ID: 1985-01.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Stephen T. Waimey, Esq; Dean Hansell, Esq., Donovan, Leisure, Newton and Irvine

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/30/79 letter from F. Berndt to Alfa Romeo

TEXT:

Stephen T. Waimey, Esq. Dean Hansell, Esq. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, California 90071

Dear Messrs. Waimey and Hansell:

I am responding to your correspondence regarding the definitions of "convertible" and "open body type vehicle" under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) safety regulations.

Your first question concerns the definition of "open body type vehicle." Our regulations provide a definition at 49 CFR S571.3: "...a vehicle having no occupant compartment top or an occupant compartment top that can be installed or removed by the user at his convenience." The common usage of that term in our interpretations is that this term is intended to apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, such as Jeep-type vehicles. Thus, neither of the automobiles in the pictures that you included with your letter (Porsche 911 Carrera Cabriolet and Porsche 911 Carrera Targa) are considered to be open-body vehicles.

You also ask whether the Porsche 911 Targa is considered a convertible. You state that there is no fixed, rigid structural member joining the "A" pillar with the "B" pillar. Despite this absence, the Targa roof, beginning behind the "B" pillar, apparently is a fixed, rigid structural member that meets Federal roof-crush standards.

You are correct in stating that our regulations do not expressly define "convertible." NHTSA interpretations, however, have consistently defined "convertible" as a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural member. Thus, the Porsche 911 Targa is considered a convertible because it meets this definition. While the vehicle is therefore not required to meet the roof-crush standards, it is commendable that Porsche has designed it to do so.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

January 4, 1985

Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We represent Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG ("Porsche") and on behalf of Porsche we seek your comments about apparent ambiguities in the regulations. These regulations are relevant to certain research and development work being done by Porsche.

Specifically, the definition of "open-body type vehicle" and the usage of that phrase and of the undefined term "convertible" in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are unclear. This leaves open questions as to (1) whether the Porsche 911 Cabriolet and the Porsche 911 Targa are "open body-type vehicles" and (2) whether the Porsche 911 Targa is a "convertible." (Pictures of both vehicles are attached to this letter). The following is our understanding of the applicable law and identifies the ambiguities as we see them.

(1) Open-body Type Vehicle. Section 571.3 of the NHTSA regulations, 49 C.F.R. S 571.3, defines an "open-body type vehicle" as "a vehicle having no occupant compartment top or an occupant compartment top that can be installed or removed by the user at his convenience." One interpretation of this definition is that the concept of a "removable" top includes a convertible top that can be folded down. However, the use of the term in NHTSA regulations suggests that the term is limited to vehicles that are usually manufactured with no doors and/or windshield or removable doors and/or windshield, such as four-wheel drive utility vehicles, and other specialty vehicles, and is this not intended to include convertible passenger cars such as the Porsche Cabriolet.

For example, in at least 3 cases, open-body type vehicles are treated separately from convertibles. Section 571.114 of the regulations exempts from the requirements of paragraph S4.5 of Safety Standard Number 114 (theft protection) only "open-body type vehicles that are manufactured for operation without doors and that either have no doors or have doors that are designed to be easily attached to and removed from the vehicle by the vehicles owner." Section 571.212 exempts "open body type vehicles with fold-down or removable windshields" from Safety Standard Number 212 (windshield mounting). Section 571.219 exempts "open-body type vehicles with "fold down" or removable windshields" from Safety Standard Number 219 (windshield zone intrusion). Conversely, Section 571.208 of the regulations exempts both "convertibles and open-body vehicles" from the requirements of paragraph S4.1.1.3.1 of Safety Standard Number 208 (occupant crash protection).* Similarly, the test conditions set forth in Section 571.208 provide (at paragraph S8.1.6) that for the frontal, lateral and roll-over tests "convertibles and open-body type vehicles have the top, if any, in place in the closed passenger compartment configuration." Finally, Section 571.205, as recently amended (at paragraph S5.1.2.4), prohibits glass and plastic glazing materials from being used in "convertibles, in vehicles that have no roof or in vehicles whose roofs are completely removable.***

Similarly, NHTSA Federal Register notices suggest that an open-body type vehicle is different than a convertible. In granting Anden Holdings Ltd. a temporary exemption from Safety Standard Numbers 104 and 201

* Section 571.208 provides (at paragraphs S4.1.1.3.2 and S4.1.2.3.2) that "convertibles and open-body type vehicles shall utilize either a Type l or a Type 2 seatbelt assembly.

