ID: aiam4597

"Dear Mr. Panetta: This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf o your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed his objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR /571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification or a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were used to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and nausea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements. The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are: 1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror. 2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive. 3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortion. 4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object. Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the areas he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and other potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam2067

Dear Mr. Sambucetti: This responds to your recent request for a discussion of wha constitutes the manufacture of a new trailer when used components from an existing trailer are utilized. As you are aware, a newly-manufactured air-braked trailer must, in all but a few cases, be equipped with an air brake system that conforms to Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; The use of components in combination with used components to assemble complete vehicle is a common practice in both truck and trailer operations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has recognized this commercial practice by establishing that the use of a new body on a used 'chassis' that has already been certified does not constitute the manufacture of a new vehicle. In contrast, placing a used body on a new chassis that has never been certified as a vehicle has been determined to create a newly-manufactured vehicle that must be certified. This distinction did not present difficulty to trailer manufacturers in the past, when they were only required to meet the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*.; Since implementation of Standard No. 121, however, manufacturers hav had to determine whether the particular assembly they undertake contains a used 'chassis' which would not be required to meet the air brake standard. As a general matter, the NHTSA has stated that, as a minimum, the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and main frame of the existing vehicle must be used to qualify as a used 'chassis'. However, the many different types of trailer construction make it difficult to determine what constitutes the main frame of some configurations. The NHTSA has concluded that the load-bearing structural member(s) which run the length of the vehicle and support the trailer will be considered to be the 'main frame'.; In the case of monocoque van construction, the trailer side walls whic constitute the main load-bearing members through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of container chassis, the box frame that consitutes (sic the main load- bearing member through the length of the vehicle must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of a platform trailer, the main frame members which run th length of the trailer must be reused in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle.; In the case of a tank trailer in which the tank serves the purpose o and replaces frame rails, the tank must be reused as the main frame in addition to the running gear, or else the rebuilding operation will constitute manufacture of a new vehicle. If a separate frame serves as the load-bearing member through the length of the vehicle, the tank could be replaced without the operation constituting the manufacture of a new vehicle. An inner tank may be replaced without certification as a new vehicle if the inner tank does not serve as a main load-bearing member.; Modifications of existing trailers to increase or decrease volumetri capacity or vehicle length are generally permitted without recertification. For example, the barrel of a tank trailer may be lengthened in response to the new weight limits without recertification of the vehicle.; In closing, it should be noted that Bureau of Motor Carrier regulation may differ on modification or rebuilding of vehicles in interstate commerce.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4670

"Dear Mr. Rickert: Thank you for your letter seeking this agency' opinion as to whether the State of Maryland may amend its motor vehicle regulations to permit the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows, for individuals who may desire this for medical reasons. I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe the legal principles that relate to your question. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA') is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that impose requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not 'render inoperative' any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows 'inoperative' within the meaning of Standard 205. This Federal prohibition is similar to that imposed by section 22-104 of the Maryland Vehicle Law, which provides: A person may not willfully or intentionally remove or alter any safety device or equipment that has been placed on any motor vehicle . . . in compliance with any law, rule, regulation, or requirement of . . . the United States or of this State . . . unless the removal or alteration is permitted by rule or regulation adopted by the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administrator. The 'render inoperative' provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which aftermarket tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, although section 22-104 appears to preclude aftermarket tinting by any person if the result would be to reduce the level of light transmittance below 70 percent, Maryland may amend its rules or regulations to permit such tinting by individuals, for medical or any other reasons deemed valid by the State. However, Maryland has no authority to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the 'render inoperative' prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of Maryland law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements. In adopting Standard 205, NHTSA determined that a minimum light transmittance of 70 percent is necessary to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. This is the same level of light transmittance contained in the Safety Code of the American National Standards Institute. If, as your letter suggests, Maryland is considering permitting vehicle owners to modify their vehicles such that their windows will have a lower level of light transmittance, we would urge you to carefully consider the safety consequences of such an exemption. Please let me know if you need any further information on this subject. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2245

