ID: nht93-4.31

DATE: June 11, 1993

FROM: Howard M. Smolkin -- Acting Administrator, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Laura J. Platter

COPYEE: Barbara A. Mikulski -- United States Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-21-93 from Carl W. Vogt to Howard Smolkin (OCC 8692)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Senator Barbara Mikulski about the Federal government's classification of minivans for safety purposes. You were concerned that classifying minivans as trucks rather than passenger vehicles would permit these vehicles to be equipped with fewer safety features.

Congress has authorized this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. In the last few years, NHTSA has extended nearly all the passenger car safety standards to cover light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs). (Minivans are typically considered to be MPVs under our safety standards.)

The only significant safety requirement for passenger cars that the agency has not extended to light trucks and MPVs is dynamic side impact protection. This is a new requirement that is being phased in for passenger cars beginning this September. NHTSA is currently in rulemaking to consider whether the dynamic side impact protection requirements should be extended to light trucks and MPV's, and published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in June 1992.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

ID: 2253y

Ms. Linda B. Kent
Senior Account Executive
Market Development
Fasson Specialty Division
250 Chester Street
Painesville, OH 44077

Dear Ms. Kent:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the use of a product on motor vehicles would violate Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR /571.205). This product, called "Contra Vision," is designed to display messages or advertising materials on windows and other clear surfaces, so that viewers on one side of the clear surface will see the message displayed, while viewers on the other side of the surface will see an essentially transparent surface without any message visible. According to your letter, this product "will be used for promotional signage in store windows, but also has application in rear taxicab windows, as well as rear and side windows of city buses." You asked for our opinion of whether this product complies with Standard No. 205.

Some background on how Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulation affect this product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products or processes. Instead, the Safety Act specifies that each manufacturer itself must certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety and alleged violations of other statutory provisions.

Your letter indicates that you are already aware that NHTSA has issued a safety standard that applies to the windows installed in motor vehicles. Specifically, Standard No. 205 requires that all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles must comply with certain performance requirements. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance. A minimum of 70 percent light transmittance is required in glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars. In trucks and buses, the windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost window, if the latter is used for driving visibility, are considered to be requisite for driving visibility, and therefore subject to the 70 percent minimum light transmittance requirement.

Your letter did not provide any information on the light transmittance that would be measured through glazing with Contra Vision installed on it. The combination of the glazing material and the Contra Vision must allow at least 70 percent light transmittance to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install Contra Vision on the glazing materials on new vehicles, unless the manufacturer or dealer certifies that the vehicle continues to comply with the 70 percent minimum light transmittance and other requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to the vehicle are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. This provision of the law means that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business could install Contra Vision if the addition of Contra Vision to the glazing would result in a light transmittance of less than 70 percent, or otherwise cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the applicable requirements of Standard 205. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition can result in Federal civil penalties to the manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business of up to $1000 for each noncomplying installation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act does not affect vehicle owners. Hence, vehicle owners themselves may install Contra Vision or any other product on the glazing of their vehicle, regardless of whether the installation causes the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 205. Individual States have the authority to regulate the operational use of vehicles by their owners, and, therefore, have the authority to regulate or preclude individual owner modifications to the glazing of their vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that summarizes the relationship between Federal auto safety laws and motor vehicle window tinting. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need any additional information about this topic, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:205#VSA d:l/9/90

ID: 77-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/04/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dry Launch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1976, asking several questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. You referenced my letter of October 7, 1976 to Wesbar Corporation, and my views about the prohibition against the optical combination of lamps (S4.4.1).

It is evident from your letter and others that our previous interpretations of the term "optical combination" have been found to be ambiguous and lacking in the objective criteria that a Federal Motor vehicle safety standard must provide. We have reviewed the matter, and now wish to modify our previous interpretation. In our view a lamp is "optically combined" when the same light source (i.e. bulb) and the same lens area fulfill two or more functions (e.g. taillamp and stop lamp, clearance lamp and turn signal lamp). A dual filament bulb would be regarded as the "same light source". In determining conformance, the photometric requirements for clearance and taillamp functions, where two bulbs are located in a single compartment, must be met with only the bulb energized that is designed to perform the specific function. But the 15 candlepower maximum under Standard No. 108, however, would be determined with both the taillamp and clearance lamp bulb energized. Further, the lamp must be located to meet requirements for both clearance and taillamps. Our re-interpretation means that the issue of light spill-over from one area of the lamp to another is irrelevant to conformance.

You have also asked whether the November 1975 amendments (S4.3.1.1.1) "permit clearance lights that are designed for OEM application only be allowed to have lower or no photometrics in this area but still be considered a combination clearance and sidemarker lamp" as the lamp otherwise complies with Standard No. 108.