** This second half of this reference appears to be a paraphrase of the definition of "open-body type vehicle."

(windshield wiping and washing systems and occupant protection in interior impact), because it is an open-body type vehicle, acting NHTSA Administrator Steed stated "the Auburn replica, as is true of many open-body vehicles, has no header and the windshield frame is too narrow to support a sun visor mounting." See 47 Fed. Reg. 34, 071 (1982). Further, discussion appears at both 46 Fed. Reg. 32,251 (1981) and 45 Fed. Reg. 85,450 (1980) about whether to exempt open-body type vehicles with readily removable or no doors from the key-in-ignition warning requirements of safety Standard Number 114 (theft protection).

Finally, use of the term "convertible" in Sections 571.210, 571.216, and 571.302 of the Regulations without the term "open-body type vehicle" suggests that a convertible is not an open-body type vehicle.

In view of the context in which the term "open-body type vehicles" has been used in NHTSA regulations, it thus appears that neither the Porshce 911 convertible nor the Porsche 911 Targa are intended to be considered "open-body type vehicles." It may be that this result is achieved because a convertible top is not completely removable (i.e., it is only folded down) and the Targa top actually leaves most of the roof in place (in the same way that a "T-top" roof does). however, because this matter is not clear, Porsche would appreciate your comments on the regulatory intent of these terms.

(2) The Porsche 911 Targa as a Convertible. You wrote a letter on August 30, 1979, to Alfa Romeo concluding that the term "convertible" is not defined in NHTSA regulations though it is apparently described or defined elsewhere. (For your convenience I attach a copy of the August 30, 1979 letter). The letter concludes:

"While our regulations do not include a formal definition of "convertible," the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rearward support rearward of the "B" pillar position) or by a fixed, rigid structural member."

In our research, we could not locate the source for that definition.

Also, as far as we could determine, the regulations still do not define the term "convertible." The term is, however, used four times in Section 571.208 (at paragraphs S4.1.1.3.1, S4.1.1.3.2, S4.1.2.3.2. and S8.1.6), and once each in Section 571.108 (paragraph S4.3. 1.8), in Section 571.205 (paragraph S5.1.2.4), in Section 571.216 (paragraph S3), and in Section 571.302 (paragraph S4.1). In each instance, no information about the meaning of "convertible" is given. Since the Porsche 911 Targa's "A" pillar is not joined with its "B" pillar, it thus appears that it might meet the definition of a "convertible." On the other hand, since the Targa roof (which begins at the B pillar position and continues by means of the rear glass window to the rear body deck) is a fixed, rigid structural member that provides the Targa with a roof from that point to the rear (which roof meets regulatory roof-crush standards), where the entire roof is non-structural, thus does not necessarily apply.*

* We note that there may be another undefined class of vehicles evolving, a class consisting of partially covered vehicles such as the "T"-top, cars with sun roofs and the Targa. Perhaps our focus in distinguishing between only convertibles, open-top vehicles and coupes is too narrow. For example, Section 571.205 (at paragraph S5.1.2.4) provides that glass-plastic glazing materials may not be used in convertibles. This prohibition does not apply to vehicles with sun roofs or "T"-tops, 48 Fed. Reg. 52,062 (1983), because "the probability that the plastic side of the glazing in those vehicles would be directly exposed to the sun over a prolonged period is particularly small due to the installation angle of the windshield and restricted path of the sunlight through the opening in the top of the vehicle." Id. However, because of the presence in the Targa of a fixed structural roof from the B-pillar areas rearwards, the plastic side of the glazing would not be directly exposed to the sun. Thus, in at least in this area, the Targa might more reasonably be considered as a member of a "T"-top/Targa class of vehicles.

Thank you for your courtesy and assistance.

