ID: nht74-3.19

DATE: 11/12/74

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

TO: The Flxible Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Flxible's October 11, 1974, petition to exempt the "trackless trolley coach" category of bus from the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. You describe the vehicle as similar to your diesel bus but without the weight of the diesel engine, and with electrodynamic braking provided by the traction motor to a maximum of 2.0 mph per second in conjunction with brake operation.

I have enclosed a copy of our letter to Flyer Industries Limited on the same subject. The letter describes our position with regard to status of the trackless trolley as a motor vehicle, and also how it must be tested under Standard No. 121.

You have noted several difficulties in testing a vehicle which uses overhead electric lines as a source of power. I would like to point out that, as we interpret the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, we have established the policy that a manufacturer may conduct certification testing in any manner it chooses, as long as it is calculated, in the exercise of due care, to demonstrate that the vehicle would pass if tested as specified in the standard. Thus, you would be free to certify the vehicle based on tests without use of overhead lines and the benefit of electrodynamic braking. We understand from your letter that without the weight of the diesel engine the trackless trolley has better braking performance than the equivalent diesel engine.

At this time we have issued a proposal that would establish special test conditions for certain vehicles and limited exemptions for other vehicles, based on their configuration. We will consider your letter as a petition under this rulemaking action, and we invite you to make further comments to Docket 74-10; Notice 7, within the next 30 days.

We will advise you of our determination by letter or by notice in the Federal Register.

YOURS TRULY,

ENCLS.

THE Flxible CO.

OCTOBER 11, 1974

Mr. Richard Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th. Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Dyson: The purpose of this letter is to request a clarification concerning the certification of a trackless trolley coach to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #121, Braking System.

The Flxible Company is seeking certification of the trackless trolley coach without testing as a part of our family of vehicle of which the diesel powered buses are certified to FMVSS #121.

The trackless trolley coach will be on a forty (40) feet long by one hundred two (102) inches wide chassis. All brake system components, with the exception of the air compressor are the same ones used on the diesel coach. The air compressor, of necessity, is motor driven and of larger capacity than the compressor used on most diesel coach applications. Calculations, based on compressor capacity and reservoir volume, show that the compressor exceeds the requirements of Para. S5.1.1 of FMVSS #121 by 55-60 per cent.

While the chassis is the same as the diesel coach, the total vehicle weight will be slightly less than a diesel coach, powers by a V-8 diesel engine, due to component weight. The weight reduction is a plus factor in meeting the stopping distances as outlined in Table 11 of FMVSS #121.

In addition, electrodynamic braking will be provided by the traction motor to a maximum of 2.0 mile per hour per second (MPHPS) in conjunction with brake operation. This feature will most certainly aid the overall braking performance of the vehicle

One very important point must be made in requesting certification of the trackless trolley coach without testing. There is no test track available with 600 VDC overhead lines with which to run the vehicle. Cost for such an installation would be prohibitive especially considering the very limited use. Testing methods, such as a portable power system, would also be expensive and not at all practical due to the physical size and weight of components to produce 600 VDC at 550 amperes

Based on the above information, The Flxible Company requests deletion of testing and granting of certification to FMVSS #121 of the trackless trolley coach.

STANLEY C. FRYE -- Product Engineer-Advanced Design

ID: 15-005347 BMW Brake Transmission Shift Interlock v5

ID: nht79-3.40

DATE: 11/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. J. D. Dingell - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Donald Edwards. Mr. Edwards asks whether the passenger seat in a 1979 Dodge van is required under Federal law to be equipped with a safety belt.

Your earlier answer to Mr. Edwards was correct. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards require light trucks (including vans) to be equipped with safety belts for each designated seating position. The passenger seat in Mr. Edwards' van would qualify as a designated seating position and would be required to have a safety belt.

Under the Federal certification regulations for motor vehicles, any person who alters a vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale is required to place an additional label on the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). This provision would apply to the dealer who altered Mr. Edwards' vehicle by adding the passenger seat. The label would certify that the vehicle was still in compliance with all standards, including the safety belt requirements. Since the dealer did not install a safety belt, he probably did not place an alterer's label on the vehicle and he would, therefore, be in violation of the certification regulation. If this is the case, the agency has authority to require the dealer to remedy the noncompliance by installing safety belts on the van. Additionally, the dealer could be liable for civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for failure to comply with the Federal safety standards and regulations.

If Mr. Edwards has any problems in obtaining the required safety belts after receiving this information, please have him contact our Office of Enforcement at 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. (202/426-9700).