The amendment in question was intended to cover clearance lamps only. If a lamp is intended as a combination clearance and side marker lamp and does not meet the requirements for a clearance lamp because of the exemption provided by S4.3.1.1.1, it must nevertheless meet the requirements for side marker lamps. If it doesn't, a separate conforming side marker lamp must be provided.

Yours Truly,

DRY LAUNCH

December 27, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration In a recent discussion with an Engineer at the California Highway Petrol's Certification Office in Sacramento, we discussed combining of lighting functions. He had a copy of a letter from you to Mr. B. A. Weber of Wesber Corporation dated October 7, 1976. As a result of reading this, the following two questions come to mind - the third question I have been intending to write you about.

1. Question and Answer to No. 2 was the following:

"Can a clearance lamp and tail lamp be combined in a single compartment with no opaque barrier wall existing between the clearance lamp bulb and the tail lamp bulb?

The answer is no because the same luminous area of the lens would be lighted when both lamps are in use, and the lamps would be "combined optically."

I ask if no barrier existed between the two functions and both photometric tests simultaneously, (that is, neither were over maximums or under minimums) and both passed their tests when the other one was extinquished (that is, not over maximums or not under minimums), why must the opaque wall exist at all? In view of public safety, it would appear to enhance it as well as save money and weight by omitting the opaque wall.

2. If an opaque wall must exist between clearance light and tail light, there is bound to be a certain amount of "spill over" of one compartment's light into the next. In this case what limit of "spill over" might exist realistically?

3. Recently, an amendment to Federal 108 allowed the covering of the 45 degrees sector of a clearance light that was inboard (S4.3.1.1.1). Does this permit clearance lights that are designed for OEM application only be allowed to have lower or no photometrics in this area but still be considered a combination clearance and sidemarker lamp as long as all other rules of Federal 108 are met and they are properly mounted?

I would appreciate a prompt reply as your answers affect two decisions for new lights that we are working on.

Dennis G. Moore

ID: 0484

Mary M. Mann, Director
Federal Government Regulations
National Marine Manufacturers Association
Washington Harbour
3050 K Street, N.W., Suite 145
Washington, D.C. 20007

Dear Ms. Mann:

This responds to your letter of September 15, 1994, to Patrick Boyd of this agency. As he has told you, we did not receive a copy of it until around November 9. You ask for confirmation of your understanding of the conspicuity requirements of S5.7.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to large boat trailers, based upon a meeting you had with him and Taylor Vinson of this Office earlier in the summer. We have paraphrased your concerns for conciseness in our discussion which follows.

Side treatment

1. Paragraph S5.1.1.9 allows a double-faced clearance lamp to be mounted at or near the midpoint of wide boat trailers to indicate the extreme width. Paragraph S5.7.1.4, in essence, prohibits retroreflective material from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp. While the closest edge of the fender-mounted lamp will be further than 75 mm from the body-mounted retroreflective material, when viewed from the side the separation distance vanishes and the material appears next to the lamp. You asked whether this configuration complies with Standard No. 108.

NHTSA regards this configuration as meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 since the actual physical distance between the closest edge of the lamp and the material is more than 75 mm. But the more important point is that the spacing of side conspicuity material is a consideration only for required side lamps. The amber lamp in question is a front clearance lamp and the proximity of side facing reflectors has no effect on its visibility from the side.

2. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires that the material cover at least half the trailer length and that it be distributed as even as practicable. For purposes of calculating the 50 percent minimum, you asked whether the following two applications are acceptable: a) The sheeting can be on the angled portion of the trailer that is the tongue, regardless of its effect on the reflectivity of the tape when viewed from the side.

NHTSA has traditionally included the trailer tongue in determining the overall length of the vehicle for compliance purposes. Therefore, sheeting applied to the trailer tongue may be used in calculating the 50 percent minimum.

(b) The sheeting need not all be on the same horizontal plane.

This is correct. If a manufacturer applies sheeting to the tongue and fender in fulfilling the 50% minimum obligation, the material need not be at the same height as the other sheeting on the trailer. However, wherever applied, each discrete portion of sheeting must be mounted as horizontal as practicable.

Rear Treatment

1. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1 specifies the application of three Elements of sheeting to the rear of trailers. However, it excuses container chassis and platform trailers without bulkheads from being equipped with Element 2 treatment, and trailers without underride protection devices from the requirements of Element 3. You asked whether NHTSA would also excuse boat trailers without bulkheads in the same manner as platform trailers, requiring compliance only with Element 1.

This is correct. The configuration of a boat trailer without a bulkhead is essentially that of a platform trailer, and it may also be exempted from providing Element 2 conspicuity treatment. Due to their low heights, boat trailers are not equipped with rear underride devices, and those trailers without underride devices are excluded from the requirement for providing Element 3 treatment.