Yours truly,

Stephen T. Waimey

Dean Hansell Enc: August 30, 1979 letter from NHTSA to Alfa Romeo. Omitted Here

ID: nht94-1.26

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 24, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerome Cysewski

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/20/93 from Jerome Cysewski to NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel (OCC-9250)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking about the applicability of Federal requirements to two vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response. According to your letter, one vehicle is a 13,600 pound cement silo that has tandem axles. The second vehicl e is a 6,400 pound aggregate batch plant that has a single axle. The cement silo and batch plant are mounted on their own trailers, and are equipped with electric brakes. Each vehicle is pulled by a one ton truck with hydraulic brakes. You also stated that both vehicles are mobile but are designed to be towed for off-the-road set and positioning. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background information, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The Safety Act defines the ter m "motor vehicle" as follows:

"any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." (Section 102(3))

If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Whether NHTSA considers a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on the use for which it is manufactured. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, suc h as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Your letter does not provide sufficient information for us to determine the extent to which the two vehicles would use the public roads. Nor can we determine whether the on-highway use of the vehicles would be merely incidental and not the primary purpo se for which they are manufactured.

However, you should be able to determine whether the vehicles are considered motor vehicles based on the information set forth above.

If the vehicles are considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act, they would be required to meet all safety standards applicable to trailers. Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecti ng motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam3085

Dear Mr. Black: This responds to your request for written confirmation of statement made by Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during a meeting with your representative, Mr. Bernstein. That meeting concerned the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216 as they apply to convertibles. The discussion below follows sections 'I' and 'V' of the transcript enclosed in your letter, which involve legal questions.; (I.) Convertibles, like all other passenger cars, must comply with th automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 beginning in 1981, 1982 or 1983, depending on vehicle wheelbase size. This means that convertibles will have to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and, either meet the lateral and roll-over requirements of S5.2 and S5.3 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants or, at the option of the manufacturer, have a Type I or Type II seat belt assembly at each front designated seating position (and meet the frontal requirements of S5.1 with these belts fastened around the test dummies).; In the second part of your first question, you asked whether convertible may meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. The answer to your question is yes. Convertibles are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 but may do so, at the option of the manufacturer, as an alternative to meeting the automatic roll- over requirements of Standard No. 208. Please note that compliance with Standard No. 216 would not excuse convertibles from compliance with the automatic lateral protection requirements of Standard No. 208. As stated above, however, installation of a lap belt at front designated seating positions would excuse all passenger cars from both the lateral and the roll-over requirements. Therefore, a convertible that meets the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and that also has lap belts installed, does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216. I am enclosing a letter of interpretation that was issued last year which discusses the relationship between Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216, in light of the automatic restraint requirements.; In the final part of your first question, you asked whether you coul manufacture convertibles with fold-down tops, removable tops or removable hard-tops that would comply with Safety Standard No. 216, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is also yes. While our regulations do not include a formal definition of 'convertible,' the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose 'A' pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the 'B' pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the 'B' pillar position) or by a fixed, rigid structural member. Therefore, if any of the vehicle designs you mentioned meet this criteria and also comply with Safety Standard No. 216, they would not be required to comply with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208.; (V.) Section V of your transcript includes a discussion of the growin aftermarket convertible industry (removing hard-tops from vehicles) and the increasing number of kit-car convertibles. You asked about the legal requirements for these vehicles. Any new vehicle that is manufactured or assembled from a kit-car must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Likewise, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (by converting a hard-top vehicle to a convertible, for example) is required to place an additional label on the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. This means that all of these vehicles would have to be in compliance with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 (after those requirements become effective).; Mr. Hitchcock's statement that removing the top of a vehicle that is i compliance with Safety Standard No. 216 would be prohibited by Federal law is incorrect. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974, does provide that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and this is the law that Mr. Hitchcock referred to. The agency has stated in the past, however, that conversion of one vehicle type to another vehicle type *e.g., hard-top to convertible) does not violate this provision, as long as the converted vehicle complies with all safety standards that would have been applicable to it if it had originally been manufactured as the new type. Therefore, removal of a passenger car's hard- top does not render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216 since a new convertible would not have been required to comply with that standard.; I hope this letter has responded fully to the legal questions raised i your discussions with Mr. Hitchcock. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3082

