ID: nht92-4.36

DATE: August 16, 1992

FROM: Robert N. Moore -- No. 203048, Iowa State Penitentiary

TO: Mr. Curry

TITLE: Re: Safety Act; 15 U.S.C., Section 1381 et seq.; F.M.V.S.S. #208

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/28/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert N. Moore (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I'm pleased to make your acquaintance.

This is a request for information, in the form of an official statement from your agency, concerning an interpretation of the above-caption statute and Safety Standard.

Before going further I should inform you that my prison I.D. No., given above, must follow my name on the face of your reply envelope.

The circumstances surrounding this request is a lawsuit I am prosecuting in the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. That court is in Peoria, and the suit is captioned as MOORE V. GREEN, CV89-4129.

The factual basis of this action concerns my transportation in a law enforcement vehicle which was a regular, passenger van, with modifications to change it into a "paddy wagon" type of vehicle. The defendants admit that the device did not contain any type of occupant restraint system for my safety. I did sustain injury in the vehicle.

I have based one cause of action upon an alleged violation of the Safety Act and F.M.V.S.S. #208. The suit is presently at the discovery stage; and upon my receipt of answers to Interrogatory questions, both parties have informed the Magistrate of the intention to file motions for summary judgment. I am assuming that the defendants will rely as heavily upon the Interrogatory answers as I plan to do.

It thus appears that our first battle will focus upon the question of whether or not I have been bestowed the equivalent of a right or privilege under the Act to have been provided with a seat belt. And following that question, is that right enforceable under the remedial authority of 42 U.S.C., Section 1983, which is the statute I am using to obtain compensation.

Of course I have no idea of the research capabilities of the Asst. State's Attorney who is defending, but I do know that I can find no legal authority, at least in the cases, which addresses the specific question of whether the Act does in fact create a right to have a restraint system; and the related question of whether or not Congress has either allowed, or foreclosed a remedy under Section 1983 to enforce that right.

It is at this point where I think everyone involved would benefit from an expert opinion.

I'm sure you are probably aware of the policy of the federal judiciary to defer to, or to at least consult a government agency's own interpretation of the relevant statutes and regulations in these types of cases.

During my research I've discovered several recent opinions where one of the parties wrote an agency, exactly as I am doing here, for opinions or interpretations of the law bearing upon the issues of those particular actions. The written replies were submitted to those courts and were well received by them. I believe your written opinion could also guide our court when I will be required to conduct an agency interpretation analysis in this case.

In case you are disposed towards providing something to clarify the issue in this case, I can offer the following examples as reference points.

The opinion of GOLDEN STATE TRANSIT CORP. V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, 110 S.CT. 444, probably frames the entire problem much better than I can explain it.

From the viewpoint of that case, I suppose I could just ask two specific questions to make this an easier task for you:

1. Does the Safety Act, and F.M.V.S.S. #208, create a "binding obligation", as opposed to merely expressing a "congressional preference" as to the inclusion of seat belts in motor vehicles?

2. Do any provisions of the Act, or any regulations show that Congress specifically foreclosed a remedy under Section 1983?

I await your reply.

ID: nht73-2.1

DATE: 07/09/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Jeep Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 24, 1973, concerning the procedure for testing seat belt attachment bolts specified in section S5.2(c)(1) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.

The attachment bolts that you describe have extremely long shoulders and are installed in the vehicle by being passed through a hat section before entering the floor pan. Your question is whether(Illegible Word) test procedure of S5.2(c)(1) permite the hat section to be used in conjunction with the test fixture shown in Figure 3. It is our opinion that section S5.2(c)(1) permits some discretion in the manner in which the Figure 3 test fixture is to be used and that a hat section duplicating the section used in the vehicle would be permitted as part of the test apparatus. We therefore confirm your impression that you may use the hat section in testing your bolts.

Sincerely,

May 24, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider-- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Schneider:

Jeep Corporation is requesting your concurrence with our interpretation with regard to FMVSS No. 209, "Seat Belt Assemblies" More specifically, we refer to paragraph S5.2(c)(1) which pertains to the demonstration procedure for verifying the strength of seat belt attachment bolts. This paragraph contains, by reference, a drawing (Figure 3) which shows a test fixture into which the seat belt attachment bolt is threaded. In addition, the angle of pull is specified with respect to the axis of the bolt as well as the number of threads that must remain exposed, etc. We would particularly like to point out that paragraph S5.2(c)(1) states that attachment bolts can be tested "in a manner similar to that shown in Fig. 3." We interpret this to mean that the geometry of the attachment bolt "environment" as it exists in an actual vehicle can be simulated on the strength testing machine when the tensile strength of the bolt is verified. The following information explains our problem in more detail.

In one of our future model Jeep vehicles the attachment bolt "environment" is considerably unlike that portrayed in Fig. 3 of FMVSS No. 209. Our Figure 1, attached to this letter, shows a side view of the installation in this Jeep vehicle. It should be noted that the long shank of the bolt goes through a sheet metal "hat section" before being threaded into the anchorage nut. This "hat section" supports the shank of the bolt and prevents an excessive amount of bending as would occur if the long shank were fully exposed without the "hat section" being there. The anchorage plate with its attached nut is on the underside surface of the floor pan of the vehicle.