Dear Mr. Chauvin: This responds to your February 20, 1976, question whether this agenc considers Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, preemptive of New York State law or regulations mandating a 28-inch-high back and armrests for school bus passenger seating. Section 103(d) provides (15 U.S.C. S1392(d)):; >>>S 103<<< >>>(d) Whenever a Federal Motor vehicle safety standard under thi subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Standard No. 222 specifies a formula for minimum seat back height tha necessitates a heights of at least 20 inches. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that any State requirement relating to seat back height, other than one identical to the Federal formula that establishes a minimum height of 20 inches, is preempted under S 103(d).; The second sentence of S 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on safet regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, New York State or its political subdivisions could specify a seat back height higher than 20 inches in the case of public school buses. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all applicable standards.; There are presently no requirements in Standard No. 222 dealing wit armrests on school bus passenger seating. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standards on school bus seating performance were intended generally to cover this aspect of performance, analogously to the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in *Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger*, No. CIV 574-126 (E. D. Cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in *Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul*, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is 'whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field.' Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as *Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is 'of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'; The NHTSA has determined that the requirement for armrests by New Yor State does not conflict with or otherwise impair our present regulation of school bus passenger seating, and that armrests are not within the intended scope of the present Federal safety standards. Therefore, Standard No. 222 is not preemptive of the New York State regulation of armrests.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4593

"Dear Mr. Panetta: This letter responds to your inquiry on behalf o your constituent, Mr. Botelho. You asked whether Federal regulations require mirrors to be placed on the right side of vehicles and whether such mirrors must be convex in nature. Mr. Botelho expressed his objection to requiring convex mirrors, because he believes convex mirrors distort images and cause objects to appear further away than they actually are. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this requirement and its background for you. Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR /571.111, copy enclosed)) establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors installed in new vehicles. Specifically, a passenger car whose inside rearview mirror does not meet the field of view requirements of section S5.1.1 must have an outside mirror on the passenger side of either unit magnification or a convex mirror. In a September 2, 1982 final rule amending Standard No. 111, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) explained that convex mirrors offer safety benefits by providing an expanded field of view to the rear, thereby reducing the need for the driver to turn around to view the rear directly. On the other hand, some users of convex mirrors that were used to the images shown by conventional plane mirrors incorrectly perceived that the object shown in the convex mirror was further to the rear than it actually was. Additionally, some users of convex mirrors experienced double vision, eyestrain, and nausea. After considering these potential advantages and disadvantages, NHTSA amended Standard No. 111 so that it does not require any vehicle to be equipped with convex mirrors, but it permits the use of convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks, provided that the convex mirror meets certain additional requirements. The additional requirements applicable to convex mirrors on the passenger side of cars and light trucks are: 1. A maximum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This limits the range of convexities to which drivers will be exposed. It also ensures that the field of view will be noticeably greater than for a plane mirror. 2. A minimum radius of curvature for the convex mirror. This ensures that the image size in the convex mirror will be adequate and distortion will not be excessive. 3. A stringent maximum permissible variation in the radius of curvature over the surface of the convex mirror. This requirement, which is more stringent than the European requirement in this area, also ensures that convex mirrors will have low distortion. 4. A warning etched on the convex mirror that objects shown in the mirror are closer than they appear. This requirement ensures that the driver who may not be familiar with convex mirrors will not be misled by the image size of the convex mirror and the apparent distance to the object. Hence, we agree with Mr. Botelho that the areas he has identified are potential problems unique to convex mirrors. However, our standard includes special requirements for convex mirrors to minimize the potential problems identified by Mr. Botelho and other potential problems that were identified in research studies of convex mirrors. We are not aware of any data showing that convex mirrors that comply with those special requirements present any unacceptable problems for drivers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam2369

Dear Mr. Rosenberry: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflet of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client 'may rely on the warranty of a fabric manufacturer that the fabric sold meets the requirements' of Standard No. 302.; You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of th National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et* *seq*) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 *Seating Systems*, No. 208 *Occupant Crash Protection*, No. 210 *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages* and No. 302 *Flammability of Interior Materials*.; As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the additio of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).; With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabri supplies 'test each fabric lot for flammability before certification.' In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of 'due care' the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the 'warranty' of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a 'due care' defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.; Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification an remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 *et* *seq*) if a noncompliance of safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alterations.; I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207 208, 210, and 302 for your information.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4141

Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of th requirements of Part 541, *Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard*. You asked two separate questions, which are discussed in detail below. Your incoming letter has been granted confidential treatment in accordance with 49 CFR Part 512, so it will not be forwarded to the docket along with this response.; First, you asked whether your marking system would be subject to th performance requirements for labels, set forth in S541.5(d)(1), or the performance requirements for other means of identification, set forth in S541.5(d)(2). You indicated in your letter that this marking system would affix the required marking to engines and transmissions. Section 541.5 expressly states that the required markings 'must be *affixed* by means that comply with paragraph (d)(1) of this section or *inscribed* by means that comply with paragraph (d)(2) of this section' (Emphasis added). This requirement means that all markings that are affixed to a part, whether by means of adhesive, screws, rivets, or welding, must satisfy the performance requirements for labels set forth in S541.5(d)(1).; Second, you asked whether your marking system would appear to satisf the theft prevention standard's performance requirements for labels. You stated in your letter that you know it is your company's responsibility to certify compliance with the standard, but that this agency's 'opinions and comments' on whether the marking system appears to comply with the theft prevention standard would be highly appreciated.; As you noted in your letter, section 606(c) of the Motor Vehicl Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2026(c)) requires each *manufacturer* to certify that its vehicles comply with the theft prevention standard. Therefore, this agency does not approve, endorse, or certify that any manufacturer's marking system complies with the theft prevention standard. We will, however, state whether a particular marking system appears to comply if we are provided with sufficient information on which to base that opinion. In this case, your letter simply does not provide sufficient information for us to offer an opinion.; You sought NHTSA's opinion as to whether your marking system appears t comply with the 'footprint' requirement specified for labels in S541.5(d)(v)(B). That section requires that removal of the label must 'discernibly alter the appearance of that area of the part where the label was affixed by leaving residual parts of the label or adhesive in that area, so that investigators will have evidence that a label was originally present.' For us to offer an opinion in this area, we must have some way to determine what remains on a part after the affixed label is removed. Ideally, we would have several labels affixed to a metal section by the means described in your letter. We could then remove the labels and examine the metal section for a 'footprint'. At a minimum, we need some means of determining what the 'footprint' would be if these labels were removed, and whether such 'footprint' would give investigators evidence that a label was originally present.; Please feel free to contact me if you need some further explanation o our theft prevention standard or if you wish to provide additional information so that we can offer an opinion as to whether your labels appear to comply with the requirements set forth in S541.5(d)(v)(B).; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2241

Dear Mr. Nolan: This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1976, in which you as six questions pertaining to tire identification and recordkeeping, and to defects notification and recall. The statutory basis for and regulations governing this subject are set forth in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391, et seq., and 49 CFR Part 574. I have enclosed copies for your reference. Specific answers to your questions follow in the sequence asked:; >>>1. Manufacturers are required to retain tire registratio information for three years. (49 CFR 574. 7(d)).; 2. As in all defect recall campaigns under our Act, the tir manufacturer, not the Department of Transportation, traces and notifies individuals of defective tires. There have been approximately 2,526,480 tires subject to recall in 119 recall campaigns.; 3. The number of persons employed by industry to process thi information has not been reported, but the filing systems are highly automated by the use of computer processing techniques. The cost of storage of this information during the three-year period is minimal. The recording of information at the time of purchase, however, is manually performed at the retail level, usually by the salesman, and has been estimated by dealers to cost anywhere from 5 or 10 cents per tire up to $2.50 per tire. The substantial difference in cost estimates is to a large part due to whether or not one assumes the salesman who completes the forms and the clerk who mails them would not be employed but for the tire registration process. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) takes the position, which has yet to be refuted, that additional personnel are not needed to carry out the program on the retail level and consequently the costis (sic) at the lower end of the scale. Simplification of the process has been achieved with the adoption of a standardized report form on which towrite (sic) the name and address of the purchaser. A copy is enclosed.; 4. There is no cost incurred by the Federal government attributable t the tire registraion (sic) and recordkeeping procedure except indirectly in that the regular staff, as one of their functions, assigns and maintains a manufacturer's identification code list and monitors the program of defects recalls and regulation enforcement. The cost of this work has been determined to be about $34,000 annually.; 5. The NHTSA has undertaken no prosecution of dealers or manufacturer for violation of the tire information and recordkeeping regulation. Fourteen civil penalties have been assessed for violation of the regulation, although these all occurred shortly after the regulation became effective.; 6. We do not presently anticipate a major revision of the regulation However, as with allour (sic) standards and regulations, it is regularly reviewed and revised to increase its effectiveness while lowering its cost to the industry and the consumer. Further, dealers, manufacturers, and others are free at any time to petition the NHTSA to amendthe (sic) regulations. These procedures, which are found in 49 CFR, Part 552, require that we act on petitions within 120 days.; At the present time, this program is also being analyzed by th National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council as part of its study of 'Safety Defects and Recalls' requested by Secretary William T. Coleman. The Council's report will also guide us in revising and improving the regulation.<<<; Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: 2349y