Dear Mr. Black: This responds to your request for written confirmation of statement made by Mr. Ralph Hitchcock of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration during a meeting with your representative, Mr. Bernstein. That meeting concerned the requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216 as they apply to convertibles. The discussion below follows sections 'I' and 'V' of the transcript enclosed in your letter, which involve legal questions.; (I.) Convertibles, like all other passenger cars, must comply with th automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 beginning in 1981, 1982 or 1983, depending on vehicle wheelbase size. This means that convertibles will have to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and, either meet the lateral and roll-over requirements of S5.2 and S5.3 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants or, at the option of the manufacturer, have a Type I or Type II seat belt assembly at each front designated seating position (and meet the frontal requirements of S5.1 with these belts fastened around the test dummies).; In the second part of your first question, you asked whether convertible may meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 216, *Roof Crush Resistance*, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. The answer to your question is yes. Convertibles are not required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 but may do so, at the option of the manufacturer, as an alternative to meeting the automatic roll-over requirements of Standard No. 208. Please note that compliance with Standard No. 216 would not excuse convertibles from compliance with the automatic lateral protection requirements of Standard No. 208. As stated above, however, installation of a lap belt at front designated seating positions would excuse all passenger cars from both the lateral and the roll-over requirements. Therefore, a convertible that meets the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard by means that require no action by vehicle occupants and that also has lap belts installed, does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 216. I am enclosing a letter of interpretation that was issued last year which discusses the relationship between Safety Standard No. 208 and Safety Standard No. 216, in light of the automatic restraint requirements.; In the final part of your first question, you asked whether you coul manufacture convertibles with fold-down tops, removable tops or removable hard-tops that would comply with Safety Standard No. 216, as an optional means of complying with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is also yes. While our regulations do not include a formal definition of 'convertible,' the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose 'A' pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the 'B' pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the 'B' pillar position) or by a fixed, rigid structural member. Therefore, if any of the vehicle designs you mentioned meet this criteria and also comply with Safety Standard No. 216, they would not be required to comply with the roll-over requirements of Safety Standard No. 208.; (V.) Section V of your transcript includes a discussion of the growin aftermarket convertible industry (removing hard-tops from vehicles) and the increasing number of kit-car convertibles. You asked about the legal requirements for these vehicles. Any new vehicle that is manufactured or assembled from a kit-car must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. Likewise, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale (by converting a hard-top vehicle to convertible, for example) is required to place an additional label on the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable safety standards. This means that all of these vehicles would have to be in compliance with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208 (after those requirements become effective).; Mr. Hitchcock's statement that removing the top of a vehicle that is i compliance with Safety Standard No. 216 would be prohibited by Federal law is incorrect. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (sic) 1974, does provide that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and this is the law that Mr. Hitchcock referred to. The agency has stated in the past, however, that conversion of one vehicle type to another vehicle type (e.g., hard-top to convertible) does not violate this provision, as long as the converted vehicle complies with all safety standards that would have been applicable to it if it had originally been manufactured as the new type. Therefore, removal of a passenger car's hard-top does not render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 216 since a new convertible would not have been required to comply with that standard.; I hope this letter has responded fully to the legal questions raised i your discussions with Mr. Hitchcock. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-7.37

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carl Haywood -- Operations Manager, Emergency Response Specialists (Morris, Alabama)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12/21/93 from Carl Haywood to John Womack

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of December 21, 1993, requesting information about seating requirements for emergency response units you are designing to respond to chemical spills. The response units are tractor trailer combinations which can be driven in and out of the cargo bay of C-130 Hercules aircraft which are used to transport the units to the site. You further describe the response units as follows:

Our response units are designed to transport all six (6) of our response team members, for over the highway transportation three (3) of our team members will ride in the tractor and the remaining three (3) will ride in the trailer. During air transportation all six (6) team members will ride in the trailer. By providing seating with lap and shoulder restraints in the response unit for both ground and air transportation we eliminate the need for special crew cabins for air transportation, and extra vehicles for ground transportation.

This conserves the limited space available on the C-130 allowing us to carry all the equipment needed to respond effectively to large scale chemical releases.

You requested information on the regulation of the seating in the response units. You have already contacted several Department of Transportation agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle" under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable safety standards, including those related to seating and occupant restraint. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority.