Sincerely,

ENC.

cc: MR. OATES; JUDIE STONE

Congress of the United States House of Representatives

October 22, 1979

The Honorable Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook: I am enclosing for your attention a copy of information sent to me by my Distrect Office concerning Mr. Donald Edwards question as to the requirement that seat belts be located at all seating positions in motor vehicles. I have advised Mr. Edwards that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 does, in my estimation, require such seating positions for occupants to be equipped with safety belts.

I would appreciate it if you would respond to me as to Mr. Edwards question relative to the dealership having told him that a safety belt was not necessary under Federal law for the optional passenger seat in the van he recently purchased.

With best wishes,

John D. Dingell Member of Congress

ENC.

INFORMATION TAKEN BY: District Office Cindy

DATE: September 24, 1979

NAME OF CALLER: Mr. Donald Edwards

STREET ADDRESS: 5000 Ternes Street

CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE: Dearborn, Michigan 48126

TELEPHONE NUMBER: 584-5924

OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES:

DETAILS OF CALL: 1979 Dodge Van

Mr. Edwards bought a 1979 Dodge Van, B100 Cargo van, at Crestwood Dodge, 32850 Ford Road, Garden City, Michigan 48135. The driver's seat came equipped with a seat belt that doesn't work, but he is going to have the dealer fix it. The passenger seat, which is an option, does not have a seat belt. Mr. Edwards stated he paid $ 80 for the seat, but it is not listed on the bill of sale. The dealership claims they threw it in. Mr. Edwards would like to know if it is a federal law that every seat in a vehicle has to have a seat belt. The dealership is telling him no. If it is a federal law requiring seat belts in vehicles, Mr. Edwards would like to have a copy of it.

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

ID: nht73-5.44

DATE: 11/05/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Roy Stolpestad

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, concerning the 1966 Chrysler you recently purchased from Central Motors in Minneapolis. As Miss Porter correctly pointed out in her column, the Federal law on odometer fraud enables you to bring a civil action against Central. The amount of recovery in such an action can be substantial. If the court were to accept your estimate of damages of $ 1490.24, the damages assessable under Federal law would be three times that amount $ 4470.72. In no case would damages be less than $ 1500, a minimum value established by law. In addition, if you are successful, Central must pay your attorney fees as well as all court costs.

I appreciate your concern for the costs of litigation. However, by providing for the payment of attorney fees the odometer law places you in a better position than a personal injury litigant whose recovery is usually diminished by his attorney's contingency fee. Your best course at this point is therefore to retain counsel if Central persists in its refusal to reimburse you.

By way of advice to your attorney, I would point out that the "out" that Central claims to have taken -- checking the box on the disclosure form that indicates the true mileage is unknown -- was taken too late to be of benefit to them. The Federal regulation governing disclosure requires the disclosure statement to be made "before executing any transfer of ownership form." If they mailed the statement the next day, their disclosure was untimely. Moreover, the representations made in the newspaper advertisment are evidentiary of their representation of 33,000 miles as being the true mileage on the vehicle. Your success in finding the previous

owner is also useful in establishing that the actual mileage was greater than shown.

We will be willing to give you or your attorney further advice if questions arise concerning the intent and effect of the Federal odometer law. The enclosed copies of the law and regulations are provided to assist him in representing you.

ENC.

ID: nht76-2.14

DATE: 02/13/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Hon. J. E. Moss - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your January 19, 1976, letter asking for further explanation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) position on a school bus seating standard that specifies both passive compartmentalization and the installation of seat belt anchorages.

The NHTSA has issued its school bus seating standard (Standard No. 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection) in a form that requires compartmentalization of vehicle occupants but does not require installation of seat belt anchorages. There is not sufficient information in the record on which to determine what percentage of school districts would utilize seat belts. The limited evidence available to the NHTSA indicates that only a small fraction of school buses would have belts installed and properly used, and that the decision to mandate seat belt anchorage installation should await further information as to the extent to which belts would be installed and properly used.

The issue of whether the NHTSA is on "safe legal ground in mandating a requirement that in itself does not contribute to motor vehicle safety but requires further action on the part of local officials" has become less urgent in view of the standard's promulgation without anchorage requirements. I would like to respond generally that the NHTSA has always held the opinion in construing the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) that safety performance requirements that require further action by vehicle users are entirely appropriate. While some safety devices (such as bumpers) are in place and operate passively, most devices, (such as lights and seat belts) require occupant action to gain protection. Seat belt anchorages require more action than simple use to gain their benefits, but this does not appear to be a logally significant distinction. In this case, I decided that substantial controversy over the appropriateness and legality of this protection should not continue to create uncertainty over the ultimate form of the standard, endangering the ability of manufacturers to comply with Congress' maximum 9-month leadtime for upgrading school bus seating systems. We have, of course, left the issue of restraints in school buses.