In verifying the strength of the attachment bolt we will therefore mount a section of floor pan complete with the "hat section" on the test fixture which is shown in Fig. 3 of FMVSS No. 209. Our adaptation of the floor pan section to the text fixture is shown in our attached sdetch, Figure 2. Naturally, in our strength test the attachment bolt will be "backed out" so as to expose two full threads as required in FMVSS No. 209. Also, we will obviously delete the sound insulation material which is used in the actual vehicle since it offers no lateral support whatsoever. Thus, the bolt shank would be supported in exactly the same way it is in the actual vehicle since we would be using the same thickness of metal for the floor pan and "hat section" as used in production. Finally, the diameter of the hole(s) in the "hat section" through which the attachment bolt passes would be the same as in the actual vehicle.

Your confirmation of our interpretation would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

F.A. Stewart-- Vice President Safety & Reliability, JEEP CORPORATION

Att:2

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1985-02.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Mizuguchi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Mizuguchi Ashimori Industry Co., Ltd. 12, 4-chome Yokobori, Higashi-ku Osaka, Japan

Dear Mr. Mizuguchi:

Your letter of February 28, 1985, was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether the webbing attached to a buckle you intend to use must meet the webbing width requirement of S4.2 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. The webbing is enclosed in a plastic sheath. As explained below, the webbing must meet the width requirement of the standard.

S4.2 of Standard No. 209 provides that the "width of the webbing in a seat belt assembly shall be not less than 1.8 inches, except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position when measured under the conditions prescribed in S5.1(a)." The purpose of S4.2 is to ensure that belt webbing which comes into contact with an occupant has a minimum width that spreads the load imposed by the belt in a crash. By requiring webbing to spread rather than concentrate the load, the belt width requirement helps minimize the possibility of webbing-caused injury.

In the case of your design, the webbing is enclosed in a tightly-fitting plastic sheath. You state that the webbing/sheath combination can come into contact with an occupant. The sheath enclosed with your sample is made from an easily deformable plastic. Thus, when the crash loads are imposed by the belt, the sheath will deform and the crucial factor in concentrating the load on an occupant is the width of the belt. Since the webbing/sheath combination can contact and impose crash loads on an occupant, the agency concludes that the webbing must meet the minimum width requirement of S4.2.

If the webbing were encased in a reinforced sheath that did not appreciably deform under loading, the agency would consider both the width of the webbing and its encasing sheath in determining whether the requirement of S4.2 was met.

I have enclosed the sample of your product sent with your letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref. No M/M02-28 Osaka Feb, 28, 1985

Messrs. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D. C. 20590, U. S. A.

Attn: Mr. Francis Armstrong Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement

Dear Mr. Francis Armstrong,

We'd like to ask you the following question. Recently, we are trying to make a soft and flexibility seat belt system, and then the enclosed buckle is one of our sample. This sample is composed of narrow webbing and a little solid plastic boot. However, according to FMVSS NO. 209 item 4.2 (a) "webbing width" describing it's width should be not less than 1.8 inches (about 46mm), the problem of elongation and etc, it is very difficult for us to judge whether our sample does conform to regulation N0.209 on the view of interpretation of the Law or not. Of course, this assembly does meet with the requirement of seat belt assembly prescribing in NO. 209. When this sample is located in vehicle, we are afraid that this sample will touch slightly or enough to person's body. Here, we enclosed please find our sample of buckle side of seat belt assembly herewith. So could you pleases inform us of your official comments very soon. Your earliest written answer will be highly appreciated.

Yours faithfully,

Ashimori Industry Co., Ltd.

M. Mizuguchi

encl. sample of bucket seat

ID: 07-002269drn

ID: nht88-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jaguar Cars, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

C.D. Black, Engineering Manager Legislation, Compliance Product Development 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in reply to your letters of June 8 and October 17, 1987, with respect to an electrically-operated headlamp leveling system that Jaguar intends to offer on passenger cars beginning with the 1989 model year. Such a device is required by EEC regulat ions. You have informed us that the system does not allow lamps to be adjusted above the "zero" position, only downward to compensate for rear end loading of the vehicle. There is no provision for automatic return to the "zero" position when the engine i s turned off. Further, there will be no indication to the driver from the vehicle instrumentation that re-aim is necessary when the headlamps are adjusted downward. You have concluded, for the six reasons given in your letter of June 8 that "no aspect of FMVSS 108 . . . is contravened by this proposed installation."

The sole restriction that Standard No. 108 imposes upon an item of motor vehicle equipment not covered by the standard but which a manufacturer wishes to add to a vehicle as original equipment is that it not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equip ment that the standard requires (S4.1.3). If a manufacturer concludes that the unrequired equipment would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, it may certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 108. Based on our unders tanding of your system, it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. However, we urge you to consider the possible consequences if the driver forgets to return the system to the "zero" position from either of the two adjustme nt positions. These possibilities are a concern because the system does not automatically return to that position, and no warning is provided to the driver that the headlamps are not in their original design position. On the other-hand, if properly used, the system could enhance headlighting effectiveness by ensuring that the headlamp provides the same lighting performance under all conditions of vehicle load.

We hope the information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 8, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 108 DRIVER ADJUSTMENT OF PASSENGER CAR HEADLAMPS

Dear Ms. Jones:

Jaguar Cars Ltd. of Coventry, England, manufactures passenger cars for worldwide markets. For UK and European road vehicles of all types it will be required, by EEC Directive 76/756 (as amended) Paragraph 4.2.6, to fit a system for maintaining headlamp d ip beam (passing beam) vertical alignment. If this is not achieved by power operated suspension levelling, then either an automatic lamp-levelling system or a control operable from the driving seat must be provided.