AIR MAIL

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Re: Decorative Supplemental Lighting Devices Not Specified by Standard l08 (Motorcycles)

Dear Mr. Chikada:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to two types of decorative lighting devices intended for installation "on the rear face, and at the top of optional motorcycle rear trunks respectively." I regret the delay in responding.

Type A and Type B would be installed on the same motorcycle. Type A would be installed at the top of the trunk. It consists of an elongated device, illuminated by LEDs when the taillamp is on. Type B is installed on the motorcycle itself. It is a rectangular device, illuminated by an incandescent bulb, which is mounted on the vertical centerline and is flanked by the tail and stop lamps. The distance between the center of the light sources on the two devices is 290mm. (approximately ll 1/2 inches). Both devices emit red light, and their maximum intensity is less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp.

You have asked whether it is permitted to equip a motorcycle with the Type A and Type B accessory lamps. If the answer is affirmative, you have asked whether an LED could be used as the light source for Type B. You have also asked whether the maximum intensity of each device separately should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp, or whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices should be less than the minimum intensity of the tail lamp.

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08 (formerly S4.1.3) permits the installation of these lamps if they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard. In this instance, the question to be asked is whether the devices, activated with the taillamps, impair the effectiveness of the taillamps, or the stop lamps. The devices are, in effect, supplemental taillamps, and as such, arguably do not appear to impair the effectiveness of the taillamps required by the standard no matter what their intensity is.

The diagram of Type B indicates that the stop lamps and taillamps are in the same compartment, presumably incorporating a dual filament bulb. Although the stop lamps when activated are brighter than the taillamps, their proximity to the supplemental devices Type A and Type B, each of which are emitting a red light, leads to the possibility that the stop signal would not be as effective as it would be were there no other red lights in the vicinity, and hence impaired within the meaning of S5.1.3. A stop signal must be instantly perceived so that a following driver may determine appropriate action to take. However, we note that this configuration is similar to other stop/taillamp configurations on many vehicles in use on the highways. This would indicate that such configurations do not result in impairment. Thus, the answer to your first question is that both Types of devices are permitted under the standard.

Your second question is whether LEDs are acceptable light sources for Type B. Since there is no restriction on light sources for a lighting device not required by Standard No. l08, you may use the LEDs as light sources.

Your third question is whether the maximum intensity of Type A and Type B, separately, should be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamp. Even though Type A and Type B are optional devices, in the configuration depicted where Type B is immediately flanked on both sides by a taillamp, the appearance of the three lamps would be that of a multicompartment lamp, even though they may actually be separate. To help assure that impairment of either the taillamp or stop lamp does not occur, the intensity of Type B should be identical with that of the taillamps. Otherwise, observers may assume that Type B (which you intend to have an intensity less than a taillamp) is actually the taillamp, and the actual taillamps (which you intend to have an intensity greater than Type B) might appear to be stop lamps that are continually on. This would be deemed impairment since there would be three intensity levels, increasing the possibility of confusion of the intent of the lamps.

