ID: nht95-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 31, 1995

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

TO: Truman J. Lothen

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/6/95 LETTER FROM TRUMAN J. LOTHEN TO NHTSA (OCC 10754)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lothen:

This responds to your letter of February 6, 1995, requesting information on requirements applicable to a "van seat/bed for aftermarket installation." Your questions and our response to each follows.

Does your department have safety standards that must (should) be designed into aftermarket vehicles seats?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law prohibits any person from manufacturing, intr oducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor ve hicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is required to "self-certify" that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There are five safety standards that are relevant to your inquiry: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and Standard No. 3 02, Flammability of Interior Materials.

Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles, regardless of whether the belts are installed as o riginal equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Hence, any seat belts installed on the aftermarket seat have to be certified as complying with Standard No. 209.

The remaining four standards apply only to new vehicles. If the aftermarket seat were installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, includ ing these four, with the aftermarket seat installed. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicl es. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. Finally, Standard No. 302 specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in motor vehicles, specifically including seat cushions, seat backs, and s eat belts. While aftermarket seats, as items of equipment, are not required to meet these requirements, you may wish to use these standards as design guidelines.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 301 22(b). That section provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . . in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. Please note that the "make inoperative" provision prohibits those entities from performing aftermarket modi fications that they know or should know will degrade the safety of the vehicle as it was before the modification.

Please note also that the "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where vehicle owners install your seat in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

Finally, as a manufacturer, you would be subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). I have enclosed a sheet for new manufacturers that discusses the basic requirements of our standards and regulations, including the provisions relating to manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

This seat would be provided with a lap seat belt and shoulder belt with one end attached to the seat frame and the other to the vehicle structure similar to what's currently used in automobiles. What safety design standards must be incorporated into thi s restraint system?

As explained above, the seat belt would have to comply with Standard No. 209. If you install seat belts manufactured by another company, that company should have certified compliance with that standard.

Would this seat require compliance testing to meet safety requirements?

As noted above, if these seats are installed in a vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale for purposes other than resale, the vehicle must be certified as complying with all applicable safety standards with the seat installed. NHTSA's position on what steps manufacturers must take before certifying that their vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards has been often stated and applies with equal force in your situation.

Our position is as follows. The compliance test procedures set forth in the safety standards must be followed by this agency during our compliance testing. With respect to your company's seats, this means that NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle would be conducted using the test procedures set forth in the relevant safety standard or standards. Manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to follow exactly the compliance test procedures set forth in the applica ble standard. In fact, manufacturers are not required to conduct any actual testing before certifying that their products comply with applicable safety standards. However, to avoid liability for civil penalties if the vehicle were determined not to com ply with a safety standard, the certifying manufacturer is required to exercise "reasonable care" to assure compliance and in making its certification. It may be simplest for the manufacturer to establish that it exercised "reasonable care" if the manuf acturer has conducted testing that strictly followed the compliance test procedures set forth in the standard. However, "reasonable care" might also be shown by using modified test procedures, engineering analyses, computer simulations, and the like. T hus, the entity that installs your seat in a vehicle prior to the vehicle's first sale will have to decide for itself, in the first instance, what information it needs to make its certification in the exercise of "reasonable care."

As noted above, if the seat were installed after the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop that performed the installation would have to ensure that the installat ion did not "make inoperative" compliance with any applicable safety standard. Your company should carefully examine your product and the proposed installation instructions and compare those with the requirements of the safety standards, to determine if installing your product in accordance with your instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with the standards.

I hope you find this information helpful. I have enclosed information on how to get copies of those standards and regulations. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht80-3.37

DATE: 08/20/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ralph J. Hitchcock; NHTSA

TO: James Monaghan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 18, 1980, regarding your Simplified Passenger Air Bag.

We have noted the changes in your patent. If, as you say, the pads are automatically rotated into place when the occupant gets into the vehicle and closes the door and protection is provided without the occupant having to take any action, your system would be considered to be automatic (passive) within the meaning of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

I am placing a copy of your letter in our public docket. Thank you for your continued interest in automobile safety.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SIMPLIFIED PASSENGER AIRBAG

The attached copy of an article from the Miami Herald of May 12, 1980, entitled "Air Bags Give Questionable Protection," draws attention to the urgency of good decisions being made regarding airbags before the "1982 Model" year.