Jaguar will fit an electrically operated lamp-levelling system, operable from the drivers seat, to the XJ-S model range on all cars for the United Kingdom and for Europe from Job 1 1989 model year. Jaguar would like to fit this system to cars supplied fo r the USA market.

Jaguar believes that this will not contravene or compromise any aspect of compliance with FMVSS 108 for the following reasons:

1. In a front-engine passenger car, the only adjustment required after the initial aim in the "driver only" condition is downward. (This may not be valid for rear engine cars or for heavy trucks).

2. The lamps will be compatible with the use of mechanical aimers as defined in FMVSS 108 and the sub-referenced SAE J.602. New semi-sealed light units for the USA models will conform with all applicable requirements of FMVSS 108. (Distinct conditions of light units will be used for U.S. and for Europe but they will be designed to fit commonised mountings and therefore will enable use to be made of the lamp levelling feature.)

3. The lamp mounting will be designed to meet the torque deflection test of SAE J.580.

4. A mechanical adjustment facility for manufacturing tolerances and an initial alignment will be fitted to each lamp and will be operable in the manner required by SAE J.580.

5. Subsequent to the initial alignment as defined in lighting inspection code SAE J.599, the only adjustment operable from the driving seat will be downward. Because the lamp provides both passing and driving beams this will enable the driver to adjust t he beams downward if necessitated by heavy rear seat, trunk, or trailer hitch loading. It is impossible to adjust the beams to a higher position than the datum setting by the operation of the control from the drivers seat.

Even if the driver does not use the control under the conditions outlined above, then the dazzle problem would never be worse than that created by conventionally mounted lamps. What the lamp levelling system would provide is the opportunity to eliminate dazzle that would otherwise occur.

6. Jaguar will explain in the owner literature the correct use of the control by the driver. Jaguar will also instruct dealers and servicing outlets of the need to zero the drivers control before checking or adjusting beam alignment.

For the foregoing reasons, Jaguar believe that no aspect of FMVSS 108 or the subreferenced SAE standards is contravened by this proposed installation. However, because of design and manufacturing leadtimes we request your confirmation that our interpreta tion is correct.

We believe we have explained all relevant features of the system but if further information or clarification is required, please contact me by telephone.

Sincerely,

C.D. Black CDB:as Engineering Manager Legislation, Compliance, Product Development

ID: nht89-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1989

FROM: THOMAS D. TURNER -- MGR., ENGINEERING SERVICES, BLUE BIRD BODY CO.

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-20-90 TO THOMAS D. TURNER, BLUE BIRD BODY CO., FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; STDS. 202 AND 208]

TEXT: Attached is an illustration of a typical seating arrangement for a small bus that we manufacture. The vehicle has a 10,000 pound GVWR. It is our understanding that the driver's seat is a outboard front designated seating position and that a passenger s eat if located in a similar position on the right side of the vehicle would be an outboard front designated seating position. However, as shown on the attached illustration, our vehicle has an entrance door and stepwell in the area on the right side oppo site the driver's seat. The forwardmost outboard passenger seating position on the right side is approximately in line (3 inches forward on the attached example) with the forwardmost outboard passenger seating position on the left side.

It is our understanding that these forwardmost attached passenger seating positions are not outboard front designated seating position for the purpose of the recently published final rule on Standard 202, 49CFR, Part 571, Docket Number 88-24; Notice 02, Federal Register Volume 54, Number 184, Monday, September 25, 1989 or for the occupant protection requirements of 49 CFR Part 571.208 Occupant Crash Protection.

We request your confirmation that our understanding is correct and that the forwardmoset outboard passenger seating positions of a bus, as shown on the illustration, are not outboard front designated seating positions.

attachment

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht89-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/89

FROM: Anonymous (confidential)

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION S.W.

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATIONS OF FMVSS 203 AND 210

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/05/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA, REDBOOK A33; STANDARD 203; STANDARD 208; STANDARD 210

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of [the manufacturer], we hereby submit this request for interpretations of FMVSS 203 (49 C.F.R. @ 571.203) and FMVSS 210 (49 C.F.R. @ 571.210). Although the reasons for the requested interpretations involve the same technological developme nt (as discussed further below), and to some extent involve related issues, our request for interpretation of FMVSS 203 should be regarded as separate and distinct from the request for interpretation of FMVSS 210.

Due to various considerations involving [the manufacturer's] production scheduling, we would greatly appreciate your response to this request by April 15, 1989.

2

We hereby request confidential treatment of the manufacturer's and its counsel's identity. Because the technological development discussed herein is competitively sensitive, disclosure could result in substantial competitive harm to the manufacturer. We have provided herewith a copy of this request, with the manufacturer's and counsel's identity and related information deleted, for placement in the public file.

Summary of FMVSS 203 Interpretation Requested

For the reasons set forth below, we request that your office issue an interpretation that the requirements of FMVSS 203 do not apply to a vehicle which is equipped with a driver-side air bag and automatic seat belt and which meets the frontal crash re quirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1 when both systems are operational in the requisite FMVSS 208 compliance testing.