As for Type A, its vertical separation decreases the possibility for confusion. If the light sources are LEDs, the color would be a different shade of red that the stop and taillamps. Thus, the intensity is less important. However, it functions as an auxiliary taillamp and should be within the same intensity range as the original equipment taillamps. Finally, you asked whether the combined maximum intensity of both devices would be less than the minimum intensity of the taillamps. Again, this would create three levels of intensity, and could cause confusion in understanding the intent of the lamps. As noted above, the individual intensities should be similar to the intensity of the taillamps.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

/ ref:l08 d:3/20/90

ID: 24256ogm

Doris Schaller-Schnedl, Homologation Engineer
Magna Steyr Engineering
Steyr Daimler Puch Fahrzeugtechnik AG & Co KG
Liebenauer Hauptstrasse 317
A-8041
Graz, Austria




Dear Ms. Schaller-Schnedl:

This responds to your electronic mail message in which you indicate that your company would like to install Type 2 seat belts equipped with load limiters for use in the rear outboard seating positions of a passenger vehicle. Your message notes that you would like to employ load limiters as you believe that the devices would help reduce the possibility of injury in a crash. You indicate, however, that if you equip the seat belts in question with load limiters, the belts will not comply with the minimum performance requirements for belt elongation found in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Your message also indicates your belief that S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that belts equipped with load limiters need not meet the elongation requirements if these belts are installed in any designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As your message observes that S5.1 applies only to front outboard designated seating positions, you ask if load limiters that do not meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 may only be installed in front outboard designated seating positions. Finally, if it is the agency's position that load limiter equipped belts may only be installed in the front outboard seating positions, you ask if belts equipped with these devices may be installed in rear outboard seating positions if the belts meet the performance requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 when tested with a dummy placed in the rear outboard seating position.

For the reasons explained below, load limiters that cause a seat belt to not meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 may not be installed in seating positions other than the front outboard seating positions.

Standard No. 209 establishes minimum performance requirements for seat belts and contains a number of provisions relating to elongation in seat belts and seat belt assemblies. The elongation of belt webbing is governed by S4.2(c), while the elongation performance of Type 1 and Type 2 belt assemblies is controlled by S4.4(a)(2), S4.4(b)(4) and S4.4(b)(5).

Load limiters are intended to manage the forces imposed on an occupant when the occupant moves forward against the belt during a crash. To achieve this purpose, load limiters allow the belt to yield, in a controlled fashion, to the forces generated by restraining an occupant. In order to allow the use of load limiters while ensuring that belts equipped with the devices continue to provide a minimum level of safety, S4.5 of Standard No. 209 provides as follows:

S4.5 Load-limiter.


(a) A Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load-limiter is not required to comply with the elongation requirements of S4.2(c), S4.4(a)(2), S4.4(b)(4) or S4.4(b)(5).

(b) A seat belt assembly that includes a load limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in motor vehicles at any designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 ( 571.208).

As you observe in your message, S4.5 provides that a seat belt equipped with a load limiter is not subject to the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 if that belt is installed at a designated seating position that is subject to the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208. S5.1 establishes the minimum performance standards for occupant protection in a frontal crash and includes, in S5.1.1, the requirements for performance in a 48 km/h (30 mph) frontal crash test employing a 50th percentile male dummy secured by a Type 2 belt in a front outboard seating position. Because the requirements of S5.1.1 provide assurance that seat belts will provide a minimum level of safety in a frontal crash, S4.5 of Standard No. 209 excludes belts with load limiters from meeting the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 for any seating position that is tested under S5.1. As S5.1 applies only to front outboard seating positions, belts with load limiters installed at rear outboard seating positions must meet the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your message also asks if a manufacturer wishing to install belts with load limiters in a rear outboard seating position may comply with S4.5 of Standard No. 209 by verifying the performance of the belts through testing the belts by performing testing as set forth in S5.1 on the rear outboard seats. The answer is that belts installed at rear seating positions are subject to the elongation requirements and must meet them.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel


ref:209
d.9/19/01