2. Element 1 retroreflective material is to be applied "across the full width of the trailer" but under paragraph S5.7.1(a) it need not be applied to "items of equipment such as door hinges and lamp bodies." There is a cross member at the rear which will have conspicuity treatment across the full width; however, mounting brackets attached to the cross member obscure portions of the conspicuity treatment. You asked for confirmation that this configuration is in accordance with Standard No. 108.

The exclusionary term "items of equipment" is not limited to the two examples cited in S5.7.1(a), door hinges and lamp bodies. We believe that any equipment to which it is impracticable to apply retroreflective material may be excluded from the requirement. You have not included any pictures of the mounting brackets, but this will confirm that NHTSA regards the mounting brackets as "items of equipment" to which the treatment need not be applied, if it is impracticable to apply material to it. In this event, application of conspicuity treatment across the full width of the cross member meets Standard No. 108 even if the subsequently added mounting brackets without treatment obscure part of it.

3. Does NHTSA interpret "full width of the trailer" to include the rear of the fender assembly, so as to require the application of conspicuity treatment to it? You asked for confirmation that the phrase applies only to the rear of the frame.

NHTSA has defined "overall vehicle width" to exclude flexible fender extensions, but it has not adopted a definition for "full width." We understand from your first question, on the centrally mounted clearance lamp, that boat trailer fenders will be located at or near the center of the trailer rather than at the rear. Under this circumstance, we interpret "full width" to include only the vehicle structure at the rear end of the trailer, including its frame and rear cross members.

4. With respect to the relative location of the edge of retroreflective sheeting to the edge of required lamps, S5.7.1.4(b) prohibits white sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp whether red or amber, while S5.7.1.4(c) prohibits red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required amber lamp only. You asked for confirmation "that the edge of the red portion of the sheeting may abut a rear identification lamp but that the white portion of the sheeting must be at lease (sic) 3mm (sic) from those lamps." (We believe you mean 3 inches).

This is correct. S5.7.1.4(c) does not prohibit red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm (3 inches) to the red rear identification lamp, and the two may abut. However, S5.7.1.4(b) does not allow the edge of white sheeting to be closer than 75 mm to the edge of the luminous lens area of the identification lamp.

Finally, you have asked for confirmation of your understanding "that it is not acceptable for trailer manufacturers to give rolls of reflexive sheeting tape and instructions to dealers regarding its application. Rather, the sheeting must be installed at the factory."

We confirm your understanding. The manufacturer of the trailer is required to certify compliance of its product with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards upon its completion and before its delivery for introduction into interstate commerce. As this certification includes compliance with S5.7 of Standard No. 108, the conspicuity treatment must be applied as part of the manufacturing process and not delegated to dealers.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:1/11/95

ID: nht95-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: January 11, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mary M. Mann -- Director, Federal Government Regulations, National Marine Manufacturers Association

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9/15/94 letter from Mary M. Mann to Patrick Boyd (OCC 10484)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Mann:

This responds to your letter of September 15, 1994, to Patrick Boyd of this agency. As he has told you, we did not receive a copy of it until around November 9. You ask for confirmation of your understanding of the conspicuity requirements of S5.7.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to large boat trailers, based upon a meeting you had with him and Taylor Vinson of this Office earlier in the summer. We have paraphrased your concerns for conciseness in our discussion whic h follows.

Side treatment

1. Paragraph S5.1.1.9 allows a double-faced clearance lamp to be mounted at or near the midpoint of wide boat trailers to indicate the extreme width. Paragraph S5.7.1.4, in essence, prohibits retroreflective material from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp. While the closet edge of the fender-mounted lamp will be further than 75 mm from the body-mounted retroflective material, when viewed from the side the separation distance vanishes and the material appears next to the lamp. Y ou asked whether this configuration complies with Standard No. 108.

NHTSA regards this configuration as meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 since the actual physical distance between the closest edge of the lamp and the material is more than 75 mm. But the more important point is that the spacing of side conspi cuity material is a consideration only for required side lamps. The amber lamp in question is a front clearance lamp and the proximity of side facing reflectors has no effect on its visibility from the side.

2. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires that the material cover at least half the trailer length and that it be distributed as even as practicable. For purposes of calculating the 50 percent minimum, you asked whether the following two applications are acc eptable:

a) The sheeting can be on the angled portion of the trailer that is the tongue, regardless of its effect on the reflectivity of the tape when viewed from the side.

NHTSA has traditionally included the trailer tongue in determining the overall length of the vehicle for compliance purposes. Therefore, sheeting applied to the trailer tongue may be used in calculating the 50 percent minimum.

(b) The sheeting need not all be on the same horizontal plane.

This is correct. If a manufacturer applies sheeting to the tongue and fender in fulfilling the 50% minimum obligation, the material need not be at the same height as the other sheeting on the trailer. However, wherever applied, each discrete portion of sheeting must be mounted as horizontal as practicable.