Reason for the Request

[The manufacturer] is in the process of developing an occupant restraint system which will utilize both a driver-side air bag and a driver-side automatic seat belt. Because of the particular design aspects of the

3 [manufacturer's] air bag technology (specifically with respect to the steering column structure), it will likely be impossible for the [manufacturer] vehicle to meet the requirements of FMVSS 203. Therefore, in order for [the manufacturer] to utilize its intended air bag system, it will be necessary that FMVSS 203's requirements do not apply.

The [manufacturer's] vehicle equipped with the aforementioned air bag technology will satisfy the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1, whether or not the automatic seat belt is operational during testing. Therefore, in our opinion, the requi rements of FMVSS 203 clearly do not apply, since section S2 of FMVSS 203 indicates that FMVSS 203 does not apply to vehicles that conform to the requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1 "by means of other than seat belt assemblies" (e.g., an air bag). However, d uring informal discussions with NHTSA on this subject, questions were raised whether the FMVSS 203, S2 language "other than seat belt assemblies" could literally be satisfied where the vehicle was compliance-tested with both the air bag and seat belt sys tem fully functional, which is the manner in which NHTSA conducts such testing. Therefore, we are requesting your confirmation that our aforementioned understanding as to the inapplicability of FMVSS 203 is correct.

4

Discussion

FMVSS 203 originally did not contemplate the presence of both seat belts and an air bag in a motor vehicle. The exception language of section S2 was thereafter promulgated specifically in order to allow the development of air bag technology, since th e manufacturer in that instance could not meet FMVSS 203 requirements with its air bag technology. See 39 Fed. Reg. 34062 (1974); 40 Fed. Reg. 17952 (1975). Therefore, as a result of S2, so long as the vehicle equipped with the air bag (i.e., "by means of other than a seat beat assembly") conformed with the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1, FMVSS 203 would not apply.

There are several reasons why the requested interpretation should be issued. First, as indicated previously, [the manufacturer] cannot meet the FMVSS 203 requirements when its air bag technology is used. Therefore, the objective which [the manufactur er] seeks in this request is precisely that for which FMVSS 203, S2 was established.

Secondly, to read the S2 language so that FMVSS 203's requirements would not apply where a vehicle with an air bag conforms with FMVSS 208, S5.1, but would apply where a vehicle

5 is equipped with both an air bag and an automatic belt, is an entirely perverse result. Such a result would be inconsistent with the specific and unequivocal intent of FMVSS S2 (i.e., to permit development and use of air bag technology), and would als o be contrary to the overall FMVSS safety objectives since it would in effect penalize a manufacturer for designing a vehicle with both an air bag and an automatic belt system.

Such a result, moreover, would make it impossible for a manufacturer of a vehicle equipped with an air bag and an automatic belt ever to qualify for the FMVSS 203, S2 exception if the manufacturer compliance-tested its vehicles with both the air bag a nd automatic belt system in place, as NHTSA would do in its compliance testing. Again, this clearly is contrary to the intent of FMVSS 203, S2, and would have the anomalous result of making that exception unattainable by manufacturers whose air bag equi pped vehicles meet FMVSS 208, S5.1, but who also choose to utilize an automatic belt system.

Finally, it should be reiterated that since the [manufacturer's] vehicle equipped with the air bag system will meet S5.1 of FMVSS 208, with or without the automatic seat belt, the automatic seat belt system will not be necessary in order for the vehic le to meet the S5.1 requirements. In

6 effect, then, with respect to frontal crash requirements, the automatic belt system can be viewed as an entirely additional system. Since this additional system in no way detracts from the safety functioning of the air bag, its presence should not aff ect the availability of the FMVSS 203, S2 exception. n1

n1 NHTSA has repeatedly indicated that where a safety system complies with applicable FMVSS requirements, the presence of an additional safety component or system does not alter the compliance result if the additional component or system does not detr act from the original system's ability to meet FMVSS requirements. See, e.g., Letter to Mr. Francois Louis, Renault USA, from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, December 1, 1986.

Summary of FMVSS 210 Interpretation Requested

We request that your office issue an interpretation that the seat belt anchorages in a vehicle equipped with a driver-side air bag and automatic seat belt be exempt from the seat belt anchorage location requirements of FMVSS 210, S4.3, where the vehic le so equipped meets the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1.

Reason for the Request

[The manufacturer's] vehicles equipped with both the air bag and automatic belt systems will not be able to meet the seat belt anchorage location requirements of FMVSS 210, S4.3.

7

It also appears unlikely that [the manufacturer] would be able to certify, for purposes of FMVSS 210, S4.3, that the "seat belt assemblies" would meet FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements. The vehicles will, however, meet the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements when t he vehicles are compliance-tested as equipped with both the seat belt and air bag systems. (In fact, as indicated previously, the vehicles would meet FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements whether or not the seat belts were operational.) The interpretation diffic ulty arises because, although FMVSS 208, S5.1 is a vehicle performance requirement, the language in FMVSS 210, S4.3 which exempts automatic seat belt anchorages from the FMVSS 210 location requirements refers to "seat belt assemblies" that meet the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements. Therefore, even if a vehicle equipped with the air bag and automatic belt met the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements in compliance testing, the language of FMVSS 210, S4.3 could be read (we believe erroneously) as requiring certificati on that the "belt assemblies" separately meet FMVSS 208, S5.1.