While the decision on passive restraints could negate the value of seat belt training during the adult years, it should be noted the NHTSA is not proposing passive protection for the rear seats of passenger cars where children are encouraged to ride. They would need to use the seat belts provided to increase their protection in a crash.

SINCERELY,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 19, 1976

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Thank you for your letter of January 13, 1976, explaining your position on mandatory seat belt anchorages for school bus seats.

Protecting children who ride school buses from the risk of injury is a critical need, well established by the passage of the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974. I would agree that a zero fatalities/zero injuries record is a reasonable goal for school bus safety. Moreover, a properly conceived seat belt system for school bus seats could potentially offer a high level of protection to the young occupants using them. At the same time, I am compelled to address further questions to you regarding the proposal to require seat belt anchorages alone.

I understand clearly that the idea of requiring seat belt anchorages is to facilitate efforts on the part of local school districts deciding to install belt restraints in new school buses they buy. Moreover, it is clear that if a seat belt system ever becomes mandatory in new buses, the existence of anchorages in older buses will aid school districts deciding to bring buses they already own up to the standard by retrofitting belts into their existing fleet. Finally, I can see the wisdom of seat belts in school buses for training purposes, if we continue to mandate active restraint systems in passenger vehicles generally. Nonetheless, several questions concern me.

(1) Do you believe NHTSA to be on safe legal ground in mandating a requirement that in itself does not contribute to motor vehicle safety but requires further action on the part of local officials -- namely, having belts installed before the added safety feature becomes available for children to use?

(2) Is there evidence in the record of the rulemaking that school districts intend to exercise their option to have belt systems installed once the anchorages become available? If not, how is it possible to justify even the minor cost of this requirement given the absence of any projected benefits?

(3) Regarding the educational value of belt use in school buses, won't the need for this training decline over the next few years if passive restraints are mandatory for new passenger vehicles and gradually introduced into the vehicle population as new cars replace old ones?

I support entirely the "passive protection" approach reflected in the balance of the proposed standard as far as it goes and believe it will offer substantial additional protection to children riding buses. This approach makes particular sense if NHTSA decides to mandate passive restraints in all new passenger vehicles.

On the other hand, if active restraints -- in particular seat belt systems -- continue to be required for the general vehicle population, then it makes sense in school buses to mandate not just anchorages but appropriate and usable belt systems. An appropriate system is one that uses retractors so that belts are self-adjusting in use and stay clean when not in use; that has buckles located in or near the seat fold so that the heavy part of the buckle cannot be wielded in horseplay; and one that will target the child's head against a safe surface if the bus abruptly comes to a halt or crashes.

In short, if we are to protect the integrity of the NHTSA regulatory program, then we should be hesitant to introduce requirements such as this, which offer extremely marginal benefits at best, even by the most favorable analysis.

I have further questions relating to this rulemaking -- particularly whether it adequately meets the mandate established by the Congress in the 1974 Amendments. These questions are perhaps more substantial than the anchorage issue; however, the sufficiency of the balance of the standard is a question I will reserve for the Subcommittee's oversight hearing on NHTSA tentatively scheduled for February 6, 1976.

Thank you for your attention to the questions this letter raises.

JOHN E. MOSS Chairman Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee

ID: nht88-1.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Apple

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Rod Willaredt (A33; Std. 108); 5/17/89 letter from Rod Willaredt to Taylor Vinson; 2/19/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Charles Wilson; 7/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Willaim J. Stephenson

TEXT:

Mr. Wayne Apple 14738 Bronson Avenue San Jose, CA 95124

Dear Mr. Apple:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29. 1987, in which you asked whether a U-Turn Indicator "is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the Department of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product."

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment contains specifications for original and replacement lighting equipment. None of these specifications is for a U-Turn indicator. However, a U-Turn indicator is acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires, such as turn signal lamps, headlamps, taillamps, and stop lamps. Your proposed specifications recognize the i mportance of differentiation between the left turn signal and the U-Turn indicator, and we encourage you to minimize the possibility of impairment.

Standard No. 108 does not cover a U-Turn indicator as an aftermarket device, but it is subject to the general restriction that its installation must not render inoperative, in whole or part, any lamp reflective device, or associated equipment that was in stalled pursuant to Standard No. 108. (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) The legibility of use of an aftermarket device of this nature would be determinable under the laws of the State in which a vehicle equipped with it is registered or operated. The American A ssociation of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 may be able to advise you further on State laws.