Though the airbag method of restraint is the most resilient, most people are aware that the publicized design describes an expensive, noisy and one-shot device with many problems, and of which the public is apprehensive.

However, the new reusable patented "Monaghan Simplified Passenger Airbag" solves these problems and, in addition, solves the four other difficulties which the Miami Herald article correctly pinpoints. Refer to Monaghan Illustration Fig. 4.

Difficulty #1: "The present design provides little or no protection in side impacts." However, the Monaghan Airbag, in Patent 3,888,329, Claim 5, states, "restraint pad includes rearwardly projecting sidewalls for restraining the occupant from sidewards movement." Further protection may be had if seat upholstery is shaped to receive the sidewalls. Refer to Fig. 4, shown in phantom.

Difficulty #2: ". . . little protection against rollovers." Refer to Monaghan Illustration Fig. 4 - the airbag, when inflated, is locked by the rotor over the knees with a downward pressure of approximately 400 pounds on an area of 1.5 square feet.

Difficulty #3: Present design provides "no protection on second impact after a frontal collision when the bags deflate." Refer to Monaghan Patent 3,888,329, Claim 9. This includes "time extension means for automatically extending the period of actuation of said power means upon the sensing of a plurality of successive accident events -- during the accident."

Difficulty #4: This refers in particular to seat belts, to the danger of sliding (submarining) under the restraint in an impact. This submarining is resisted by the Simplified Passenger Airbag due to the large frictional area of pressurized contact with the torso, including the sidewalls.

These safety features are only possible with the Monaghan Simplified Passenger Airbag because, first, it is reusable and, of course, can be pre-tested. Claims 1, 5 and 8 indicate it is visibly oriented to contact the passenger's torso and limbs, at short range. When preset, the pad is partly over the occupant and the seat; the passenger will then normally be in the correct position in an accident event.

Since it is not required to explode, it is not noisy; and using ordinary air, it is not toxic. The salesman in the garage can demonstrate, and the regular garage mechanic can adjust or replace the rubber bag which should cost no more than an inner tube.

The Airpad, shown manually preset in attached illustrations, Figs. 1, 2, 3; can be alternatively automatically preset to give the fastest action in an accident event. This is provided by Differential Timing of presetting and inflating. Refer Patent Specifications, Page 8, Lines 41 and 42.

This is obtained by fitting a double-acting push button type hinge switch on the car door. With the car door open, the Airpad will be in the top storage position, held there by spring - Claim 16.

* When the car door is closed, the door hinge switch actuates an electric low-speed rotary incremental motor which swings down the pad arm through 75 degrees to the preset position and electromagnetically locks the rotor shaft.

* When the car door is opened, the hinge switch disengages the magnetic lock and the spring returns the pad to storage.

In an accident event with either system, the Sensor Switch - Claim 2 - acting with the selective control valve - Claim 4 - will supply high pressurized air - Claim 6 - to provide contacting, firm engagement of the Airbag with the occupant - Claim 19 - Test Switch #230 will have been used to adjust and lower the bag pressure via a throttle and check valve on the swing arm close to the airpad.

Return of the restraint to storage after an accident event may be timed by the Sensor Switch to allow a few seconds before automatic pneumatic deflation and reversal of the Rotor releases the passenger. Refer Patent Specifications, Page 7, Lines 30 to 35.

JAMES MONAGHAN

Simplified Passenger Airbag

Page 1, Figure 1: Shows an Auto Passive Restraint, with an inflatable air-pad, positioned in Storage when a passenger takes a seat.

Page 1, Figure 2: Passenger chose to swing the pad to a pre-set position closer to the body for visible protection against panic stops and accidents.

Page 1, Figure 3: With the pad now in the pre-set position, a sensored accident event will instantly and quietly inflate the pad with air at a safe pressure to firmly restrain the passenger with minimum shock and to lock the rotor.

Figure 4, Below: Shows the restraint remaining in storage when the passenger chooses to be inactive. In a sensored accident event, the pad automatically swings down by air rotor, inflating simultaneously to restrain the passenger.

Special Note: This sensored safety device is reusable and can be pre-tested. It will actuate whether the pad is in the storage or the pre-set position. The patent includes "sensing means for ultra-rapidly restraining a vehicle occupant from moving, with two combined restraining forces."

(Graphics omitted)

Figure 4

U.S. Patent 3,888,329 Inventor: James Monaghan

Michael M. Finkelstein -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Finkelstein:

Many thanks for your letter of January 27, 1980, in regard to my Simplified Passenger Airbag. I agree that "the system would be slightly more feasible if the pads were automatically rotated into position after entering the vehicle."

If not considered a "forced action system," automatic presetting can be obtained within the cover patent #3,888,329 as follows.

Please refer to the patent specifications, Page 8, Lines 41 and 42. It states there: "If desired, differential timing between the air cushion and cylinder 208 could be provided." This is explained in the revised write-up of page one & page two, enclosed.

I agree that time-saving is very important and believe that Differential Timing will overcome the negligence of the few who might not even lower the pad to improve their vision over the dash. Also, it permits an increase in torso contact without being a hazard to a smoker. Enclosed is a revised copy of illustration Fig. 4. x

x P.S. The Simplified Passenger Airbag avoids vulnerable areas of the Torso.

I do not wish this Airbag to be used with front child seats; however, you indicate that my rear seat restraints for children have your interest.

Thank you for the Auto company addresses; I will write fully to them when I receive a reply from you.

Please confirm that the use of this door switch will permit NHTSA to retain patent 3,888,329 as a Passive Restraint. I would deeply appreciate an early reply, especially for age considerations. I am now in my eighties.

Sincerely,

James Monaghan

cc: Adminstrator Claybrook

ID: nht75-6.15

DATE: 10/29/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; John G. Haviland; NHTSA

TO: Laird E. Johnston -- General Motors Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Free Sliding Latch With Tension Relieving Feature

Laird E. Johnston ASE - Engineering Staff

The following comments are in reference to your question concerning whether existing safety standards allow a shoulder belt tension relieving feature on a single loop three point belt system having a free sliding (non-cinching) latch.

GM Legal Staff has been consulted concerning interpretation of the present wording in MVSS 203, Section S7.1.1 (Attachment 1) and proposed amendment Docket 74-32 Notice 1 (Attachment 2). Legal Staff and ASE agree that:

a) The current MVSS 203 does not clearly prohibit the use of a free-sliding latch plate with a shoulder belt tension relieving device but the NHTSA interprets MVSS 208 as prohibiting such a system (see Attachment 3), and

b) A proposed amendment to MVSS 208 Docket 74-32 Notice 1, does clearly limit the use of comfort devices to the upper portion of the seat belt assembly - the lap belt portion must remain individually adjustable (i.e. introducing slack into the shoulder belt should not affect the lap portion of the assembly).

In our response to Docket 74-32 Notice 1 (Attachment 4), General Motors agreed that devices to relieve tension should not be used on systems permitting inadvertent misadjustment.

ASE also has reservations about the impact performance of such a system both for adult occupants and when used in conjunction with child seats. Although limited sled tests of one such system resulted in no submarining with up to three inches of slack in the lap belt, there is no assurance that occupants would wear these systems correctly or that all similar belt configurations would perform in this manner. Additionally, GM only recommends the use of the child seat in 1968-1975 domestic made vehicles. All of these vehicles have a lap belt that permits lap belt tension independent of the shoulder belt. Present thoughts are that a separate lap belt tension holding clip will have to be supplied with the child seat if GM were to recommend its usage with a free-sliding latch single loop system.

One compromise you may wish to consider is the use of a friction device on the free sliding latch that would allow free belt transfer from the lap belt to the shoulder but hold minimal lap belt tension, possibly five to ten pounds. This should satisfy the NHTSA but would still pose some problem with improper child seat usage. Another solution, which you are aware of, is providing low shoulder belt tension thus reducing the need for a tension relieving device. A one-way cinching latch is the ideal solution to the performance and compliance questions.

If we can be of any further assistance, please let us know.

(original signed by) John G. Haviland Collision Protection/Restraints Automotive Safety Engineering JGH/rk

Attachments (4)

cc: G. F. Ball E. E. Conner T. G. Wingblad

ID: 2975yy

Mr. Danny J. Pugh
Engineering Manager
Special Service Vehicles
Utilimaster Corporation
65266 State Road 19
P.O. Box 585
Wakarusa, Indiana 46573

Dear Mr. Pugh:

This responds to your letter of April 16, 1991 regarding auxiliary seating in walk-in van-type vehicles. You asked if jump seats are required to meet Standards No. 207, 208, and 210. You also asked if these seats "need Type II seat belts in the passenger outboard seating position and in side facing seats."

Standards No. 207, 208, and 210 include requirements for "designated seating positions" in vehicles. The term "designated seating position" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for the auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats....(Emphasis added.)

Because an auxiliary seat is not a designated seating position, it is not required to meet Standards No. 207, 208, and 210. In addition, auxiliary seating is not required to have Type II seat belts in the passenger outboard seating position and in side-facing seats. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine if a specific seat qualifies as auxiliary seating. However, the agency will issue an opinion if a manufacturer submits specific information describing the seat.

While auxiliary seating is not subject to all safety standards, we encourage you to ensure that the seats provide safe performance when in use. In particular, we would encourage you to provide safety belts for these seats to ensure that their occupants will have adequate crash protection. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:571#207#208#210 d:5/l0/9l

ID: nht91-3.46

DATE: May 10, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Danny J. Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Special Service Vehicles, Utilimaster Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-16-91 from Danny J. Pugh to NHTSA (OCC 5957)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 16, 1991 regarding auxiliary seating in walk-in van-type vehicles. You asked if jump seats are required to meet Standards No. 207, 208, and 210. You also asked if these seats "need Type II seat belts in the passenger outboard seating position and in side facing seats."

Standards No. 207, 208, and 210 include requirements for "designated seating positions" in vehicles. The term "designated seating position" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3(b) as:

any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely tCo be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, EXCEPT FOR THE AUXILIARY SEATING ACCOMODATIONS SUCH AS TEMPORARY OR FOLDING JUMP SEATS....(Emphasis added.)

Because an auxiliary seat is not a designated seating position, it is not required to meet Standards No. 207, 208, and 210. In addition, auxiliary seating is not required to have Type II seat belts in the passenger outboard seating position and in side-facing seats. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine if a specific seat qualifies as auxiliary seating. However, the agency will issue an opinion if a manufacturer submits specific information describing the seat.

While auxiliary seating is not subject to all safety standards, we encourage you to ensure that the seats provide safe performance when in use. In particular, we would encourage you to provide safety belts for these seats to ensure that their occupants will have adequate crash protection.

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

ID: nht78-1.3

DATE: 12/05/78

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

TO: U. S. Suzuki Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety & Legislation Department U.S. Suzuki Motor Corporation P.O. Box 2107 Santa Fe Springs, California 90670

Dear Mr. Petler:

This is in response to your letter of August 11, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers.

Standard 127 does not specify that the number "0" appear on the face of the speedometer. It is permissible for you to reletter the "0" mph position to read "5" mph, as the lowest measured speed indicated. This would solve the problem you indicate regarding the relationship of the graduation distance between the 0 and 10 mph to that between 10 and 20, 20 and 30, etc.

The NHTSA has received petitions for reconsideration requesting that the 10 percent deviation requirement be eliminated. A determination will be made at a later date whether to grant the petitions.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

August 11, 1978

Joseph J. Levin, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for interpretation, FMVSS #127, Speedometers and Odometers

Dear Mr. Levin,

We have been requested by our parent Company, Suzuki Motor Company, Ltd. to request from your agency an interpretation concerning a speedometer faceplate they wish to use. To assist you in understanding our comments we have attached a drawing. I apologize that it is not to the scale of the faceplate. Further, this past July 11, we left a sample faceplate with Mr. Carson of your Crash Avoidance Division, which you might want to examine. Our opinion requests are as follows:

Opinion Request No. 1 --

The area we are concerned with is directed to the speed zone indication area of from 0-10 mph. As you will notice, there are two graduations between 0-20 mph. They represent 10 and 15 mph, no 5 mph graduation is shown. Suzuki has determined that movement of the speedometer indicator needle does not begin to travel from the "0" point until the vehicle has reached approximately "5" mph. As you can see, there is relatively little travel area between the 0-10 mph graduations. We recognize that the graduation distance between 0-10 is not the same as the equal graduations from 10 to 80 mph. We were advised that to relocate the 0 position by removing the needle "0" stop pin could result in possible damage to the unit over an extended period of time, therefore we would pre- fer to be able to retain the faceplate as it is, if it is acceptable to your agency. We believe that the 0-10 mph range is not as critical to the safe operation of the vehicle as those speeds above 10 mph are, and for this reason we request relief in the area of 0-10 mph speed graduation requirements. If, however, this faceplate, in its current form, is unacceptable to your agency, we would then request your opinion on another possible solution that we believe we might be able to utilize.

Opinion Request No. 2

In reviewing Docket No. 76-06, Notice 5 (F.R.Vol.43, N0.145, 7/27/78, page 32422) we noted your agencies comments regarding "Suppressed zero needle". Our question is, since our needle does not move until the vehicle achieves a speed of 5mph, and by applying the suppressed zero needle approach, would Suzuki be permitted to reletter the "0" mph position to "5" mph, as the lowest measured speed indicated on the face of the speedometer. We again feel that the 5 mph starting position would not be critical to the safe operation of the vehicle.

We would appreciate your review of this faceplate design and interpretation as to whether this faceplate would be acceptable in its current state, Opinion Request No. 1 or Opinion Request No. 2, to meet the requirements effective September 1, 1979. If you are in need of any additional information please feel free to contact us.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

F. Michael Petler Assistant Manager Safety & Legislation Deparpment

FMP/ph

ID: conagl3

Mr. Thomas S. Conigliaro
Safe-Gard Interlocks Company
26 Theodore Road
Shelton, CT 06484

Dear Mr. Conigliaro:

This responds to your recent telephone conversation with Mr. Otto Matheke of this office seeking information on how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to an item of motor vehicle equipment. In your telephone conversation you describe the item as a sensor system that would alert the operator of a vehicle and law enforcement personnel if the vehicle is being operated while one or more of the occupants do not have their seat belt fastened. Inside the vehicle, a set of light emitting diodes (LED's) would be mounted on the dashboard.

An LED would be provided for each seating position and would illuminate if that seating position were occupied by a person with their seat belt unfastened. In addition, you indicate that the system would have an additional set of indicator lights that would be visible from outside the vehicle. These lights would illuminate to alert law enforcement personnel that a belt law was being violated.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our laws and regulations to you. Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no authority to "approve" motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

We have exercised our authority under Chapter 301 to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). This standard requires new motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts and requires a warning system for seat belts located at the driver's seating position that activates when the key is turned to the "on" or "start" position. This warning, among other things, "activates a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds and that activates a continuous or flashing warning light visible to the driver for not less than 60 seconds," to warn that the driver's belt is not in use.

Vehicle manufacturers wishing to install your device would be required to certify that their vehicles meet all applicable safety standards with the devices installed. While we do not have sufficient information to identify all the standards that might be relevant to your device, the provisions of several standards would impact on the installation of the system you describe. These are Standard No. 201, which specifies requirements to protect occupants from impact with interior components, Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, which applies to lights visible from the outside of the vehicle, Standard No. 101, specifying requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays, and, as discussed above, Standard No. 208.

If your product was sold as aftermarket equipment, no standards would apply to it. However, after a vehicle is sold at retail, Federal law limits the modifications made to it by manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses. These entities are prohibited under 49 U.S.C. section 30122 from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require a business which modifies motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,100 per violation.

If your interest is in having the unfastened belt warning system you describe become a required safety feature in new vehicles, you may submit a petition requesting that this agency initiate rulemaking to consider this new requirement. The requirements and procedures for submitting such a petition may be found in Part 552 of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR Part 552). We note that the agency has recently denied a similar petition filed by Mr. Les Boyd, regarding a system which used a radio transmitter rather than lights or LEDs to alert law enforcement personnel that a vehicle was being operated while an occupant did not have his or her seat belts fastened. We are enclosing a copy of the denial notice for your information.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure (Petition Denial, Mfr's Info.)
ref:108
d.6/8/99

ID: 1984-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gerald D. Peltzer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 18, 1984, requesting information on what safety regulations apply to a "sleeper-passenger carrier" that you manufacture. The following discussion explains the regulations applicable to your product.

Since your product is sold as an accessory or addition to a motor vehicle, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers it to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has issued several Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to your product. Standard No. 126, Truck-Camper Loading, requires camper manufacturers to provide certain certification, identification and loading information on a label affixed to their product. The standard defines "camper" as "a structure designed to be mounted in the cargo area of a truck, or attached to an incomplete vehicle with motive power, for the purpose of providing shelter for persons." Since your product is designed to be mounted in the cargo area of a pickup truck and provides shelter for its occupants, it would be considered a camper and thus must comply with Standard No. 126.

You indicate in your letter that your product contains windows with "safety glass." Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, sets requirements for glazing used in motor vehicles, including campers. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highway," Z26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (ANS-Z26). The standard established both performance and labelling requirements for the glazing used in your camper.

You state that your product has a bench seat across the back and a cushion across the front. Since you describe your product as in part a "passenger carrier," it is likely that the seat and the cushion will be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion and thus would be considered a designated seating position by the agency. If your product is installed as an item of original equipment on a truck before its sale to its first purchaser, the designated seating positions must conform to the requirements of 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. I have enclosed an information sheet explaining how you can obtain copies of our safety standards.

If your product is sold as an item of aftermarket equipment to be installed by a vehicle owner, it would not be required to comply with Standards Nos. 207, 208, 209, and 210. However, we strongly recommend you do provide seat belts properly anchored at each seating position.

You are also required to comply with Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, a copy of which is enclosed. That regulation requires you to submit certain identifying information and a description of the product you produce.

Finally, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you have a responsibility under section 151 et seq. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if you or the agency determines that your product contains a safety-related defect or does not comply with an applicable standard. A copy of the Act is enclosed.

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

July 18, 1984

Peltzer Manufacturing

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Chief Council

Dear Sirs:

I am writing in regard to the safety regulations that apply to the manufacture of a sleeper-passenger carrier that mounts in the front 40" inches of a pickup box. The main outside structure is fiberglass approximately three-sixteenths of an inch thick, completely carpeted inside. It has a bench seat across the back with a backrest on each side of the door and a cushion across the front that can be folded down to make a sleeper bunk.

The unit has a 15" x 54" bi-parting safety glass in front to match the rear window of the truck cab. The side windows are 22" X 30" safety glass slider windows with screens. The front of the unit is bolted into brackets that are bolted into the front stake pockets of the truck box. The rear of the unit has 1 1/2" x 3/16" "L" shaped metal brackets that are bolted to the sleeper-passenger carrier and go under the upper ledge of the pickup box. The 22" x 36" x 1 3/8" door in the rear of the unit is mounted in an aluminum frame. I am using a Bargman L-300 motor home lock.

Enclosed find a picture and a diagram of the unit. Please send me information on how to get this unit safety approved.

Gerald D. Peltzer

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-3.41

DATE: September 24, 1992

FROM: C. Morris Adams

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Paula Hanna -- Exec. Sec., NAPT; Charles Gauthier -- MVSS Compliance Section, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/1/92 Est. from Paul Jackson Rice to C. Morris Adams (A40; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I retired from Thomas Built Buses, Inc. in December 1990, after 45 years of service to the school transportation industry in North America. Although I retired, I remain totally committed to and interested in school transportation safety for our children.

During the last seven years of my career, I spent a very large percentage of my efforts in behalf of our children by educating our people and regulatory agencies on the pros and cons of lap belts vs. compartmentalization in school buses. The overwhelming evidence is in support of compartmentalization as mandated by NHTSA.

New York state and New Jersey along with some local districts are mandating lap belts in addition to NHTSA mandated compartmentalization. Therefore, the purpose of this letter of request for a legal ruling from your office as to the legality of lap belts on school buses that are required by federal regulation to utilize the passive restraint system - compartmentalization.

FMVSS 222 has as its intent the prevention of passengers colliding with dangerous objects inside the bus.

Compartmentalization relies upon specially designed energy absorbing passenger seat systems (structure, padding, flexibility spacing) to provide the spreading of energy forces over a large percentage of the child's body upon impact with the seat and/or barrier immediately in front of the passenger.

School bus manufacturers build and certify in compliance with FMVSS 222. If lap belts are required by the purchaser, they are installed.

At this point in the process there seems to be no problem for anyone involved. However -

The beneficial purpose of FMVSS 222 has now been removed. Once the lap belt is applied to the child, the child's body pivots around the belt and the head will come into contact with the seat back or barrier in front of the child. In addition to violent head injuries, possible pelvic and abdominal injuries or fatalities may result. The impact energy forces no longer are spread over the upper torso and upper thighs. Therefore, the intent of FMVSS 222 is no longer attainable even though the bus was built and certified to comply with the "technical" requirements of FMVSS 222.

The addition of the lap belt or a lap bar restraint rendered

compartmentalization null and void.

If the seats are allowed to be spaced so that when the child pivots around the lap restraint the head will not contact the forward seat back or barrier, the beneficial intent of FMVSS 222 is still violated. In addition, wider spacing would reduce passenger capacity.

Wider spacing of seats would destroy compartmentalization and should the child passenger not have the belt fastened, then the child could become a flying missile with no designed compartment to restrain it.

Based upon the above data I strongly believe lap belts or restraining bars violate the beneficial intent of FMVSS 222 and should be ruled illegal in use on school buses required to meet FMVSS 222.

In the interest of the 23 million pupils transported daily in safe school buses, I respectfully request a prompt ruling in their behalf.

ID: nht75-4.34

DATE: 06/23/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE: R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Volkswagen of America's March 25, 1975, petition for rulemaking to amend S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to allow, at the manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Your petition states that it supersedes Volkswagen's February 20, 1975 petition for rulemaking.

Your petition explains that Volkswagen, in offering a passive belt system in its Rabbit model on an optional basis, provides an ignition interlock system and a passenger-side warning system to encourage passive belt usage, although such systems are not required by the standard. You correctly note that a January 16, 1975, letter to Volkswagen from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel indicates that additional safety devices such as these are not prohibited by our minimum safety standards, as long as their installation does not have the effect of causing required systems not to comply.

Your petition requests an amendment of Standard No. 208's warning provisions to permit a visual warning longer than the 4- to 8-second reminder light presently required by S4.5.3.3. You apparently have concluded that language in our January 16 letter prohibits the provision of any additional visual warning with a duration different than 4-8 seconds.

Our January 16 letter states "additional [safety] devices could not be installed if that installation has the effect of causing the required systems not to comply." This does not prevent the installation of a second visual warning which operates continuously when seat belts are not in use at either front designated seating position. The manufacturer who provides such additional warning would only have to ensure that the required 4- to 8-second visual reminder required under S4.5.3.3 operates independently of the additional warning.

For this reason, we conclude that Volkswagen may provide the additional warning it desires without amendment of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is denied as unnecessary. Please advise the NHTSA if this interpretation does not permit Volkswagen to provide the degree of additional warning for which it petitioned.

SINCERELY,

March 25, 1975

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration U. S. Department of Transportation

SUBJECT: Petition for Rulemaking

The enclosed Petition for Rulemaking of FMVSS 208 supercedes and replaces Volkswagen's Petition for Rulemaking of FMVSS 208 dated February 20, 1975.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

J. W. Kennebeck, Manager

Emissions, Safety & Development

Petition for Rulemaking

of

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208

Volkswagenwork Aktiengesellschaft Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Petitioners

TO

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Petition for Rulemaking

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208

Request to allow S4.5.3.3 to allow, at manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use.

Background:

In October, 1973, Volkswagen petitioned NHTSA to amend MVSS 208 to specify emergency release interlock and warning systems for vehicles equipped with passive belt restraint systems. Based on NHTSA's response to this petition (Docket 74-4; Notice 2), VW laid firm production plans for its diagonal belt/energy absorbing knee panel passive restraint system for incorporation in a new model, the Rabbit.

In October, 1974, President Ford signed into law the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974, which stipulated that new regulations be written by NHTSA to effectively eliminate requirements for starter interlocks and long duration warning buzzers.

NHTSA responded quickly by eliminating all requirements in MVSS 208 for the starter interlock, and with a proposal for a new warning system (in S4.5.3.3) which, for passive belts, represented a change from continuous lights and buzzers, activated when either front outboard belt was disconnected, to four- to eight-second light warnings activated after ignition is turned on, with concurrent buzzers activated if the driver's belt was disconnected.

Between November 1974 and February 25, 1975, the effective date for the new warning systems, VW produced Rabbits for sale in the U.S. with optional passive restraints, equipped with the "old" warning system permitted under MVSS 208 until February 25. These vehicles were also fitted with starter interlocks for the emergency release. Excellent sales volume of early Rabbits largely depleted supplies of vehicles fitted with the passive restraint, and Volkswagen saw a need to produce more passive restraint cars after February 25 so that we could continue to offer our customers the passive restraint on an optional basis.

A letter from Mr. R. Dyson, Esq. (copy attached), confirmed that since starter interlocks were not regulated in any NHTSA regulation, they were not prohibited and could be installed at the manufacturer's option. Based on this interpretation, VW continued to fit its passive restraint cars with starter interlock. However, Volkswagen feels that the emergency release starter interlock must be supplemented by an effective warning system to inform the driver why he cannot start the car and to discourage occupants from unbuckling the belt while driving, although it is much easier to wear the belt properly than to defeat it. Therefore, we petitioned NHTSA with our letter of February 20, 1975, to allow manufacturers to continue to produce a more effective warning system, i.e. the "old" system.

While this petition was under consideration, our engineers have been able to develop on short notice, a warning system which meets the new S4.5.3.3, and, in addition, provides that release of the passenger's belt, as well as the driver's belt, as stipulated in the rule, activates the buzzer system during the specified four- to eight-second period. In a telephone conversation with NHTSA Legal Counsel, it was decided that this feature is allowed under MVSS 208 because the driver's side requirement is only a minimum standard.

However, we feel this warning system is not adequately effective, as it does not warn the occupants when a belt becomes disconnected after the four- to eight-second warning period. Therefore, by making a simple change to the visual warning, we developed a more effective system which satisfies the letter and the intent of Section 109 of the "Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Amendments of 1974" and, we believe, satisfies the intent of MVSS 208 in meeting the basic provisions of S4.5.3.3. The substantive request of this petition is merely to allow a system in which the visual warning can remain activated indefinitely if belts are not in use, at the manufacturer's option. Although we still feel that the most effective warning system available (the "old" system specified formerly under MVSS 208) offers the greatest safety benefits, we submit the following proposal with the hope that it will meet more favorable response from NHTSA.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED NEW WARNING SYSTEM

1. The warning light activates for a period of four to eight seconds after the ignition switch is moved to the "on" position, when both passive belts are in use, as determined by emergency release being buckled.

2. The audible signal activates for a four- to eight-second period after the ignition is switched to the "on" position if one or both front outboard belts are not in use, as determined by the emergency release belt latch mechanism not being fastened.

3. In addition to the above, the warning light activates continuously whenever the ignition switch is in the "on" position and either front outboard belt is not in use, as determined by the emergency release being unbuckled, regardless of the elapsed time after the ignition has been switched "on".

Since Section 109 of the Public Law 93-492, the "Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974," does not address the time duration of visual warning systems, we believe our proposed system satisfies the wording and intent of the law.

Therefore, Volkswagen petitions NHTSA to amend MVSS 208, S4.5.3.3 to allow, at the manufacturer's option, passive belt systems to retain the warning lamps with indefinite activation when belts are not in use. We suggest that the following words might be used:

Subparagraph S4.5.3.3 (b) (1) is amended to read:

(1) At the left front designated seating position (driver's position), and, at the manufacturer's option, at the right front designated seating position, be equipped with a warning system that activates, for a period of not less than four seconds and not more than eight seconds (beginning when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the "on" or the "start" position), a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver, displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts" when condition (A) exists, and a continuous or intermittent audible signal when condition (A) exists simultaneously with condition (B), and, at the manufacturer's option, activates a continuous or flashing warning light, visible to the driver displaying the words "Fasten Seat Belts" or "Fasten Belts" when condition (A) exists simultaneously with condition (B).

(A) The vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the "on" position or to the "start" position.

(B) The driver's lap belt, or, at the manufacturer's option, either the driver's or the right front passenger's belt, is not in use, as determined by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

July 11, 1975

Tad Herlihy, Esq. Chief Counsel Office of the Administrator NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Subject: Letter from Robert L. Carter Dated June 23, 1975

This will confirm our recent telephone conversation advising that our engineers are not entirely happy with the suggestion that we install a continuous warning light in addition to the 4-8 second lamp.

It is our intention to reaffirm our Petition for Rulemaking previously submitted to your office and plan to submit additional supporting data as soon as the annual factory recess in Germany has ended. We hope to be able to have this information on file in Washington no later than the last week in August or the first week in September.

Gerhard P. Riechel

Attorney