Discussion

The zone location requirements in Standard 210 were developed primarily for conventional manual seat belt systems. The exemption from the location requirements was 8 thereafter introduced in order to facilitate development of passive (i.e., "automatic") seat belt systems. See 43 Fed. Reg. 22419 (1978); 43 Fed. Reg. 53440 (1978). NHTSA determined at that time that if the frontal crash protection requirements of FM VSS 208, S5.1 were met utilizing automatic belt systems, the seat belt anchorage location requirements would not apply.

It is apparent that when the FMVSS 210 anchorage location exemption was promulgated, it was contemplated that the FMVSS 208, S5.1 frontal crash requirements would be met through use of the seat belt system. In other words, the manufacturer seeking ex emption from the location requirements would be utilizing the automatic belt system as the means of meeting the FMVSS 208, S5.1 frontal crash requirements. It was not contemplated that the manufacturer might be intending for its vehicles to meet the fro ntal crash requirements of Standard 208 by an additional or different means, such as an air bag.

[The manufacturer] submits that when a vehicle equipped with an air bag and an automatic belt system meets the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirement, the location requirements of FMVSS 210 should not apply to the automatic belt system. Section 210, of course, d oes not require use of seat belts to meet FMVSS

9 208, S5.1 requirements, nor does Standard 208 itself require use of seat belts to meet frontal crash requirements. If the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 208 can be met in compliance testing by a vehicle equipped with an air bag mechanism and an automat ic belt system (as is the case with [the manufacturer's] vehicles), the manufacturer should not have to certify that the "seat belt assemblies" meet the 208 frontal crash requirements in order to qualify for the S4.3 location requirement exemption. This interpretation is all the more appropriate in [the manufacturer's] case since, as discussed previously, the [manufacturer's] vehicles would meet FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements with or without the automatic belt. n2

n2 As indicated previously, with respect to the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208, S5.1, the automatic seat belt system in [the manufacturer's] vehicles can be viewed as an entirely additional system which is not necessary for the vehicle to mee t FMVSS 208 frontal crash requirements.

The above interpretation is fully consistent with the intent of FMVSS 208 and FMVSS 210 and with NHTSA's past practice in construing the pertinent subsections of these standards. In interpreting the applicability of FMVSS 208, NHTSA has long emphasiz ed that FMVSS 208 is a broadly stated vehicle performance standard which can be met by any of a variety of occupant restraint systems. For example, in a

10 recent interpretation request, Mercedes Benz requested confirmation that

the vehicle or vehicles used [in compliance testing] may be equipped "as delivered" for sale to a consumer. Accordingly, the vehicle structure with built-in energy management features, seats with designed-in anti-submarining construction, energy abso rbing instrument panel, collapsible steering wheel, driver and/or passenger airbag(s), anti-lacerative windshield glass, emergency tensioning retractors, etc. may be installed and functional, where applicable, during the compliance crash test.

Letter from Mr. K. Faber, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc., to Erika Z.

Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Apr. 20, 1987, p. 1.

NHTSA's response expressly confirmed the accuracy of the proffered interpretation with respect to FMVSS 208 in relation to FMVSS 210:

In conducting these [frontal crash] compliance tests, NHTSA tests vehicles in their "as delivered" form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has devices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices f or the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equipment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning. If our

11 compliance testing shows that a vehicle tested with a manual safety belt at one or both front outboard seating positions complies with the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, then the anchorages for the belt or belts wo uld not be subject to the anchorage location requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 210.

Letter to Mr. K. Faber, Mercedes Benz of North America, Inc., from Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel, NHTSA, Mar. 14, 1988, p. 2 (emphasis supplied).

The above NHTSA response indicates clearly that if a "vehicle" complies with FMVSS 208, S5.1 requirements, then the seat belt anchorage location requirements of FMVSS 210 do not have to be met. This is, we submit, the only logical reading of the inte rrelation of FMVSS 208, S5.1 and FMVSS 210, S4.3. (Since FMVSS 210, S4.3 refers expressly to FMVSS 208, S5.1, these regulations must, of course, be read together.) Since it is evident that in a compliance test of a vehicle equipped with an air bag and a n automatic seat belt, it would be impracticable if not impossible to determine precisely how FMVSS 208, S5.1 was met (i.e., by which safety component or combination thereof), the FMVSS 210, S4.3 exemption should apply so long as the FMVSS 208, S5.1 requ irements are met. The above position is also fully consistent with the fact that FMVSS 208 permits manufacturers to use various means (including means in addition to or other than seat belts) to

12 satisfy frontal crash requirements and the corollary fact that FMVSS 208, as NHTSA has consistently stated, is a vehicle (not a component) performance standard. This position is also squarely supported by NHTSA's expressed rationale that the frontal crash requirements of FMVSS 208 "indirectly control" the FMVSS 210 anchorage location requirements and "indirectly test" the "same aspects of performance." See 43 Fed. Reg. 53440 (1978); 50 Fed. Reg. 14595 (1985).

As indicated above, [the manufacturer's] vehicles, when tested "as delivered" to the consumer, will comply with the FMVSS 208, S5.1 frontal crash requirements. Since the location exemption of FMVSS 210, S4.3 focuses solely on frontal crash requiremen ts, the exemption should be available if the vehicle complies with FMVSS 208, S5.1.

