels of performance for new vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to this authority, NHTSA has promulgated FMVSS No. 218, "Motorcycle Helmets," which applies to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. Pursuant to 30012(a) of Title 49, it is unlawful to manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce, or import into the United States any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards, including Standard 218.

I have enclosed a copy of the current version of Standard 218 for your use. The Standard is also available in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 49 CFR 571.218. If you have access to the World Wide Web, the Code of Federal Regulations can be found at http://www.nara.gov.

Standard 218 was first promulgated in 1973 and amended in 1974, 1980, and 1988.

The performance requirements of Standard 218 remained unchanged from 1973 until 1988. The original version of the Standard applied to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. However, through a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 28, 1974 (39 FR 3554), the Standard was amended to restrict its application only to helmets that fit on a specific headform, known as the size "C" headform. This amendment was necessitated by difficulties in developing appropriate different sized headforms for testing. However, as these difficulties continued, the agency concluded that a precise fit was not as critical for testing purposes as had previously been thought and the "C" headform could be used more widely. Therefore, Standard 218 was again amended on March 10, 1980 (45 FR 151181) to apply to all helmets that could be placed on the "C" headform even if the helmet did not precisely fit that headform. After other difficulties with test headforms were finally resolved, the Standard was amended again on April 6, 1988 (53 FR 11280) to apply to all helmets designed for highway use by motorcyclists. The 1988 amendments also modified the performance requirements of Standard 218 in regard to the areas of the helmet subject to penetration and impact testing, temperature conditioning prior to testing and the properties of the test devices used to perform testing. Copies of each of the notices implementing these amendments are enclosed.

Information related to helmet recalls may be obtained from NHTSA's office of Technical Information Services (TIS). You may contact TIS at this address:

Technical Information Services (NAD-40)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 7^th Street S.W., Room 5110
Washington, D.C. 20590

The telephone number for TIS is: (800-445-0197); this number is answered between 1:00 and 3:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, by TIS staff in order to provide general assistance; however, reference requests must be made in writing. The FAX number, (202-493-2833), may be used to submit requests to TIS, however TIS will respond by mail or courier service (at the requestor's expense).

Information about the services offered by TIS is also available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/trd/.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:218
d.12/1/98