Applying this definition to the response units, NHTSA believes the response units are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether a vehicle which has both on-road and off-road uses is a motor vehicle, the agency looks at whether the vehicle uses public roads on a necessary and

recurring basis. Applying this criteria to the response units, we believe that the response units have a primary function of highway transportation of personnel and equipment to the chemical spill site.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to determine the occupant seating requirements for the response units, it is necessary to determine how these vehicles are classified under our regulations. NHTSA he fines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The tractor portion of the response unit has seating capacity for at least three passengers, but its primary use appears to be to draw the trailer. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." NHTSA believes the trailer portion of the response units would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA has exercised its authority under the Safety Act to issue four safety standards relevant to occupant seating and restraint: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, all "occupant seats" in tractor portion of the response units must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers, therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

Standard No. 208 specifies occupant protection requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds. As explained below, trucks are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position. As with Standard No. 207, Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the trailer portion of the response units are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Vehicle manufacturers have a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1 requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seateral Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or a matter concerning the preemption of State statutes by Standard No. 108.

Under the statutes and regulations we administer, the applicable law is 15 U.S.C. Section 1397 (a)(2)(A) . This Section states in pertinent part:

"No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor d applies to all seat belt assemblies as separate items of motor vehicle equipment, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Thus, if seat belts are voluntarily installed at the seats in the trailer portion of the response units, the seat belts would be required to comply with Standard No. 209.

Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages installed in vehicles, where seat belts are required by Standard No. 208. Therefore, anchorages are required for the lap belts in the tractor, but are not required in the trailer.

Although all of the safety standards cited in this letter do not apply to each seating position in your proposed emergency response unit, the agency nevertheless encourages additional consideration and application of those performance requirements that are appropriate to a safe design.

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

ID: 571-213--Graco armrest

ID: aiam4442

"Dear Mr. Fawell: I have been asked to respond to your recent lette asking the Department of Transportation to provide you with information concerning the use of safety belts on school buses. You ask for this information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Wayne Mann, in the Illinois Palos Community Consolidated Schools. Mr. Mann specifically seeks 'factual information relative to seat (lap) belts on school buses,' and information on funding for traffic safety programs involving hazardous conditions outside the school bus. I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds) to have passenger crash protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles' interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include high seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance. (Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses experience greater force levels in a crash, passengers on these vehicles need the added safety benefits of the belts.) School buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, NHTSA has not required safety belts in large school buses. I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled 'Safety Belts in School Buses,' which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject. I think your constituent may find this information helpful. With respect to hazardous conditions outside the school bus, the agency realizes that there are special problems of driver visibility associated with transporting students. NHTSA has addressed these problems in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111, Rearview mirrors, paragraph S9. In 1975, NHTSA established special mirror requirements for school buses 'to reduce the danger of death or injury to school children (by giving) the school bus driver the fullest possible view of all sides of the vehicle...' (The proposed rule, including this preamble quotation, appears at 40 FR 33828, 33829, August 12, 1975. The final rule was published originally at 41 FR 36023, August 26, 1976.) One of these special requirements is that manufacturers equip a school bus with a crossview mirror that permits the driver to see the area in front of the bus. These special school bus mirror requirements help contribute to the low number of fatalities associated with school bus travel. Your constituent also mentions funding to implement a program to address hazardous conditions outside the school bus. The agency believes that its school bus regulations effectively address the safety of school bus design and performance, and contribute to occupant safety. We note, however, that /402 of the Highway Safety Act, provides funds to each State for its use in conducting a highway safety program. Some of these funds are distributed by the State to local governments or organizations within the State. To get information on Illinois' /402 funds, I suggest that your constituent contact the Illinois Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, Mr. Melvin H. Smith, Director, Division of Traffic Safety, 319 Administration Bldg., 2300 South Dirksen Pkwy., Springfield, IL 62764. If you or Mr. Mann have further questions, I encourage you to contact our agency. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: 22162ogm

Mr. Mitsuhide Kikkawa
Mazda North American Operations
1500 Enterprise Drive
Allen Park, MI 48101-2053





Dear Mr. Kikkawa:

This in response to your September 12, 2000, letter regarding the provisions of Standard No. 201, "Occupant protection in interior impact," as they relate to convertible roof frames and roof linkages. In your letter, you observe that S6.3(a) of Standard No. 201 exempts certain convertible roof frame and roof linkage components from the requirements of Standard No. 201 and ask several questions about these exemptions in relation to both the soft-top and removable hard top versions of the Mazda Miata.