Accident data available to the agency does not permit us to identify specific crashes in which a vehicle is making a U-Turn. However, an analysis of data from one of our files that contains information on almost 3 million crashes indicates that the gener al type of crash for which U-Turn crashes are a subset (left-turning crashes) constitutes less than 6% of the total crash experience. Thus, we believe that the number of U-Turn crashes is substantially less than 6% represented by the broader category of crashes involving left-turning vehicles.

We do not know the basis for your statement that your U-turn indicator "will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent". However, the agency is interested in exploring concepts that could enhance vehicle safety. I am providing ou r Office of Research and Development with a copy of your letter for such further comment as may be warranted.

We appreciate your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

CC: Michael Finkelstein

December 29, 1987

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel Legal Office, Room 5219 D.O.T. Headquarters 400 7th Street Southwest Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Erika,

I have been instructed by the Office of Vehicle Compliance to write you concerning a new Safety feature I have designed. I am interested in receiving feedback as to whether my idea is reasonable, within federal regulations or specifications, and if the D epartment of Transportation has interest in the concept and/or product.

The reason I have designed this Safety feature, which is called an Automobile U-turn Directional Indicator was to reduce the number of automobile accidents in which U turns are involved. My sister and several acquaintances, have suffered serious injuries , primarily due to the lack of communication between drivers, simply because they do not have a tool by which to communicate.

The solution is simple and at a very low cost, yet it could save the lives of many.

Please review the attached documentation, and feel free to write or call me if you have any questions or require additional information. Thank you for your time and effort.

Sincerely,

Wayne Apple 14738 Bronson Ave. San Jose, CA 95124 (408) 377-0174 Home (408) 986-2526 Work

AUTOMOBILE U-TURN DIRECTIONAL INDICATOR SAFETY FIRST

Far too many accidents involve U-turns, and most likely they are of a serious nature. The ability to make a U-turn is much too convenient to try to strip away from the American public. A better and simple means of communicating the intention of making a U-turn is in order; and I have the solution. Implementing this simple tool will probably reduce accidents involving U-turns by over thirty percent.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Situation A: You are in you automobile waiting in the left turn lane with or without a signal light. There is an automobile in front of you, and one behind you, waiting as well. When it is time to turn, the car ahead of you starts accelerating through th e turn. You accelerate as well, and so does the car behind you. Suddenly, midway through the turn, the car in front of you whips into a sharp U-turn, without any means of warning. If you are not quick to react, you clip the rear end of the car as it make s it U-turn, sending it into a spin, hopefully avoiding any serious injuries. If you were quick to react, you end up slamming on your brakes and either slide into the car making the U-turn, or have the car behind you crash into your rear end, slamming yo u into the car making the U-turn. Hopefully, no serious injuries result. Had you known the driver was going to make a U-turn all along you would have been prepared for it from the start of the turn. No accident would have resulted.

Situation B: You are driving your automobile down the street and approach an intersection. There is a car with sitting in the oncoming traffic left hand turn lane. They have activated their left hand turn indicator. There are several cars following behin d your car. The oncoming car in the left hand turn lane believing there is enough time to make the turn, and there probably is. You slow down, so do the cars behind you, to allow for the turning car to pass through the intersection. Suddenly the car whip s into a U-turn. There is not enough time to react. Your car crashes into the U-turn car. One or two of the cars behind you crash into your car's rear end. Hopefully no serious injuries result, but they usually do in such circumstances. Had you known the car was planning to make a U-turn initially, you would have applied the brakes harder when the driver first began the turn, and hopefully avoided any accident at all situation C: You are waiting at a four way intersection in your automobile to make a ri ght hand turn. There is a car waiting in the cross traffic left hand turn lane, ahead and to your right, with the left turn indicator blinking brightly. Right hand turns are legal in your state on red lights. There is a break in traffic. You begin to tur n to the right and into the lane. The car in the left hand turn lane begins to turn down the road you had just traveled on. Suddenly, the driver of the car turning left, who was paying more attention to the oncoming traffic, whips the steering wheel hard to make a sharp U-turn, which is legal at this intersection. The two cars collide, crushing the front ends of both automobiles. You would not have made the turn to the right had you suspected the driver of the other car would be making a U-turn.

PRODUCT SOLUTION

The need stated in the problem situations above is a means to notify other drivers when you are planning to make a U-turn, and be able to discern it from a left hand turn signal; thus, I have designed a product with the means to satisfy this need.