In sum, we believe that if a vehicle equipped with a driver-side air bag and an automatic seat belt complies with the requirements of S5.1 of FMVSS 208, the anchorages of the automatic seat belt should not have to meet the location requirements of FMV SS 210.

* * *

It should be reiterated that the air bag/automatic seat belt system will meet the requirements of FMVSS 208 in

13 compliance crash testing. We submit that the exception language in FMVSS 203, S2, and FMVSS 210, S4.3, which in both cases is dependent solely on FMVSS 208, S5.1, should not be read so as to defeat the use of a system that complies fully with FMVSS 2 08, S5.1.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions regarding our request or if we can assist in expediting your consideration of the request, please contact us.

Respectfully submitted,[]

ID: 15110bel.low

Mr. Robert E. Karoly
Director
AD-EX Agency
1847 Fourteenth Avenue
Vero Beach, FL 32960

Dear Mr. Karoly:

Thank you for your letter regarding your device, the Saflex Booster, which is designed to elevate a child above the vehicle seat. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) appreciates your interest in child passenger safety.

The objective of increasing safety for children is also a goal of the agency. The agency is deeply concerned about children, and about infants in rear-facing child safety seats who have been seriously injured or killed by deploying air bags. NHTSA recently issued a final rule which will allow manufacturers to quickly begin depowering air bags to reduce the injuries and fatalities from deploying air bags. A final rule also has been issued to require warning labels in all vehicles with air bags and on rear-facing child seats. These warning labels alert occupants about hazards associated with deploying air bags and also strongly recommend that parents put children in the rear seat, especially infants in a rear-facing child safety seat.

We believe that the message that children belong in the rear seat cannot be overemphasized, especially for infants in rear-facing child seats.

Your Saflex Booster is designed to elevate the child (sitting alone or in a child seat) to possibly reduce hazards of air bag deployment for some air bag designs. We are concerned that not enough is known about air bags and their effect on children to know whether the risk to children would be reduced by your product. Many air bag and child seat designs would need to be tested to evaluate these risks. Further, as explained below, elevating the child as the Saflex Booster does could expose the child to other potential risks of fatality or serious injury.

NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. ("the Safety Act"), to issue motor vehicle safety standards for vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has used this authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems ("Standard 213").

Standard No. 213 specifies requirements for child restraint systems used in motor vehicles and aircraft, to reduce the number of children killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes and in aircraft. The term "child restraint system" is defined in S4 of the standard as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." As described in your letter, the Saflex Booster meets the child restraint system definition, since it is designed to seat a child in a motor vehicle. Under the Safety Act, each child restraint system that is sold in the United States must be certified as complying with Standard 213, including the Saflex Booster.

NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Accordingly, any person manufacturing your booster seat would have to certify that the seat complies with the requirements of Standard 213.

We are unable to determine whether a particular seat design would meet the requirements of the standard, short of testing the seat in an actual compliance proceeding. However, we would like to raise the following concerns about your booster seat design.

Your booster appears to be a "belt-positioning seat" under Standard 213. Belt-positioning seats are required by Standard 213 to be restrained against forward motion by the vehicle's lap/shoulder belt system. Your booster seat is held in place by a strap which goes around the vehicle's seat back and is supplied with the Saflex Booster. If your seat cannot meet Standard 213's requirements with only a lap/shoulder belt, it could not be certified as complying with the standard and thus may not be sold.

The second concern relates to the possibility that a child positioned on the Saflex Booster could be ejected under the lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly (feet first) in a crash. We raise this concern because the booster seat can elevate a child four to 12 inches off the vehicle seat. Crash forces could compress the booster, which could result in excessive slack in the vehicle belt system. Standard 213 requires booster seats to limit head and knee excursions of a restrained test dummy. If the Saflex Booster does not meet the excursion limits, it cannot be certified as complying with Standard 213.

We have enclosed a copy of Standard 213 for your information. We have also enclosed as an information sheet that briefly describes manufacturers' responsibilities under Federal law for manufacturing vehicles and items of equipment, such as the responsibility to ensure these products do not have any safety-related defects.

We strongly encourage the marketplace development of any system that can increase safety. While we are concerned that your device may not keep children from being injured by air bags and may not comply with FMVSS No. 213, we encourage your continued interest.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:213
d:6/2/97

ID: 1985-03.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert D. Bagg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 5, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Federal regulations that might affect a product you have developed. The information submitted with your letter describes the product as a collapsible partition that attaches to the rear of the front seat in a motor vehicle. The purpose of your product is to keep heat within the front portion of a car. The following discussion provides an explanation of how our standards would affect a device such as yours.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We have issued several standards that apply or affect the use of your product. First, we have issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which applies to all glazing installed in a motor vehicle, including the glazing used in an interior partition. Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference Standard ANS Z-26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highway," of the American National Standard Institute. A copy of Standard No. 205 and ANS Z-26 are enclosed for your reference.

Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also regulates the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. The various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in the standard. Under the requirements of this standard, an interior partition to be used on a passenger vehicle at locations requisite for driving visibility, such as the device you have developed, may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, Item 11A, or Item 14 glazing materials.

Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The marking requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (i.e. those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraph S6.1 of the standard. In addition, section 6.3 of the standard requires each item of motor vehicle equipment to be certified pursuant to section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of the container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Standard No. 205.

Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, new motor vehicle equipment, such as interior partitions, must comply with applicable safety standards prior to sale. The manufacture, sale, or installation of a partition that does not conform to the standard, or the installation of a partition in a new vehicle in a location that is not authorized in Standard No. 205, would be in a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109(a), anyone who sells motor vehicle equipment which does not conform to all applicable safety standards is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Installation of your device could also be affected by Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Section 3.2 of Standard No. 201, sets energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat to protect the heads of rear seat occupants thrown forward in a crash. A copy of Standard No. 201 is enclosed for your reference. Therefore, if your device were installed in a new vehicle prior to its first sale to a consumer, the manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle, as equipped, complies with all standard including Standard No. 201.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. In 1974, Congress amended the Vehicle Safety Act to address the problem of persons tampering with safety equipment. That section provides, in part, that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

Thus, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may add your product to a motor vehicle, if that action would "render inoperative" the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 201. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for civil penalties for persons that "render inoperative" an element of a safety standard.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act does not apply to individual vehicle owners. Thus, individual vehicle owners can, themselves, add your product to their vehicles without violating Federal law. However, installation of your product by individual owners would have to be done in accordance with applicable State law.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety defects and noncompliances in their products. Under Sections 151 et seg., they must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and noncompliances and remedy the product free of charge. Again, Section 109(a) imposes a civil penalty upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance in motor vehicle equipment. A copy of the Vehicle Safety act and an information sheet outlining the responsibilities of vehicle and equipment manufacturers is enclosed.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

ENCLS.

7/5/85

Dear Mr. Each,

In a mush as I didn't talk to you over phone, I'm sending this copy of Invention What I would like to know is, would this most the gov't requirement legally to use in vehicles. Before the manufacture and what. I would like advise.

RoBagg

OHEONTA, N.Y.

Dat# 3,002,784

OCC 0944

FIG.1.

FIG.2.

FIG.4.

FIG.3.

FIG.5.

(Graphics omitted)

INVENTOR.

Robert D. Bagg

By: L. S. Saulsbury.

ATTORNEY

Robert D. Bagg An Automobile Heat Saver Partition (One Sheet of Drawing)

This invention relates to an automobile heat saver partition.

It is the principal object of this invention to provide a collapsible partition for automobiles adapted to be located in the automobile and attached to the rear of the front seat so as to keep the heat of the automobile within the front seat space thereby eliminating the necessity of heating the rear seat space when vacant so that the driver will be supplied with adequate heat during cold weather with below zero temperatures.

It is another object of the invention to provide a partition for automobiles which has a transparent top piece so that the partition while located in the rear of the driver will not impair the visibility of the driver through the rear view mirror.

It is still another object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles that is collapsible so that it can be stored easily in the trunk of the automobile when not in use or even left standing in a collapsed condition in rear of the front seat when not in use.

It is a further object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles that can be attached to the rear of the front seat and supported therefrom by a simple strap.

It is a still further object of the invention to provide a heat saving partition for automobiles which will be made up in the form of a kit of few tube parts which can be readily assembled and fitted to one another and attached to the front seat of the automobile, and that is easy to disassemble and put into storage, the same consuming little space when disassembled.

Other objects of the invention are to provide a collapsible heat saver partition for automobiles, having the above objects in mind, which is of simple construction, inexpensive to manufacture, has a minimum number of parts, light in weight, easy to assemble, durable, of pleasing appearance, effective and efficient in use.

For other objects and a better understanding of the invention, reference may be had to the following detailed description taken in connection with the accompanying drawing, in which

Figure 1 is a side elevational view of a heat saver partition installed in an automobile upon the rear of the front seat thereof and constructed according to one form of the invention.

Fig. 2 is a perspective view of the partition and the seat to which it is attached by a strap,

Fig. 3 is an enlarged vertical sectional view of the partition as viewed on line 3-3 of Fig. 2 with illustration made as to the manner in which the partition may be collapsed,

Fig. 4 is a vertical perspective view of a heat saving partition formed of a plurality of tube parts according to another form of the invention, and

Fig. 5 is an exploded view of the partition shown in Fig. 4 and illustrating the manner in which they are assembled to one another.

Referring now particularly to Figs. 1 to 3, 10 generally represents the collapsible partition constructed according to one form of the invention comprising a bottom section 11 and a top frame 12 with a transparent window 13 therein and hingedly connected to the upper end of the lower section by hinges 14 and 15 so that the upper frame section 12 can be collapsed downwardly over the rear face of the lower section 11 at times when the rear seat space is to be heated as illustrated in Fig. 3 at 12' or when the partition is to be stored in the trunk space. Strap parts 16 and 17 are extended about the front seat to hold the partition against the rear face of the front seat. The window frame section 12 is held in its elevated position by a turn knob 18 secured to the lower section 11 on a pivot pin 19 near to the upper edge thereof and adapted when turned to overlie the lower edge to extend upwardly over the lower edge of the frame section 12 whereby the upper section will be held in its extended and raised position. The lower edge of the section 11 is cut away at 20 to accommodate the shaft hump in the floor of the automobile. The partition may be made of cardboard, plywood, plastic or metal.