Rear Treatment

1. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1 specifies the application of three Elements of sheeting to the rear of trailers. However, it excuses container chassis and platform trailers without bulkheads from being equipped with Element 2 treatment, and trailers without un derride protection devices from the requirements of Element 3. You asked whether NHTSA would also excuse boat trailers without bulkheads in the same manner as platform trailers, requiring compliance only with Element 1.

This is correct. The configuration of a boat trailer without a bulkhead is essentially that of a platform trailer, and it may also be exempted from providing Element 2 conspicuity treatment. Due to their low heights, boat trailers are not equipped with rear underride devices, and those trailers without underride devices are excluded from the requirement for providing Element 3 treatment.

2. Element 1 retroreflective material is to be applied "across the full width of the trailer" but under paragraph S5.7.1(a) it need not be applied to "items of equipment such as door hinges and lamp bodies." There is a cross member at the rear which wil l have conspicuity treatment across the full width; however, mounting brackets attached to the cross member obscure portions of the conspicuity treatment. You asked for confirmation that this configuration is in accordance with Standard No. 108.

The exclusionary term "items of equipment" is not limited to the two examples cited in S5.7.1(a), door hinges and lamp bodies. We believe that any equipment to which it is impracticable to apply retroreflective material may be excluded from the requirem ent. You have not included any pictures of the mounting brackets, but this will confirm that NHTSA regards the mounting brackets as "items of equipment" to which the treatment need not be applied, if it is impracticable to apply material to it. In this event, application of conspicuity treatment across the full width of the cross member meets Standard No. 108 even if the subsequently added mounting brackets without treatment obscure part of it.

3. Does NHTSA interpret "full width of the trailer" to include the rear of the fender assembly, so as to require the application of conspicuity treatment to it? You asked for confirmation that the phrase applies only to the rear of the frame.

NHTSA has defined "overall vehicle width" to exclude flexible fender extensions, but it has not adopted a definition for "full width." We understand from your first question, on the centrally mounted clearance lamp, that boat trailer fenders will be loca ted at or near the center of the trailer rather than at the rear. Under this circumstance, we interpret "full width" to include only the vehicle structure at the rear end of the trailer, including its frame and rear cross members.

4. With respect to the relative location of the edge of retroreflective sheeting to the edge of required lamps, S5.7.1.4(b) prohibits white sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp whether red or amber, while S5.7.1.4(c) pr ohibits red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required amber lamp only. You asked for confirmation "that the edge of the red portion of the sheeting may abut a rear identification lamp but that the white portion of the sheeting mu st be at lease (sic) 3mm (sic) from those lamps." (We believe you mean 3 inches).

This is correct. S5.7.1.4(c) does not prohibit red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm (3 inches) to the red rear identification lamp, and the two may abut. However, S5.7.1.4(b) does not allow the edge of white sheeting to be closer than 75 mm to the e dge of the luminous lens area of the identification lamp.

Finally, you have asked for confirmation of your understanding "that it is not acceptable for trailer manufacturers to give rolls of reflexive sheeting tape and instructions to dealers regarding its application. Rather, the sheeting must be installed at the factory."

We confirm your understanding. The manufacturer of the trailer is required to certify compliance of its product with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards upon its completion and before its delivery for introduction into interstate comme rce. As this certification includes compliance with S5.7 of Standard No. 108, the conspicuity treatment must be applied as part of the manufacturing process and not delegated to dealers.

Sincerely

ID: 003059 bts

Mr. Joe Masci
Pollak Switch Products Division
300 Dan Road
Canton, MA 02021

Dear Mr. Masci:

This responds to your May 2, 2003, faxed letter and your telephone conversations with Mr. Otto Matheke of my staff concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, to a seat belt tension sensor (BTS). You stated that the BTS is used in conjunction with a passenger weight classification system to prevent misclassification of children seated in child safety seats. Your letter asked several questions as to how a seat belt assembly using a seat belt tension sensor would be tested for compliance with Federal standards. Each of your questions is addressed below.

1. General Applicability of FMVSS No. 209.

You asked if the BTS would be considered part of the seat belt assembly under FMVSS No. 209, or if it would be considered an anchorage under FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, which is a vehicle standard. S3 of FMVSS No. 210 defines a seat belt anchorage as:

[A]ny component, other than the webbing or straps, involved in transferring seat belt loads to the vehicle structure, including, but not limited to, the attachment hardware, seat frames, seat pedestals, the vehicle structure itself, and any part of the vehicle whose failure causes separation of the belt from the vehicle structure.

Accordingly, FMVSS No. 210 applies to fixed attachment points on the vehicle structure and the associated hardware. FMVSS No. 209 applies to seat belt assemblies, defined as:

[A]ny strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle. (S3 of FMVSS No. 209)

In your phone conversation, you stated that the BTS is sold to manufacturers of seat belt assemblies and may be placed in a variety of positions on the assembly. As a component of the seat belt assembly, the BTS would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 209. However, because the BTS may be incorporated into a seat belt system in a variety of ways, we are unable to determine whether the BTS could ever be considered a seat belt anchorage under FMVSS No. 210.

2. FMVSS No. 209 Strength requirements

In your letter you included a diagram properly identifying the components of a Type 2 seat belt assembly and asked for verification of the strength requirements for each labeled component. The strength requirements for FMVSS No. 209 are contained in: S4.2, webbing; S4.3, hardware; and S4.4, assembly performance.

Under S4.2(b), webbing in the pelvic restraint portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must have a breaking strength of not less than 22,241 N (5,000 pounds). The upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must have a minimum breaking strength of 17,793 N (4,000 pounds). The testing procedure for both portions of webbing is contained in S5.1(b).

S4.3(c) requires that attachment hardware bolts used to secure the pelvic restraint of a seat belt assembly must be able to withstand a force of at least 40,034 N (9,000 pounds) when testing in accordance with S5.2(c)(1). Other attachment hardware designed to receive the ends of two seat belt assemblies shall withstand a tensile force of at least 26,689 N (6,000 pounds) when tested under S5.2(c)(2).

S4.4 sets forth the strength requirements of a Type 2 seat belt assembly in subsection (b). Under S4.4(b)(1), each structural component in the pelvic restraint must withstand a force of not less than 11,120 N (2,500 pounds). This includes the BTS, if it is located along the pelvic portion of the pelvic restraint. S4.4(b)(2) requires that each structural component in the upper torso restraint portion of the seat belt assembly be able to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N (1,500 pounds). This includes a torso guide loop and retractor if the design permits only upper torso restraint forces on the restraint. Under S4.4(b)(3), any structural component that is common to both the pelvic and upper torso restraints must withstand a force of not less than 13,345 N (3,000 pounds). This would include any buckle or portion of the BTS that would be subject to forces from both the pelvic and upper torso restraints. The seat belt assembly performance for a Type 2 seat belt assembly is tested by the procedure specified in S5.3(b).

3. Procedure for Testing Assembly Performance

In your letter you asked what would be the proper method of attaching and orienting an assembly with a BTS under the test procedures in S5.3. Under S5.3, each end of the pelvic or torso portion of the belt assembly is attached to an anchorage bar to form a loop over rollers on a testing machine. (See FMVSS No. 209 Figure 5, enclosed.) The anchor points are such that the webbing is parallel in two sides of the loop. The attaching bolts are either aligned with or at an angle of 45 or 90 degrees to the webbing, whichever results in an angle nearest to 90 degrees between webbing and attachment hardware.

You stated that you believe the appropriate testing method for an assembly with the "BTS installed between the fixed anchor on the pelvic-only side of the belt and the belt webbing" would be to utilize the procedure in S5.3(a)(2) for a "nonthreaded anchorage." Such a determination would be governed by the specific application of the belt assembly and not by the presence of a BTS. S5.3(a)(2) declares that testing will be performed in accordance with the installation instructions provided with belts designated for use in specific models of vehicles. In such an instance, the anchorages of the vehicle-specific assembly would be installed for testing so as to produce the maximum angle in use indicated by the installation instructions. From your letter and phone conversations, the BTS is sold to seat belt assembly manufacturers for eventual use in a variety of vehicle models. As such, the "nonthreaded anchorage" procedure would only be appropriate in those instances where the BTS is incorporated into a seat belt assembly that is designed for a specific vehicle and is accompanied by instructions for installation specific to that vehicle.

For the assembly you specified, compliance testing would require the attaching bolts to be set according to the general set-up procedure. The attaching bolts would be positioned under S5.3(a)(2) such that the angle between the webbing and the attachment hardware is as close to 90 degrees as possible.

4. Minimum Force Requirements for Assembly Performance

In your letter you asked if the force minimums listed for the Type 2 belt component strength requirements apply to each component individually or to the test loop as a whole. The answer is that these force requirements apply to the components and not to the test loop. Under S4.4(b) of FMVSS No. 209, for a Type 2 belt, the structural components in the pelvic restraint must withstand a force of not less than 11,120 N (2,500 pounds), the structural components in the upper torso restraint must withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N (1,500 pounds), and structural components that are common to the pelvic and upper torso restraints must withstand a force of not less than 13,345 N (3,000 pounds). The test procedure for Type 2 belt assembly components requires a tensile force equal to that of the appropriate minimum be applied to the components (S5.3(b)). Therefore, in compliance testing of the pelvic restraint portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly, a force of 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) would be applied to the test loop. The application of the 22,240 N (5,000 pounds) would be required so that the components would experience a tensile force of 11,120 N (2,500 pounds); the minimum required.

We note that in a letter to Mr. Douglas Kubehl, dated March 16, 1992, we took the position that under S4.4(b) and the corresponding procedure in S5.3(b), the minimum force requirement would be applied to the test loop. However, we have reconsidered that interpretation and conclude that it was incorrect. The previous interpretation would result in Type 2 seat belt assembly components being tested to much lower force requirements than components in a Type 1 seat belt assembly. However, it is our understanding that all manufacturers of Type 2 seat belt assemblies have built and tested their products in a manner consistent with this revised interpretation, so this revision will not cause any seat belt assemblies (or the vehicles in which they are installed) to become noncompliant. To the extent a manufacturer has relied upon our previous interpretation, we will only pursue an enforcement action for noncompliance with the standard prospectively.

5. Manual Belts Subject to the Requirements of FMVSS No. 208

In your letter, you ask if you are correct in understanding that the strength requirements of S4.4 do not apply if the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208 are met instead. Your understanding is correct. Under S4.6 of FMVSS No. 209, manual seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, would not be required to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(f) and S4.4 of FMVSS No. 209. [1] This includes the FMVSS No. 209 strength requirements for seat belt assembly components.

You further ask, "how frequently do vehicle manufacturers opt for the 208 test option over the static component strength tests in 209?" A seat belt assembly subject to FMVSS No. 209 must comply with that standard, and be certified by its manufacturer as conforming to that standard. We do not collect or maintain data on how vehicle manufacturers certify with respect to their seat belt assemblies, although NHTSA may examine a manufacturer's certification in connection with any prospective or pending enforcement action. As such, we do not know with what frequency manufacturers opt for the FMVSS No. 208 compliance option.

I hope 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

Enclosure
ref:209
d.7/16/03





---

[1] Excepted from this provision are seat belts that are subject to S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of FMVSS No. 208, which cross references FMVSS No. 209. S4.1.2.1(c)(2) does not apply to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1986.

ID: nht76-4.38

DATE: 02/25/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: State of Connecticut

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of June 24, 1975, and May 30, 1975, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 217 and 205. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions.

In your letter of June 24, 1975, you asked whether Standard No. 217 applies to school buses, and if so, whether Connecticut's regulations concerning emergency exits for school buses are in conflict with the Federal standard. By notice published in the Federal Register on January 27, 1976 (41 FR 3871) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, 49 CFR 571.217, was amended to specify requirements for emergency doors for school buses, pursuant to the provisions of Section 202 of the Motor Vehicle and Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492, 88 Stat. 1484, 15 U.S.C. 1392).

Since Standard No. 217, as amended, applies to school buses, effective October 26, 1976, any State regulations which differ are voided by @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). The Connecticut regulations are, therefore, preempted by Standard No. 217, since @ 103(d) requires the State regulations to be "identical" to the Federal standard.

It should be noted, however, that while the State of Connecticut may not issue a regulation which differs from similarly applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements, Connecticut (or any of its political subdivisions) may in its own contracts for school bus purchases require more stringent specifications, as long as the Federal minimum requirements are met.

In your letter of May 30, 1975, you asked whether Lucite AR and other similar rigid plastics are allowed for use as side windows of buses under Standard No. 205, even though S5.1.2.1 does not list the use for "Item 12" rigid plastics.

"Item 12" is a classification created by the NHTSA for rigid plastics which comply with all the tests required of "Item 5" rigid plastics as defined in ANS Z26, with the exception of the test for resistance to undiluted denatured alcohol. Paragraph S5.1.2.1, Item 12 - Rigid plastics, provides that "Item 5" safety plastic materials may be used in motor vehicles only in the locations specified, at levels not requisite for driving visibility. These locations include "Standee windows in buses" and "readily removable windows". However, there is no provision in S5.1.2.1 which allows the use of "Item 12" plastic materials for fixed, side windows in buses.

Standard No. 205 defines readily removable windows in buses having a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds to include pushout windows and windows mounted in emergency exits that can be manually pushed out of their location in the vehicle without the use of tools, whether or not one side remains hinged to the vehicle. Rigid plastics can only be used for side windows in buses if the side window is a readily removable window as defined by S5.1.1.4 or a standee window.

I hope this letter clarifies your questions concerning Standard Nos. 217 and 205. Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

June 24, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is in regard to your recent reply to Mr. W. G. Milby, Staff Engineer from the Blue Bird Body Company in Fort Valley, Georgia concerning Connecticut regulations for emergency exits on school buses.

I have no question with the response that State regulations must be identical to Federal standard or are considered void. I can understand the reasoning behind this decision and agree with it completely. The interpretation I would have is; Does Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217 apply to school buses, and if it does; are Connecticut regulations concerning emergency doors and emergency windows in conflict with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217?

I am attaching for your information copies of those sections of Connecticut regulations concerning emergency exits from the "MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I SCHOOL BUS CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT and all correspondence pertaining to this subject.

Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this regard.

John L. O'Connell Pupil Transportation Administrator

ATTACHMENTS

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

May 19, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation NHTSA

The State of Connecticut recently adopted new school bus specifications which will become effective on school buses manufactured after January 1, 1976. In two areas these specifications are more restrictive than FMVSS 217 Bus Window Retention and Release.

In section 14-275B-16 (d) and 14-275B-17 (a), (see attached copies), the Connecticut specifications call for emergency exit release forces of between 5 and 15 pounds and 5 and 20 pounds respectively. Since these forces are different than those required by FMVSS 217, this imposes an additional constraint on school bus manufacturers for that state. Also, we are concerned that latch forces as low as 5 pounds could result in inadvertent opening of emergency exits.

We are in receipt of a copy of a letter which you sent to Mr. Donald L. Gibson, dated November 29, 1974, with file reference N40-30 (KK). In that letter you state:

"The federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard to parking brake performance and emergency braking capability in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a federal regulatory scheme. If states were permitted to impose additional requirements in an area regulated by a federal safety standard, manufacturers would be confronted with an impossible task of compliance. This reasoning formed the basis of the recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle lamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 108 since the NHTSA intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps."

It appears to us that this current conflict between the new Connecticut regulations and FMVSS 217 is similar to the matter which you addressed in your letter quoted above.

In the light of such conflicting specifications, what is our responsibility as a school bus manufacturer.

W. G. Milby Staff Manager

cc: JOHN O'CONNELL; DAVE PHELPS

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE I SCHOOL BUS CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT PAGES 9 AND 10 the release mechanism should be turned to open the emergency door shall be painted on the outside of the emergency door in black on the national school bus yellow background. The emergency door shall have a horizontal opening of at least 30 inches and a vertical opening of at least 48 inches measured from the floor level. No steps shall lead to the emergency door. The emergency door or exit shall be devised so as to be opened from the inside and the outside.

(b) The passage to the emergency door shall be kept clear of obstructions. For rear doors the horizontal clearance of 30 inches shall be maintained for a distance of at least twelve inches inside the bus. When the emergency door is in the left side, a minimum horizontal clearance of 30 inches and a vertical clearance of 48 inches shall be maintained between it and the center aisle.

(c) The upper and lower portion of the central rear emergency door shall be equipped with approved safety glass, the exposed area of which shall be not less than four hundred (400) square inches in the upper portion and not less than three hundred (300) square inches in the lower portion. The left side emergency door shall be equipped with safety glass in the upper portion and the lower portion shall be of at least the same gauge metal as the body outer panels. The emergency door shall be hinged on the right side if it is in the rear end of the bus and on the front side if it is in the left side and shall open only outward. Control from the driver's seat shall not be permitted.

(d) The emergency door shall be equipped with a slide-bar, cam-operated latch which shall be a minimum stroke of one inch. The latch shall be equipped with a suitable electric plunger-type switch connected with a distinctive audible signal automatically operated and located in the driver's compartment which shall clearly indicate the unlatching of this door and no cutoff switch shall be installed in the circuit. The switch shall be enclosed in a metal case, and wires leading from the switch shall be concealed in the body. The switch shall be so installed that the plunger contacts the farthest edge of the slide bar in such a manner that any movement of the slide bar will immediately close the circuit and activate the signal. The door latch shall be equipped with an interial handle which shall be capable of quick release upon application of a force between 5 and 15 pounds but shall be protected against accidental release. It shall lift up to release the latch. The outside handle shall be installed in a vertical position when latched so as to minimize hitching and shall be a non-detachable device.

(e) An audio alarm shall indicate to the driver when any door is in the locked position while the ignition switch is in the "on" position.

Sec. 14-275b-17. Emergency Windows. (a) A rear emergency window at least 16 inches height and as wide as practicable shall be provided in any where the emergency door is not in the rear. The rear window shall be designed so as to be opened from either the inside the outside. It shall be hinged at the top and be equipped a linkage or mechanism that will automatically hold the (Illegible Word) window against the force of gravity at a hinge opening angle 60 + 5 degrees measured from the closed window position. Such linkage or mechanism shall not prevent the window from (Illegible Word) a full 90 degrees due to gravitational forces should the bus be inverted. A positive latch on the inside shall provide (Illegible Word) quick release upon application of a force between 5 and 20 pounds but offer protection against accidental release. The outside handle shall be non-detachable and designed to minimize hitching.

(b) Labeling shall indicate in 1/2 inch letters on the inside the window operates and in letters at least two inches in height the words "Emergency Exit" above on the inside and directly below on the outside. clearly indicate to the driver the unlatching of the rear emergency window or the opening of any push-out emergency windows and no cutoff switch shall be installed in the (Illegible Word)

(d) If there is a space between the top of the rear divan seat the inside lower edge of the rear emergency window, such space shall be covered by a material of sufficient strength to sustain 600 pounds weight.

Sec. 14-275b-18. Exhaust System and Muffler. The exhaust system shall include the exhaust manifold and gaskets, piping leading from the flange of the exhaust manifold to and including the muffler(s). The system shall not extend into the body and shall be attached to the chassis. The tail pipe(s) shall be non-flexible sixteen gauge steel or equivalent and shall extend beyond the rear end of the chassis frame but not beyond the rear limit of the bumper. The complete exhaust system shall be tight and free from leaks and shall be properly insulated from the electrical wiring or any combustible part of the bus. It shall not pass within twelve inches of the fuel tank or its connections except that the exhaust system may come within four inches of the tank or its connections if a suitable heat baffle is installed between the exhaust system and such tank or connections. The size of the in the exhaust system shall not be reduced below that at the engine manifold.

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

June 10, 1975

John O'Connell Pupil Transportation Adm. Department of Motor Vehicles

On May 19, 1975, I wrote Mr. Richard Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel for NHTSA with regard to the emergency exit requirements in the new Connecticut School Bus Specifications VS Federal Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release per our earlier telephone conversation.

Attached please find a copy of the reply to that letter from Mr. James C. Schultz, Chief Counsel for NHTSA. I think it would be good for us to discuss this reply and so after you have had a few days to review this letter I will plan to call you.

Look forward to talking to you shortly.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

c: DAVE PHELPS

ID: 12089.MLS

Mr. William Shapiro
Manager, Regulatory Compliance
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
15 Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your inquiry about the labeling requirements in S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid (49 CFR §571.116). You ask whether the wet boiling point marked on a package of DOT 4 brake fluid should be "the minimum wet boiling point of the DOT brake fluid in the container," or the minimum wet boiling point that DOT 4 brake fluid must meet under the standard, i.e., 311 degrees F. The answer is the former.

Section S5.2 of Standard 116 sets forth packaging and labeling requirements for brake fluid containers. Section S5.2.2.2(f) requires each container to be marked with "The minimum wet boiling point in Fahrenheit of the DOT brake fluid in the container." (Emphasis added). Under S5.1.2, the wet equilibrium reflux boiling point ("wet boiling point") of DOT 4 brake fluid must not be less than 311 degrees F.

Because section S5.2.2.2(f) specifically requires the labeling to be of the wet boiling point of the DOT brake fluid "in the container," the value for the brake fluid in the container is marked on the label. This interpretation is consistent with a February 7, 1975 letter to Mr. Paul Utans in which the agency concluded that a label that specified a wet boiling point of 320 degrees F. "meets our requirements."

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin
Chief Counsel

ref:116
d:7/24/96

ID: 16054.ztv

Mr. Bill Cox
Monte Carlo Minis
Box 369
Earl, NC 28038

Dear Mr. Cox:

This is in reply to your faxes of September 22, 1997, and October 1, 1997, to Taylor Vinson of this Office.

With your fax of September 22, you attached an article distributed by the Knight-Ridder newspapers on the arrival of the first Chinese truck or sport utility vehicle at a Michigan dealership. This article contains the statement that "since it's considered a low-volume vehicle, it needn't comply with U.S. safety standards. It doesn't have air bags and it doesn't meet U.S. crash standards." You have asked how they are allowed to do this.

The article is incorrect. All low-volume motor vehicles must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in order to be imported and sold in the United States, unless it has filed for and received an exemption from the standards. As Mr. Vinson informed you in his call to you on October 1, no exemption has been granted this Chinese vehicle.

In your fax of October 1, you state that new Volkswagen Beetles are being imported under an exemption from NHTSA "allowing small volume importers to import 10 cars or less not to comply." You ask why you weren't told about this exemption. As with the Chinese Jeep, the Volkswagen Beetle does not have a small volume importer exemption. However, this vehicle could be imported as one that has been refurbished from an original vehicle that is more than 25 years old. If this is the case, then the vehicle is not required to comply upon admission to the United States.

We are providing copies of your correspondence to our compliance office. Thank you for informing us of these matters.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.10/9/97

ID: nht79-1.24

DATE: 01/10/79

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

TO: Hon. J. M. Ashbrook - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

January 10, 1979

In reply refer to: NOA-30

Honorable John M. Ashbrook House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Ashbrook:

This responds to your December 19, 1978, letter asking whether it is required that school buses be built to transport a minimum of 9 passengers.

As you suggest in your letter, there is no requirement that school buses be built to transport a minimum of 9 passengers. The school bus safety regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require the compliance of those vehicles used to transport more than 10 children to or from school and related events. Vehicles with smaller passenger capacities may also transport children to and from school and need not comply with the school bus safety standards.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 19, 1978

Mr. David Soule Department of Transportation Room 5319 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Soule:

According to the attached findings of the Congressional Research Service, there is no statutory or regulatory requirement that school buses be built for a minimum of nine passengers plus the driver. Could you please confirm or contradict this conclusion for me in writing as soon as is conveniently possible?

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

John M. Ashbrook Representative to Congress 17th District