You ask a number of questions relating to the application of Standard No. 201 to the soft-top version of the Miata. Your letter describes the Miata as having a movable convertible roof linkage with a locking system on the roof frame that engages fixed anchorages located at the junction of the A-pillar and the front header. You ask if the fixed anchorages located at the junction of the A-pillar and the front header are exempt from the impact requirements of Standard No. 201 by operation of the exemption contained in S6.3(a). You then ask, in the event these fixed anchorages are exempt, if the A-pillar reference point (APR) were located on the anchorage, if the target area known as A-pillar 1 (AP1) would have to be relocated. Based on Mazda's review of Standard No. 201 and its history, it is your company's belief that the fixed anchorages are exempt from the requirements of Standard No. 201 and that AP1, which is located on the anchorage, would not have to be relocated.

The agency agrees. S6.3(a) of Standard No. 201 provides that a vehicle need not meet the requirements of S6.1 through S6.2 for any target located on a convertible roof frame or a convertible roof linkage mechanism. "Convertible roof frame" is defined in S3 as the frame of a convertible roof. "Convertible roof linkage mechanism" is defined in S3 as any anchorage, fastener, or device necessary to deploy a convertible roof frame. The definition of anchorage does not distinguish between fixed and movable anchorages.

The issue of what constitutes a convertible roof frame and a convertible roof linkage was addressed several times during the development of Standard No. 201. In a response to petitions for reconsideration published in the Federal Register on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) discussed the issue of whether anchorages should be considered to be part of a convertible roof linkage for the purposes of S6.3(a). At that time, the agency indicated that the definition of convertible roof linkage mechanism should not be limited to components on the roof itself and includes anchor points on the front header and/or A-pillar for the convertible roof. The agency's position in regard to anchorages reflects its view at the time when the head impact protection requirements were established. The preamble to the final rule establishing the upper interior head impact provisions - published in the Federal Register on August 18, 1995 (60 FR 43031) - indicated the agency's view that countermeasures would not be feasible on convertible roof frames and linkage mechanisms because the presence of a countermeasure such as padding would interfere with their movement. Therefore, NHTSA decided to exclude from the new requirements any target that would be located on those components. While fixed anchorages were not mentioned at that time, the agency believed then, as it does now, that it would not be practicable to require these anchorages to meet the performance requirements of Standard No. 201. As anchorages are exempt from the Standard's performance requirements, any target point located on such an anchorage is also exempt and would not have to be relocated.

In addition to your concerns regarding anchorages in soft-top convertibles, you also ask if a test conducted against a valid target point in soft-top convertible would be rendered invalid if the free motion headform (FMH) struck a portion of a convertible roof frame after striking a valid target point. In the case where such a secondary impact occurs, and the resulting HIC values from that secondary impact exceed those allowed by Standard No. 201, Mazda believes that the test should be deemed to be invalid. In support of this view, you refer to a February 19, 1999, letter to Mr. George Parker of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers in which NHTSA indicated that secondary impacts with fixed glazing would render a test invalid. In that case, the agency indicated that where a secondary impact with glazing resulted in a noncompliant HIC score, NHTSA would disregard the test results on the basis that impacts with glazing are not within the scope of Standard No. 201.

NHTSA agrees with your interpretation. As noted above, convertible roof frames are exempt from the requirements of Standard No. 201 as it is not practicable to install padding or other countermeasures on a convertible roof frame. As these frames are exempt from the requirements of the Standard, NHTSA will consider a test to be invalid in those instances where a secondary impact with a convertible roof frame results in a HIC score above that which is allowed by Standard No. 201.

Your letter also asks a number of questions about the requirements of Standard No. 201 as they apply to detachable hard tops. According to your letter, the Mazda Miata is also available with a detachable hard top, and this top is secured to the front header through the use of the same anchorage and a similar latching system as are employed in the soft-top version of the Miata. You ask the agency to confirm your interpretation that

the same considerations applicable to the latch and anchorages employed in a soft-top convertible would apply to the latches and anchorages used to secure a detachable hard top to the front header and A-pillar.

As you indicate in your letter, NHTSA addressed the issue of detachable hard tops in the context of Standard No. 201 in response to a Petition for Reconsideration filed by ASC, Inc. in response to the agency's April 8, 1997, final rule (62 FR 16718). The ASC petition requested that the agency modify the definition of convertible roof frame to include hardtop convertibles - i.e., convertible tops that may be raised or lowered but are constructed of rigid folding sections rather than a cloth skin on a rigid frame. In rejecting that request, the agency noted that there did not appear to be any reason to exempt hardtop convertible roofs from the requirements of Standard No. 201 (see 63 FR 19839, April 22, 1998). In making this determination, NHTSA did not squarely address the issue of non-folding detachable hard tops or the linkages and hardware used to attach them to a vehicle. It is NHTSA's view that the considerations applicable to hardtop convertibles also apply to detachable hard tops. It is both reasonable and practicable to expect a detachable hard top to meet the requirements of Standard No. 201. However, NHTSA has not yet addressed the question of the latches and anchorages used to attach a detachable hard top to the front header of a vehicle. In the case of latches and anchorages, NHTSA believes that the installation of effective countermeasures to these components would be difficult at best and at worst would result in designs having little or no practical utility. Accordingly, NHTSA agrees with your view that latch and anchorage mechanisms for detachable hard tops are exempt under S6.3(a) of the standard.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.6/1/01

ID: 24461redactedogm

[      ]




Dear [        ]:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as they relate to a device being developed by your company. I note first that your letter requests that National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) accord confidential treatment for certain materials related to your request. As these materials are not needed to respond to your questions and you have agreed to their return, we are enclosing them with this response.

According to your letter, the device, which you describe as the [                           ], would prevent the shift mechanism of a vehicle from being moved out of the "Park" position until the "driver and/or passenger seat belts are fastened." The device would also sound an audible alarm as long as the seat belts are not fastened when the vehicle's shift mechanism is not in the "Park" position. Specifically, you ask if the statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA would prohibit sale or use of the [       ] under a number of different conditions:

1. Original Equipment Manufacturers (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) offering the [    ] as an after-market device at dealerships after the vehicle has been purchased.
2. Original Equipment Manufacturers (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) offering the [    ] as an option during production.
3. The technology being offered on the Federal Supply Schedule for retrofitting on government vehicles.
4. The [    ] being offered commercially as an after-market device.

The issues raised by your letter are discussed below.

By way of background, NHTSA administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agency's functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs.

Requirements for audible and visual warnings for seat belts are established in S7 of FMVSS 208.  S7.3 specifies that the driver's seating position be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

On October 27, 1974, President Ford signed into law a bill that prohibited any Federal motor vehicle safety standard from requiring or permitting as a means of compliance any seat belt interlock system. The language in this bill was later codified as 49 U.S.C. 30124. This section states:

A motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by using a safety belt interlock designed to prevent starting or operating a motor vehicle if an occupant is not using a safety belt or a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the "start" or "on" position.

Given this statutory provision, NHTSA does not have the authority to require, or specify as a compliance option, an interlock system that prevents a vehicle from being operated if an occupant's seat belt remains unfastened. However, the statute does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from voluntarily providing such an interlock or a system that sounds an audible signal outside the 8 second period.

In a letter dated June 7, 2001 to Mr. Bob Archer of Longacre Associates, we indicated that a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal that sounds after the 8 second period specified in S7.3 of Standard No. 208 and 30124 may do so, but must provide some means for differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. We suggested that such differentiation could be provided in various ways, e.g., by time (the voluntarily provided signal begins well after the required signal ends) or sound (the voluntarily provided signal has a different sound than the required signal).

It is our position that a device such as your [    ], if installed in addition to, rather than in place of, the warning system required by S7.3, may be offered either as an original equipment option or an aftermarket item if the device is configured such that it is differentiated from the warning system required by NHTSA. Therefore, any audible warning provided by the device should either sound after the required warning or have a different sound.

Your letter asks whether the sale of the [    ], or a similar device, would be permissible under four different scenarios:

1. Vehicle manufacturers (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) offering the [    ] for installation at dealerships after the vehicle has been purchased.
2. Vehicle manufacturers (i.e. Ford, GM, Chrysler) offering the [    ] as an option on new vehicles and installing the device during production.
3. Installation of the device on vehicles owned by the government.
4. The [    ] being offered commercially as an after-market device.

In the first scenario, where the device would be installed by a new vehicle dealer after the vehicle has been purchased, the [    ] could be incorporated into new vehicles in the manner we describe.  However, installation of the [    ] by the dealer must not negatively impact any required safety system. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in that vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Although this section expressly states that the prohibition does not apply to seat belt interlocks or buzzers (49 U.S.C. 30122(d)), dealers and repair businesses installing the [    ] may not make other required safety equipment inoperative. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.

In addition, if installed after sale of the vehicle, the [    ] would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of federal law protecting the public against products that have safety defects. Therefore, if the [    ] proved to contain a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer of record, presumably the vehicle manufacturer, would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

In the second scenario, where the [    ] is installed in a vehicle by the vehicle manufacturer during production, the manufacturer would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle, with the [    ] installed, complied with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In the event that the [    ] contained a defect that related to motor vehicle safety or the vehicle did not comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the vehicle manufacturer would be responsible for conducting a recall campaign.

The third scenario, which involves installation of the device on vehicles owned by the Federal government, would not differ from the fourth scenario, where the device is offered for sale to consumers. In both cases, the "make inoperative" provisions would apply if the device is installed by a repair business or dealer but would not apply if the owner performed the installation. In addition, where the [    ] is offered for sale for installation as an aftermarket item, i.e. for installation in a vehicle that has already been sold to an end user, it would be considered to be "motor vehicle equipment" for purposes of federal law protecting the public against products that have safety defects. Therefore, if the [    ] contained a safety defect, the manufacturer of the device would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

Finally, I note that your letter asks what procedures are available for modifying or repealing 49 U.S.C. 30124. NHTSA welcomes the adoption of technology that results in increases in seat belt use. You may contact your elected representatives about this or any other issue relating to our agency.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.9/13/02

ID: nht75-2.40

DATE: 12/10/75

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

TO: Cal Light Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 4, 1975, telling us of your wish to market a rectangular sealed beam headlamp unit for motorcycles. In your opinion this might be prohibited by "federal inaction to update FMVSS-108 SAE J584 April 1964 to the amended SAE J584b December 1971."

Substitution of J584b would not be a solution to your problem since it does not specify a Type 2A sealed-beam headlamp unit as one of the approved options. There would have to be both a substitution of J584b and a provision in Standard No. 108 itself that either a Type 2 or Type 2A sealed beam headlamp unit may be used. I enclose a copy of a regulation that tells how you may submit a petition for rulemaking for an appropriate amendment to Standard No. 108.

You also enclosed a letter from the California Highway Patrol stating that it was amending its regulations

"to allow the use of motorcycle headlamps which comply with the type 2 lower beam photometric requirements and the motorcycle upper beam requirements, though we are not sure what position NHTSA would take upon this interpretation".

Such action by the California Highway Patrol appears precluded by Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The effect of this section is to prohibit California from having a State lighting standard that differs in any way from Standard No. 108. Since the Federal lighting standard does not allow the California amendment, the State regulation appears invalid.

Notwithstanding California's "approval" of your headlamp, your sale of this rectangular headlamp for motorcycles as either original equipment or as replacement equipment (but only for motorcycles manufactured on or after January 1, 1972) would appear to be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act, unless and until Standard No. 108 is amended. There is a maximum penalty of $ 1,000 for each violation, up to $ 800,000 for any related series of violations.

YOURS TRULY,

CAL LIGHT CO.

November 4, 1975

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel Office of Chief Counsel

I am writing you this letter on the suggestion of Mr. Lowenstern, NHSTA enforcement. I have designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed a Rectangular Motorcycle Headlight. It is a good looking, well built, and efficient headlamp, which has gained an approval from the California Highway Patrol. The unit complies with all the requirements, of all the regulatory agencies. However, there are some apparent conflicts within your FMVSS-108 which might confuse enforcement authorities.

The conflict arises from federal inaction to update FMVSS-108 SAE J584 April 1964 to the ammended SAE J584B December 1971. The reference here, is to one test point, 1/2 degree down 1 degree right to right (1/2D-1R o R). In this test point current FMVSS standards hold 10,000 CP as Max., while SAE recommend 15,000 CP, our unit produces 12,800 CP. This extra CP is a great benefit to the motorcyclist to see merging traffic on his near side. To further complicate the matter, FMVSS-108 allows motorcycles to use 1/2 of an automobile headlighting system, without requiring them to meet the motorcycle headlamp requirement of 1/2D-1R to R.

Therefore, I would like your office to tell me if it feels there is a just cause to hold my product off the market.

Enclosed are copies of the test report from ITL, a letter stating the position of the CHP and the approval issued by the CHP. Your prompt reply will be appreciated.

L.A. MacEachern- Cal Light