Referring now particularly to Figs. 4 and 5, the partition is made up of aluminum tube parts. Pipe leg supports 22 and 23 have fitted to their upper ends thereof a transverse member 24 by its sockets 25 and 26 to the upper ends of which there is fitted legs 27 and 28 of a U-shaped member having a top portion 29. An elongated transparent plastic sleeve 30 shaped to conform to the U-shaped member is slid downwardly over the top portion 29 to provide a window partition through which the drivercan see. Plastic sleeve 30 is closed at the top and shaped to conform to the rounded ends of the top portion 29 of the U-shaped member. Separable straps 31 and 32 are respectively secured to the leg extensions 22 and 23 and can be fastened together by a buckle 33 about the front of the automobile seat in the manner illustrated in Fig. 4. In both forms of the invention the upper section or part of the partition is contoured to conform to the upper interior of the automobile.

It should now be apparent that there has been provided a heat saver partition for automobiles that can be collapsed or disassembled when not being used and which can be easily assembled, upon the rear of the front seat by simply connecting together straps about the front seat.

The legs and the transverse member constitute a lower section and the U-shape member with the transparent sleeve 30 constitute the upper section.

While various changes may be made in the detailed construction, it shall be understood that such changes shall be within the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appended claims.

WHAT IS CLAIMED IS:

1. A heat saver partition for automobiles comprising a lower section, strap means for detachably securing the lower section to the rear of and about the front seat of the automobile, a transparent second section releasably connected to the lower section and adapted to be elevated or lowered therefrom to provide a closure for the upper portion of the automobiles interior, said upper section conforming generally thereto.

2. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 1, said upper section being hingedly connected to the upper edge of the lower section and adapted to be collapsed downwardly thereover, and latch means for securing the upper section in its elevated position from the lower section.

3. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 2, and said lower section being cut away to accommodate the shaft hump on the floor of the automobile.

4. A heat saver partition for automobiles as defined in claim 1, and said lower section formed of vertical pipes and a transverse member having sockets fitted to the upper ends of the pipes, and said upper section comprising a U-shaped member having legs adapted to be tight fitted into the sockets of the transverse member, and a transparent member conforming to the shape of the U-shaped member and slide fitted downwardly thereover.

ID: aiam3327

Dear Mr. Spena: This is in reply to your letters of July 18, 1980, to the Administrato and myself and confirms a telephone conversation between Dr. Devin of your office and Taylor Vinson of ours, on August 5, 1980.; You have asked the following questions: '1. Does any Federal Regulation addresss (sic) the issue of intermixin motorcycle and other motor vehicle parts?'; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 *e seq*.), a copy of which I enclose, is the authority for Federal regulation of the manufacture of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (49 CFR Part 571) implement the Act.; Neither the Act nor the Standards directly address the issue of th intermixing of parts of motorcycles and other motor vehicles. However, use of one half of a passenger car headlighting system is permitted as a motorcycle headlighting system (see paragraph S4.1.1.34 of 49 CFR 571.108). As a general rule, under the Act and Standards use of motorcycle equipment as original equipment on passenger cars and other motor vehicles is not prohibited unless such use creates a noncompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the vehicles or a defect related to motor vehicle safety.; In addition, section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Act prohibits an 'manufacturer', 'distributor', 'dealer', or 'motor vehicle repair business' from rendering inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as forbidding anyone but the owner of a vehicle in use from removing and substituting original vehicle equipment if it results in a noncompliance. This prohibition has at least a theoretical application to the intermixing of vehicle parts.; '2. Can NHTSA provide any suggestions, recommendations or guidance o this matter?'; We are unable to be helpful because few instances of intermixing cam to mind. We are currently in litigation with an importer of European passenger car headlamps that are purportedly certified only to 'motorcycle' requirements but which, in fact are being sold for use on passenger cars. This would not appear to be a true instance of intermixing since there appears to be little market for them as motorcycle headlamps. Generally, however, it would not appear sound practice to use equipment in an application not intended by its manufacturer.; '3. We would also like to know your position on 'kit cars''. There are no regulations or standards applicable to 'kit cars' per se nor do we even have a definition of the term. But some general principles apply under the Act nonetheless.; The classic 'kit car' operation involves the removal of an old vehicl body from its chassis and its replacement with a new one. The resulting assemblage retains the title of the vehicle's original incarnation. As the Act defines a 'manufacturer' to include one who assembles motor vehicles, a person in the business of assembling kit cars bears the manufacturer's statutory responsibility (15 U.S.C. 1411 *et seq*.) for notification and remedy in the event his assembly operations create a safety related defect in the vehicle.; A newly-assembled vehicle using its previous title is considered 'used and does not have to comply with the safety standards that apply to 'new' vehicles. However, we interpret Section 108(a) (2) (A), discussed in response to your first question, as requiring the assembler, if it is the party removing the old body, to insure that the vehicle upon completion of reassembly had it been originally manufactured with the new body meet the standards with which it would have complied. For example, if a new fiberglass convertible body is mounted on the chassis of a 1972 Volkswagen Beetle, the vehicle must meet all standards that apply to 1972 convertibles. If it does not, its assembler as a 'manufacturer' appears to be obligated under the Act to notify purchasers and remedy the noncompliances.; Some of the safety standards apply to individual equipment items suc as tires, lighting equipment, glazing and seat belts. Any item covered by a Federal equipment standard and supplied in the kit must meet such standard.; Outside this framework our position is necessarily determined by th facts of each use but generally, the greater the number of new parts used in a vehicle, the more likely we are to consider it as one which must meet the standards that apply to new vehicles.; If you have any further questions Mr. Vinson will be happy to answe them (202-426-9511).; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel