ID: 15319.jeg

Mr. Ottar Cato Olsen
Project Engineer
Safety & Homologation
PIVCO AS
Stanseveien 4
N-0975 Oslo
NORWAY

Dear Mr. Olsen:

This responds to your letter, addressed to Paul Atelsek of my staff, asking several questions about our safety standards. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You first ask about a proposed design for a passenger air bag (PAB) on-off switch for "two seat cars." You state:

The proposed solution for deactivating the PAB is as follows:

• Turn the ignition switch to start position . . .;
• The start position on the ignition key will activate a PAB switch;
• The PAB switch, located on the top of the steering column cover, can now be pushed to activate/deactivate the PAB;
• If the PAB is deactivated, a yellow light in the center console (visible for both people in the front) will be turned on.

It is only possible to change the PAB status when the ignition key is in the start position.

You asked whether this system would meet NHTSA's requirements, and whether this agency has "any lamp display that PIVCO can use for the deactivated PAB."

By way of background information, NHTSA has established specific requirements for passenger air bag manual cut-off devices. These requirements are set forth in S4.5.4 of Standard No. 208. I have enclosed a copy of that section revised as of October 1, 1996, and a final rule published on January 6, 1997 (Docket 74-14, Notice 109) which amended that section.

As you will see, your proposed design would not meet the requirements of S4.5.4. For example, it would not meet the requirement specified in S4.5.4.2 that a passenger air bag manual cut-off device must be separate from the ignition switch for the vehicle, "so that the driver must take some action with the ignition key other than inserting it or turning it in the ignition switch to deactivate the passenger air bag." Also, it would not meet the requirement in S4.5.4.3 that the telltale light be located on the dashboard. As to your question concerning whether this agency has "any lamp display that PIVCO can use for the deactivated PAB," S4.5.4 includes several requirements for the display. Among other things, S4.5.4.3 specifies that the telltale must be yellow, and must have the identifying words "AIR BAG OFF" on the telltale or within 25 millimeters of the telltale.

You next ask when the "new FMVSS 201" will influence PIVCO. You state that PIVCO is a small car manufacturer, with only one vehicle line, producing 5,000 cars a year.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact was amended by a final rule published on August 18, 1995 (62 FR 16718). This final rule, which established new requirements for head protection, was amended by a notice published on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718).

The standard provides manufacturers with four phase-in options for meeting its requirements.

These phase-in options are not dependent on the number of vehicles produced by a manufacturer. Options one and two, found in S6.1.1. and S6.1.2 of the Standard, provide that certain percentages of production manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 must meet the new requirements. The third option, found in S6.1.3 of the Standard, states that manufacturers need not produce any complying vehicles before September 1, 1999 but that all vehicles produced on or after that date must comply. This option, which provides longer lead time than the first two options, was intended to accommodate manufacturers with limited product lines.

The fourth option is applicable only to final stage manufacturers. The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in that section as "an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle." If PIVCO is a "final stage manufacturer," it need not produce any vehicles that comply before September 1, 2002. However, all vehicles manufactured on or after that date must comply.

There is no exclusion from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) based upon the volume produced by the manufacturer. All motor vehicles must comply with all FMVSS, unless the agency has exempted them from one or more of the standards. NHTSA is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30113 to exempt, on a temporary basis, a manufacturer whose total yearly production does not exceed 10,000 motor vehicles, from any FMVSS that would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship were it required to meet it immediately. The application procedures for such an exemption are contained in 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(a). The applicant must not only show hardship, but also that it has tried in good faith to meet the standard from which it requests relief.

Finally, you ask about contact persons within NHTSA. You ask whether it is OK for all communications between PIVCO and NHTSA to go through Mr. Atelsek, and whether there is any other way of communicating with NHTSA, e.g., by fax or e-mail.

In communicating with NHTSA, PIVCO should contact the specific office or person for which it has relevant questions or other business, to the extent it has the knowledge to do so. Requests for legal interpretation should be sent to Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC 20590 (FAX 202-366-3820). Questions regarding Standard 208 should be directed to Mr. Edward Glancy (eglancy@nhtsa.dot.gov). Inquiries about Standard 201 should be directed to Mr. Otto Matheke (omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:208
d.11/5/97

ID: nht87-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Roger M. Cox -- R & R Lighting, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to J. Mike Callahan (A32; Std. 108); 4/14/87 letter from J. Mike Callahan to Taylor Vinson (occ 409); 9/3/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to David M. Romansky

TEXT: Mr. Roger M. Cox R & R Lighting, Inc. Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, AL 35901

Dear Mr. Cox:

This is in reply to your letter of July 8, 1987, with respect to whether a lighting product you intend to market is "in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle." You describe your product as a "lighted decal" which can be mounted in the rear window of any car or pick-up truck, and the photographs you enclosed show it mounted in the center of the rear window of a pre-1980 model Seville. The decal will be wired int o the brake system and when activated by the brake "only the letters in the decal will be lighted." You state further that although the letters will appear red to an observer this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or a tail light.

In our opinion, your product may or may not be in violation of Federal requirements depending upon the following uses. The product does not appear to be intended as a substitute for the center highmounted stop lamp that has been standard equipment on pas senger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. Indeed, it could not be so used unless it met all requirements for such a lamp. The principal requirements are that such lamps have a minimum of 4 1/2 square inches of illuminated lens area, that it meet specified photometrics at 13 test points, ad that it produce a signal visible from 45 degrees from the right to the left and from five degrees up to five degrees down. If your device does not meet these requirements, removal of the lamp and replace ment with your device would violate a prohibition of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act against rendering inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, in this case Safety Standard No. 108, Lam ps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. However, a dealer could install it on a new pick-up truck, or to one side of the center lamp in a new passenger car before their initial sale, provided the device did not impair the effectiveness of the r ear lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and the device could be installed on some vehicles in use (cars built before September 1, 1984, and any pick-up) provided that it did not render inoperative in whole or in part other required rear ligh ting equipment.

By this we mean that the device appears allowable for these vehicles under Federal law provided that wiring it into the brake system does not reduce the stop lamp output or otherwise affect the operation or the effectiveness of the stop lamp system. You should also ensure that your product is acceptable under State and local laws as well. Because there are no Federal requirements for your product, each State may regulate it as it deems proper.

I am enclosing the samples that you enclosed, and hope that we have answered your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

R & R Lighting, Incorporated Route 1, Box 190 Gadsden, Alabama 35901

July 8, 1987

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Jones

Dear Mrs. Jones:

I am in the final planning stage before marketing/manufacturing a new product. After having exhausted all efforts at state and national levels, I talked with Mr. Brooks in the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. It was Mr. Brooks' opinion that we are no t in violation of any federal laps, but he suggested I correspond with you to get an appropriate legal opinion as to whether my product in violation of any federal regulation when mounted on a motor vehicle.

My product. the "#1-American Team Light", is a lighted decal. It is designed to be mounted in the rear window. My product can be mounted onany car or pick-up truck. It will be wired into the brake system and when activated by the brake, only the letters in the decal will be lighted. The letters will appear the same color as automobile manufacturers use in brake lights and tail lights; however, this product is not designed nor will it be marketed as a brake light or tail light. We have targeted the sport s enthusiast at high school and college level as our market group. We also feel we have a smaller market at local and state levels with a lighted decal that reads "Police" and "State Trooper".

In order to effectively market my product at its peak season, which would be September, time is of the essence. I have enclosed a sample lens and photographs.

Please review my information and sample and let me hear from you at your earliest convenience. If further information is needed, please call me collect at (205) 442-1642 or (205) 442-8436.

Very truly yours,

R & R LIGHTING INCORPORATED

Roger M. Cox

RMC/lc

Enclosures

ID: gustback_doorlatch

Dr. Peter Gust
Kirchhoff GmbH & Co. KG
Oststrasse 1
58553 Halver
Germany

Dear Dr. Gust:

This letter responds to your e-mail and fax inquiries into the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. You asked a question about how a specific back door latch configuration is tested under the procedures specified in the standard. We have addressed your question below.

Your letter describes a back door that opens upward, with a single latch at the bottom of the door with a single striker on the back door sill. According to the diagrams sent with your letter, the latch is comprised of two sections. When the latch is engaged, (1) the portion of the latch that is attached to the door is oriented perpendicular to the vehicle floor plane (the "upper section"), and (2) the portion of the latch face that interacts with the striker is oriented along a plane that is roughly 45 degrees to the vehicle floor plane (the "lower section"). The diagrams also show that the striker plate is parallel to the lower section, with the striker oriented perpendicular to the striker plate. You asked how the test procedures in Load Test One and Load Test Two of FMVSS No. 206 apply to your latch assembly.

FMVSS No. 206 specifies requirements for door locks and door retention components including latches, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from their vehicle as a result of an impact. Under FMVSS No. 206, hinged back doors must comply with several load requirements, including:

S4.4.1.1  Load Test One. The primary door latch and striker assembly, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 11,000 Newtons (2,500 pounds) is applied in the direction perpendicular to the face of the latch (corresponding to the longitudinal load test for side door latches) such that the latch and the striker anchorage are not compressed against each other. When in the secondary latched position, the primary latch and striker assembly shall not separate when a load of 4,450 Newtons (1,000 pounds) is applied in the same direction.

S4.4.1.2  Load Test Two. The primary door latch and striker assembly, when in the fully latched position, shall not separate when a load of 8,900 Newtons (2,000 pounds) is applied in the direction of the fork-bolt opening and parallel to the face of the latch (corresponding to the transverse load test). Figure 1 depicts the loading direction for this test. When in the secondary latched position, the primary latch and striker assembly shall not separate when a load of 4,450 Newtons (1,000 pounds) is applied in the same direction.

As indicated in S4.4.1.1 and S4.4.1.2, the orientation of the latch face dictates the direction of the loads. FMVSS No. 206 does not define latch face, but we have stated that SAE J839, Passenger car side door latch systems (JUN91), provides guidance on its meaning (see 60 FR 50124, 50128; September 28, 1995). While SAE J839 does not define latch face, it defines "latch plate" as "the main body or frame for supporting working components, appendages and transmitting or distributing loads to the door structure" (S3.1.1).

Based on the specifications in S4.4.1.1, Load Test One would be oriented with the lower section of the latch face in question. While S4.4.1.1 does not specifically address testing a latch face that aligns with more than one plane, the section does specify that the latch and striker anchorage should not compress upon application of the load. The intent of Load Test One is to apply the load such that there is no engagement of the latch face by the striker. This is accomplished with your latch assembly by applying the test load in a direction perpendicular to the lower portion of the latch face. By contrast, application of the test load perpendicular to the upper portion of the test face would result in some compression; i.e. , the striker would engage the latch face to some extent, and would thus not test the latch as specified by the standard.

Regarding the application of Load Test Two to your latch system, again the standard indicates that the direction of force should be oriented with the lower section of the latch face. Load Test Two specifies application of the load in the direction of the fork-bolt opening, parallel to the face of the latch. Figure 1 of FMVSS No. 206 illustrates that Load Test Two is applied in a direction that is parallel to the portion of the latch face that interacts with the striker. On the latch face in question, this corresponds to the lower section. Testing in this manner is consistent with the intent of the standard to test the latch in a manner representative of opening the door.

Further, applying Load Test One and Two as described would test your latch in a manner consistent with the longitudinal and transverse testing specified for side door latches, respectively. Additionally, orienting the test loads to the lower portion of the latch face would permit testing in accordance with SAE J934, as intended by the agency (see 60 FR 50128).

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:206
d.11/19/04

ID: nht88-4.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: CLARENCE M. DITLOW II -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY

ATTACHMT: NOVEMBER 7, 1988 LETTER FROM DITLOW TO JONES

TEXT: This responds to your most recent letter to me concerning retrofitting of cars originally equipped with rear seat lap belts with rear seat lap/shoulder belts. In my November 1, 1988 letter to you, I explained that we have sought the voluntary cooperation of manufacturers to make retrofit kits available for those customers who desire them and that the vehicle manufacturers have responded positively to our efforts. I also explained that the fact that retrofit kits are not available for all model lines pr oduced by each manufacturer does not suggest some failure on the part of the vehicle manufacturers or of our policy to encourage the manufacturers to make such retrofit kits available.

In a November 7, 1988 letter, you asserted that my November 1 letter "reflects such callous disregard and ignorance of the facts as to defy belief that you are doing little more than covering up for a GM policy that will kill rear seat passengers." You s tated that you would welcome a "substantive response" to this letter. I am happy to be able to give you such a response.

Let me begin by emphasizing that the lap belts in the rear seat of most vehicles on the road today are effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash. Based on our analysis of a number of crash data files, we estimate that rear seat lap b elts saved about 100 lives and prevented over 1500 serious injuries in 1987 alone. These figures would have been substantially higher if more rear seat occupants used their lap belts. In fact, if everyone had worn their rear seat lap belts each time th ey rode in a vehicle, those belts would have saved about 660 lives and prevented more than 10,000 serious injuries in 1987 alone.

These facts illustrate that the fastest and most effective way to save the greatest number of lives and prevent the greatest number of injuries is to convince the public to use the safety belts, including the rear seat lap belts, that are in their vehicl es every time they ride in those

vehicles. Because of these facts, I do not accept your assertion that GM's policy of not providing rear seat lap/shoulder belt retrofit kits for a few of their past models will "kill people." To the extent that reckless assertions like this tell the pub lic that they should not wear their rear seat lap belts, it is unfortunate that you have chosen to divert attention away from the overriding issue of convincing the public to use their safety belts, and instead chosen to mislead the public about the qual ity of their safety belts.

Even though lap belts have been proven to be effective in reducing the risk of death and injury in a crash, we agree that properly designed lap and shoulder belts have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone. For this r eason, we have proposed to require that all new passenger cars sold in the United States be equipped with rear seat lap and shoulder belts beginning in the 1990 model year. Additionally, we have actively sought the car manufacturers' cooperation in prov iding retrofit kits to interested consumers. As you may know, every domestic manufacturer and many foreign manufacturers now offer retrofit kits for many of their vehicle models.

You objected to General Motors' (GM) statement in its Information Bulletin that retrofit kits are not offered for its 1978-88 Oldsmobile Cutlass, Buick Regal, Chevrolet Monte Carlo, or Pontiac Grand Prix, "because GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered by the lap belt alone." You asserted that since Leonard Evans, a GM employee, has concluded that lap/shoulder belts are significantly more effective than lap be lts and since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is proposing to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts, there is no "possible scientific basis" for GM's conclusion.

NHTSA's proposal reflects our tentative conclusion that rear seat lap/shoulder belts that are designed and installed at the factory have the potential to offer even greater crash protection than lap belts alone for vehicles in general. However, any parti cular vehicle model's floor pan design, seat stiffness, and seat design (as it relates to occupant posture) can affect the possibility of an occupant submarining under a lap/shoulder belt system in a crash. During the design and production of the vehicl e, the vehicle manufacturer can take these factors into account to minimize the likelihood of such submarining and its associated consequences.

However, this is emphatically not true for vehicles that were not originally engineered and designed to use rear seat lap/shoulder belts as original equipment. With respect to these vehicles, the effectiveness of a retrofitted rear seat lap and shoulder safety belt system may well depend on the belt system's compatability with the vehicle and the installation of the belt system. The suitability of a particular vehicle for retrofitting is therefore a complex question. It is our view that the judgment a s to whether a retrofit lap/shoulder belt system should be installed in a particular vehicle is best made by a vehicle manufacturer, which is most familiar with the detailed seat and structural design and crash performance of the car.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or would like some additional information on this subject.

ID: nht88-3.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/18/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: RAYMOND M. MOMBOISSE -- GENERAL COUNSEL IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/07/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO CLIFFORD ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP; REDBOOK A34 [4]; INTERP SECTION 101 [3]; PART 571 [A]; LETTER FROM CLIFFORD T. ANGLEWICZ -- VERNE CORP TO NHTSA DATED 09/07/88; OCC 2529; BROCH URE FROM ARROWPOINTE; DRAGOON PATROLLER ARMORED RESCUE AND SECURITY VEHICLE; 5/19/88 letter from Raymond M. Momboisse to Bwayne Vance

TEXT: Dear Mr. Momboisse:

Your letter of May 19, 1988, to the General Counsel of the Department of Transportation has been forwarded to this Office for reply. You request a waiver "exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchase d directly from the manufacturer, AM General Corporation."

This response is based upon the information contained in your letter, and upon information my staff has obtained in telephone conversations with Ed Butkera of AM General Corporation, manufacturer of the Hummer, relating to its compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Gary Runyon of the Border Patrol, relating to the mission of that agency and the role the Hummer plays in it. According to our information, the Hummer is a vehicle which was developed specifically for, manufactured f or, and sold exclusively to, the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol has bought Hummers from the Army because of certain features it finds advantageous in its operations, and its expanded missions involving interdiction of drugs. The principal reasons for you r request are (1) that the Border Patrol desires to buy Hummers equipped with an assembly line addition (a central tire inflation system) is not incorporated on the Hummers sold to the Army, and (2) that, by buying directly from AM General Corporation, t he Border Patrol will save $ 5,000 per vehicle, as the price of Army Hummers reflects the added expense of amortized development costs.

This agency has jurisdiction over "motor vehicles" as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). If a vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," then the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to it. The exclusion of military vehicles from applicab ility of the safety standards in 49 C.F.R. 571(a), which you quoted, is operative only if those vehicles would otherwise be "motor vehicles" required to comply with the standards.

2

Under 15 U.S.C. 1391(3), a "motor vehicle" is "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways. . . ." The agency has interpreted this definition to exclude such vehicles as minibi kes, golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, single seat racing cars used on closed courses, airport crash and rescue vehicles, and farm tractors. On the other hand, the agency has included in the definition farm trailers which haul produce over the public ro ads to processing centers, stock cars modified for racing unless such modifications are so extensive that the vehicle can no longer be licensed for use on the public roads, and vehicles capable of use both on rails and the public roads.

You have informed us that the Hummer will "generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas." However, you have also informed us that this will constitute approximately 30% of its operational time. Were we to c onsider this factor alone, we could not conclude that the Hummer was not a "motor vehicle." However, there are further factors that make the proper classification of the Hummer a close question. The Hummer was developed as a vehicle for military operati ons and not for civilian applications, its manufacturer does not advertise or sell it for civilian purposes, and its configuration is such that it probably could not be licensed for use on the public roads without modification of some of its original mil itary specifications.

Resolution of this question is not necessary since the mission and method of operation of the Border Patrol provide a separate basis for concluding that the Hummers to be purchased by the Border Patrol are not subject to the FMVSS. We understand that on e of the missions of the Border Patrol is to act as an agency of national security in protection of the country's borders to ensure that persons and goods enter and exit only through official Customs and Immigration stations, and that this role has becom e of paramount importance in the "war against drugs." In this enforcement effort, the Hummers of necessity carry firearms such as the M-14 and M-16 rifles which the Army Hummer carries, can be equipped with military communications equipment enabling them to serve as command posts, and carry certain military equipment used for electronic interception and sensing movement. It further appears that in this mission the Border Patrol is not only equipped like a component of the Armed Forces of the United Sta tes, but also is trained and functions in many respects that are similar to such a component. Accordingly, for the purposes of applying the exclusionary phrase of 49 CFR 571.7(a), it is appropriate to regard the Border Patrol as being akin to a componen t of the Armed Forces of the United States. In consideration of the foregoing, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has concluded that AM General Corporation will not be in violation of the

3

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if it manufacturers and sells Hummers to the Border Patrol for its use as described in your letter.

Sincerely,

ID: 22058

Mr. Bob Snyder
Vice President
Longacre and Associates, Inc.
424 Fourth Street, Suite C
Annapolis, MD 21403





Dear Mr. Snyder:

This responds to your letter asking about the audible seat belt warning requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our response. Specifically, you ask the following questions:

1. Are vehicles allowed to have an intermittent audible warning longer than 8 seconds if a front seat occupant (driver or passenger) does not buckle his or her seat belt?
2. If so, when did the requirement change to allow an intermittent audible warning longer than 8 seconds?
3. Can the intermittent audible warning remain on indefinitely if the seat belt is not buckled?
4. Are continuous audible warnings allowed indefinitely?
5. What were the differences in the audible requirements for automatic and manual seat belt systems?

You asked your questions in the context of an article you read about Ford's "Belt-Minder" device. The issues raised by your letter are discussed below.

Paragraph S7.3 has long required that the driver's seating position be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

To meet this requirement, a manufacturer must provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that lasts for a period no shorter than 4 seconds and no longer than 8 seconds. The issue raised by your letter is whether a manufacturer that meets this requirement may also voluntarily provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that sounds outside the required 4-8 second period.

As discussed below, it is our opinion that a manufacturer may voluntarily provide a continuous or intermittent audible signal that sounds outside the required period. However, as we discuss below, some means must be provided for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal.

We note that the 8-second limitation on the audible signal required by paragraph S7.3 reflects a statutory requirement. 49 U.S.C. 30124 provides, in relevant part, that a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by . . . using . . . a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the 'start' or 'on' position." Congress enacted the predecessor to this provision in 1974 as part of legislation responding to public resistance to seat belt interlock systems, which prevented a vehicle from starting unless its seat belts were fastened. The Conference Report noted that the legislation prohibited the establishment of a continuous buzzer (one longer than 8 seconds) "as a mandatory or optional motor vehicle safety standard." See House Report 93-14521, pp. 44-45.

Given this statutory provision, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not have the authority to require, or specify as a compliance option, an audible seatbelt warning that sounds outside the specified 8 second period. However, the statute does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from voluntarily providing audible signals that sound outside that period. Nor do we believe it appropriate to interpret Standard No. 208 to prohibit manufacturers from voluntarily providing audible signals outside that period. We note that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are "minimum standards," and manufacturers are permitted to go beyond the requirements of a standard. Moreover, we believe that Congress, in prohibiting this agency from specifying an audible seat belt warning longer than 8 seconds as a requirement or as an option, wanted to ensure that the Federal government would not be in the position of requiring or inducing vehicle manufacturers to provide a device that was unduly annoying or irritating to vehicle occupants, even though such a device might provide safety benefits. This does not, however, mean that vehicle manufacturers should be precluded from providing audible seat belt warning devices that sound outside the 8 second period that provide safety benefits without being unduly annoying or irritating.

Given Standard No. 208's requirement that the required seat belt warning be no longer than 8 seconds, a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal must provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. Such differentiation could be provided in various ways, e.g., by time (the voluntarily provided signal begins well after the required signal ends) or sound (the voluntarily provided signal has a different sound than the required signal).

I believe the above discussion is responsive to your first four questions. You also asked about the differences in the audible signal requirements for automatic and manual seat belt systems. However, you did not explain what sort of differences you are interested in. I note that the warning requirements for automatic seat belts may be found in paragraph S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208. While there are a variety of differences between S7.3 and S4.5.3.3, both paragraphs require activation, under specified circumstances, of a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

Finally, I note that in a letter to Joseph W. Phebus, Esq., dated August 7, 1996, we took the position, in the context of S4.5.3.3, that a chime that sounded at intervals of one minute if the belt is not buckled would not be permitted, given the requirement that the required audible signal may not be activated for a period of more than 8 seconds. For the reasons discussed above, we have reconsidered that interpretation and conclude that it was incorrect.

I hope this information answers your questions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.5/25/01

ID: 86-4.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Brian Peck

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Brian Peck President Rearscope International (U.S.A.) Ltd. 15255 Hesperian Boulevard San Leandro, CA 94578

Dear Mr. Peck:

Thank you for your letter of May 19, 1986, asking how our regulations apply to your product, which is called the "Rearscope Wide Angle Lens." Your letter and the brochure you enclosed describes your product as a wide angle acrylic lens which mounts on the rear window of a bus and gives the driver a wider field of view to the rear of the vehicle. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

"We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) as well as other performance requirements for glazing.

Standard No. 205 does not directly apply to add-on window coverings, such as tinting films, sunscreening devices, and lens. However, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install a device on the glazing, such as the viewing lens described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install any type of device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the performance of the window. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to regulate the use of viewing devices in vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 19, 1986

NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

REAR SCOPE WIDE ANGLE LENS

Dear Sirs,

As per letter dated 4/25/86 (copy enclosed) I am writing to determine the status of our product the "REARSCOPE WIDE ANGLE LENS" as to the requirements oF current Federal Glazing standards, Our product which mounts on the rear window of Bus r Coach is made of Diakon by I.C.I. Ltd. of Great Britain, This acrylic product is similar. to DuPonts "Lexan" with which you are undoubtedly familiar.

If you feel a need to examine the product I would be more than willing to mail you a lens for testing purposes, In the meantime I am enclosing a brochure so that you might evaluate the situation, I await your reply.

Sincerely,

Brian Peck President

April 25, 1986

Mr. Brian Peck Rearscope International Limited 15255 Hesperian Boulevard San Leandro, California 94578

Dear Mr. Peck:

This is in answer to your letter of April 2, 1986: concerning the use of the Rearscope Wide Angle Lense in Pennsylvania.

After receiving your letter, I contacted the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) to see if there were any applicable federal standards on glazing which had to be met. NHTSA indicated that they would review this request and suggested that you write to they for this information at the following address: NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel, 400 7th Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

If you have already contacted NHTSA for approval, please forward their response to this Department. Pending receipt of this written notification from NHTSA, this Department will determine if your lens meets all Pennsylvania requirements.

Sincerely,

John A. Pachuta, Director Bureau or Motor Vehicles

ID: 20872nhf

Mr. Robert J. Carlson
Warranty Specialist
City of Everett Transportation Services
Motor Vehicle Division
3200 Cedar Street
Everett, WA 98201-4599

Dear Mr. Carlson:

This responds to your letter requesting guidance as to whether you may obtain authorization to relocate or exchange the original manufacturer's driver's seat in your Ford/El Dorado National ParaTransit Buses, and as to whether you may add a driver's side air bag on-off switch. I regret the delay in responding.

You explain that these Paratransit vans are used to transport people with disabilities, some of whom are seated in wheelchairs. You explain that your drivers must often assist the passengers with entering and exiting the van and with fastening their seatbelts. Your drivers generally exit to the right of the driver's seat due to concerns with roadside traffic. You explain that your drivers have experienced difficulty entering and exiting the vehicle because of the lack of room between the seat and engine component cover. Your drivers have complained of back, shoulder and arm pain. You also explain that an ergonomist has examined the vehicles and determined that the seats could cause work-related claims. You state that your drivers have threatened to take union and legal action against the City, Ford, and El Dorado National (the manufacturer of the paratransit buses). You have had three Ford seat bases and two seat back frames fail since March 1999. You believe that these seat base and seat back frame failures are caused by the frequent side to side movement of the drivers entering and exiting the vehicles. You explain that you did not experience these problems with your old paratransit buses which were equipped with heavy-duty air ride seats.

You explain that you have investigated the possibility of either moving the existing seat back four inches or installing heavy-duty air ride seats. You state that Ford Motor Company has told you that any change to the driver's seat will void the vehicle's certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and release Ford of any safety or product liability. Specifically, you ask whether you may replace the original manufacturer's seats or move the existing seats back several inches, or add a driver's side air bag on-off switch. Your question is addressed below.

We would like to begin by explaining that 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. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale.

After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $1,100 per violation. Thus, a dealer or repair business could relocate or exchange the original manufacturer's driver's seat so long as such action did not negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The make inoperative prohibition does not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Therefore, it does not apply to any of the modifications you may perform to the vehicles you own and use for paratransit. Thus, you may modify the vehicle regardless of the effect on compliance with FMVSSs. You may, however, wish to consult a private attorney concerning any state law implications associated with modifying your vehicles, including potential liability implications, and whether such modifications will void your warranty with Ford.

We note that the purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure that current and subsequent owners and users of the vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Therefore, we encourage you not to unnecessarily compromise the safety of the vehicles you modify. Finally, if you sell the vehicles, we urge you to advise the purchaser that the vehicle has been modified and consider repositioning the seat and reinstalling any removed safety equipment if appropriate.

We are unsure why you would want to add a driver's side air bag on-off switch in the event that you relocated the driver seat rearward. Air bags create risks to persons who are too close to the air bag at the time of deployment. Relocation of the driver seat rearward would therefore appear to make it less likely, rather than more likely, that a person would be at risk from the air bag. It is possible, however, that relocation of the seat could adversely affect the air bag sensing system. Installing an air bag on-off switch would not resolve such a problem. We would urge you to consult with Ford about the potential consequences of relocating the seat and what actions could be taken to minimize any adverse safety consequences.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

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

ID: GF000843.2

Mr. Robert S. Livingston
Stewart & Stevenson Tactical Vehicle Systems
PO Box 330
Sealy, TX 77474




Dear Mr. Livingston:

This responds to your January 27, 2005, e-mail regarding lamp, reflex reflector, and conspicuity system requirements for trailers. First, you ask whether the rear side marker lamp, the rear clearance lamp, and the reflex reflector can be combined into a single lighting device so long as it is "visible from both vehicle axes. " Second, you ask whether the retroreflective sheeting located at the rear of the trailer can be combined with the retroreflective sheeting located on the underride guard. You provided a photograph of the prototype vehicle and indicated that its gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) is over 10,000 pounds. Our answers follow.

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 certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

The Federal standard applicable to lighting equipment on trailers and other motor vehicles is Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment. S5.4 of FMVSS No. 108 permits combining certain items of lighting equipment if the requirements for each item are met. Based on the language of this section, you ask two questions regarding combining lamps, reflex reflectors, and retroreflective sheeting on trailers.

Combining Lighting Devices

Tables I & II specify that each trailer must be equipped with, among other things:

1. 2 red clearance lamps located at the rear outboard edges of the trailer as near the top as practicable.
2. 2 red side marker lamps, located on the sides of the trailer, as far to the rear as practicable.
3. 4 red reflex reflectors. 2 located at the rear outboard edges of the trailer as far apart as practicable. 2 located on the sides of the trailer, as far to the rear as practicable.

You ask if these requirements can be met by single lighting devices at each rear corner of the trailer. The photograph accompanying your e-mail shows a lamp and a reflex reflector tilted at a (approximately) 45-degree angle on each rear corner of the trailer.

With respect to reflex reflectors, S5.7 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that your trailer be equipped with a conspicuity system. Further, S5.1.1.29 specifies that a trailer equipped with a conspicuity system in conformance with S5.7 need not be equipped with the reflex reflectors required by Table I, if the conspicuity material is placed at the locations required for the Table I reflectors. Thus, if your trailer is equipped with conspicuity material at the appropriate locations specified above, you may omit installing reflex reflectors on this trailer.

With respect to side marker and clearance lamps, S5.4 discussed above allows these lamps to be combined, if the photometric requirements for each lamp are met, as installed on the vehicle. SAE Standard J592e "Clearance, Side Marker, and Identification Lamps," July 1972, specifies that both side marker and clearance lamps meet the minimum photometric requirements (expressed in candela) at test points located 45 degrees to the left and right of each lamp. We are familiar with combination lamps that emit a photometric output over 180-degrees wide in order to simultaneously satisfy the photometric requirements for side marker and rear clearance lamps. This is because the angle between the furthest forward test point of the side marker lamp and the furthest inboard test point of the rear clearance lamp is 180-degrees.

We examined the photograph of the prototype trailer and question whether your lamp could simultaneously meet the applicable photometric requirements of J592e for both a clearance and side marker lamp because it does not appear to be a combination lamp capable of emitting light over a 180-degree angle. We suggest you contact the lamp manufacturer to determine whether the proposed combination lamp would be capable of complying with all the applicable requirements as installed on your trailer.

Combining Retroreflective Sheeting

Table I specifies that each trailer must be equipped with, among other things, a conspicuity system meeting the requirements of S5.7 of FMVSS No. 108. In particular, S5.7.1.4.1 requires 3 elements of retroreflective sheeting at the rear of each trailer. Element 1 must be located at the bottom, horizontally across the full width of the trailer. Element 2, consisting of two pairs of white strips of sheeting, must be located horizontally and vertically at the upper contours of the body. Element 3 must be located horizontally across the full width of the rear underride guard. You ask if Element 1 and Element 3 retroreflective sheeting could be combined into one retroreflective sheet located on the underride guard.

Our answer is no. S5.4 does not apply to your second question because trailers equipped with underride guards must have separate retroreflective sheeting on the underride guard, and on the rear at the bottom of the trailer. Thus, the retroreflective sheet

located on the underride guard cannot satisfy the location requirements for Element 1 retroreflective sheeting, which must be located on the trailer, above the underride guard. Accordingly, your trailer must have Elements 1 and 3 retroreflective sheeting to comply with the requirements of S5.7.1.4.1. We are enclosing Figures 30-1, and 30-2 to clarify this issue.

We note that the picture of your prototype trailer appears to be missing Element 2 retroreflective sheeting. Your trailer must also, be equipped with Element 2 retroreflective sheeting.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.5/3/05

ID: GF007569-2

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your letter asking us to reconsider our May 22, 2003, interpretation letter to Mr. Babcock of Hyundai concerning whether a multi-component rear reflex reflector configuration would comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

Table III of Standard No. 108 requires that each passenger car (and certain other specified vehicles) be equipped with 4 red and 2 amber reflex reflectors. Table IV of the standard requires that two red reflex reflectors be located on the rear of the vehicle, one on each side of the vertical centerline, and as far apart as practicable. The applicable photometry requirements for reflex reflectors are incorporated by reference from SAE J594f, "Reflex Reflectors," January 1977.

In our letter to Mr. Babcock, we addressed a rear reflex reflector configuration which consisted of three separate reflex reflectors. One reflector was installed on the fender and a second reflector was located adjacent to it, on the deck lid. The third reflector was hidden by the deck lid and was not visible until the deck lid was raised. No single reflector fulfilled the photometric requirements for a rear reflex reflector, but these requirements were met when the reflector on the fender and either of the other two reflectors were measured.

We explained that this design was not a permissible configuration under Standard No. 108. We stated that the text and setup for testing set forth in SAE J594f clearly indicate that the requirements of this standard apply to a single reflex reflector, and may not be met using a combination of separate reflex reflectors.

In requesting reconsideration, you state that our interpretation is potentially inconsistent with a prior interpretation of Standard No. 108, sent to Mr. Bataini of DBM Reflex Enterprises on July 19, 2000. In that interpretation, we addressed a configuration where side mounted reflective devices were incorporated into a headlamp housing and visible from the side when light is reflected from them. We stated that the relevant question was "whether Standard No. 108 permits a front side marker reflector to consist of two reflective devices molded separately and assembled on the same housing." We concluded that the answer is yes, provided that when assembled they meet the requirements of SAE Standard J594f.

You suggest that the standard should be interpreted to "permit a reflex reflector to consist of two (or more) reflective devices molded separately and installed on a single, rigid part of the vehicle (such as the fender or bumper) as long as the devices are mounted closely enough together that they meet the test requirements of SAE J594f." You noted that SAE J594f allows reflex reflectors to "have any linear or area dimensions," as long as the photometric performance is met with a specified maximum projected area contained within a 10 inch diameter circle.

We are pleased to clarify Standard No. 108s requirements for reflex reflectors. After considering your letter, it continues to be our opinion that for each reflex reflector required by the standard, all of the standards requirements for that reflex reflector must be met by a single reflex reflector.

We interpret the word "reflector" to refer to a single reflector, that must fully comply on its own. In other situations where Standard No. 108 allows the requirements for an item of lighting equipment to be satisfied by more than one item, it explicitly says so. See, e.g., section 3.1 of SAE J585e (tail lamps), section 5.1.5.2 of SAE J586 (stop lamps), and section 5.1.5.2 of SAE J588 (turn signal lamps). (These SAE recommended practices are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.)

We do not believe there is any inconsistency between our letters to Mr. Babcock and Mr. Bataini. In our letter to Mr. Bataini, we addressed the issue of "whether Standard No. 108 permits a front side marker reflector to consist of two reflective devices molded separately and assembled on the same [headlamp] housing."(Emphasis added.) We were not addressing the issue of multiple reflectors.

We note that Standard No. 108 does not specify that all of the reflective elements of a reflex reflector need to be contiguous. Our view when we issued the letter to Mr. Bataini was that whether the reflective elements of the reflex reflector were molded to each other and then mounted on a headlamp housing, or instead separately mounted on the headlamp housing, the finished product was a single item (both a single reflector and a combination lamp). By contrast, multiple unconnected reflective devices installed on the vehicles fender or bumper would not constitute a single reflector.

Finally, we note that the use of multiple reflectors in place of a required single reflector would not only raise testing issues but also concerns related to replacement of broken reflectors. Standard No. 108 specifies requirements only for single reflectors. If a vehicle manufacturer used multiple reflectors in place of a single reflector, there would be no way of knowing the apportioned contribution of each of the separate reflectors. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for an aftermarket manufacturer to supply parts that have the same reflectivity as the original parts, and there would be certification problems for these manufacturers. Therefore, if one of the separate reflectors became broken and the vehicle owner replaced it (but not all of the reflectors), the vehicle might not provide the minimum required performance in this area.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/14/04