The product is an Automobile U-turn Directional Indicator (U-turn Blinker), which is to be mounted on the front and rear driver's side of the car next to the left hand turn indicator. They are to be activated by a four position turn indicator switch, tha t utilizes the fourth down position to activate the U-turn signal. It is recommended that there be additional resistance in moving from the third position (left turn) to the fourth position (U-turn) to alleviate mistakes, as well as a U-turn dash light.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS

* Four position indicator switch. Fourth position down is U-turn. Resistance between third and fourth position.

* The rear U-turn directional indicator light assembly is mounted near the rear left hand turn indicator. The arrow should start at the lower right portion of the light housing, head straight to the top, curve to the left, then point straight downward, a s if the driver trailing the car were looking at a posted U-turn sign.

* The front U-turn directional indicator light assembly is mounted near the front left hand turn indicator. The arrow should start at the upper left hand portion of the light housing, head straight down, bend to the right then head straight up.

PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS Cont...

* The black area contained within the U-turn light housing assembly which blacks out the portion of the light assembly to outline the arrow, should be painted on, or preferably, be made of black rubber and glued onto the reflector plastic.

* The reflector portion of the U-turn light housing assembly should be a different color than the left hand turn indicator, to better differentiate the two. A cross between yellow and lime green would be noticeable.

* The size and shape of the U-turn directional housing is up to the discretion of the manufacturer, with a minimum of three square inches.

* The intensity of the U-turn indicator light should be equal to, or brighter than, the left hand turn indicator. The color and arrow shape will assist in the differentiation.

* Matching reflector plates can be used on the right side of the car for cosmetics and balance.

* A U-turn dash light indicator should be located near the dash turn indicator light, preferably the same color as the reflector plate.

SUMMARY

Communications between automobile drivers needs to improve. Clearly notifying other driver's your intentions can reduce the number of accidents by over fifty percent. Having the tools to better communicate to other drivers is a necessity. The U-turn dire ctional indicator is one of those tools to making America's roads a safer place.

ID: 3273yy

Sue Ellen Russell, Esq.
Brand & Lowell
923 Fifteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Ms. Russell:

This responds to your letter of October 24, 1991, concerning Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You stated that Glaval Corporation, which you represent, recently notified NHTSA of its intention to conduct a notification and remedy campaign to respond to "an apparent noncompliance with the safety belt anchorage strength requirements as they apply to the rear bench seat in Glaval vans." According to your letter, these seats contain three designated seating positions, and each seat belt anchorage is "mounted on the seat, not the floor." You stated that in the course of evaluating potential remedies, you became aware of an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter sent by this agency to Mr. R.W. Schreyer of Transportation Manufacturing Corporation, in which the agency stated that only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing. Because the Glaval van bench seat anchorages were tested simultaneously in NHTSA's compliance test, you asked the following questions:

1. Consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, should the seat-mounted anchorages of the Glaval bench seat have been loaded sequentially in NHTSA's test? If so, how does NHTSA's test on the Glaval bench seat, where the loads were applied simultaneously, affect NHTSA's tentative conclusion of noncompliance?

You are correct that, consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing under current requirements. However, based on our understanding of the Glaval design, and as discussed below, we consider the anchorages in the Glaval van to be floor-mounted. Therefore, the Schreyer interpretation is not relevant to whether the Glaval van is in compliance with Standard No. 210.

Based on photographs included in the Final Report of FMVSS 210 Compliance Testing of 1991 Glaval Van (Report No. 210-GTL-91-003), it appears that the seat belts are attached to a bar which runs along the floor behind the bench seat. The bar is directly mounted to floor brackets which run along each side of the seat.

Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions are simultaneously tested. The term "seat belt anchorage" is defined in section S3 as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure."

In the design at issue, the seat belt anchorage, or provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure, includes the seat belt bar. Since the seat belt bar is mounted to the floor by means of the two brackets along the sides of the seat, the seat belt anchorage is "floor-mounted."

I note for your information that, on April 30, 1990, the agency published a final rule amending Standard No. 210 to, among other things, require simultaneous loading of all anchorages common to the same occupant seat. This amendment is effective on September 1, 1992.

2. Since Standard 207 requires simultaneous loading of the forces required by Standard 207 along with those required by Standard 210, does the Schreyer interpretation mean that, for a bench seat with seat-mounted anchorages, the proper loading for a test pursuant to FMVSS 207 should be 20 times the seat weight plus the proper load for one designated seating position on the bench seat?

Your understanding of the Standard No. 207 test is correct.

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:207, 210 d:1/14/92

ID: nht67-1.3

DATE: 08/17/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; George C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter addressed to Dr. Haddon, dated June 19, 1967, which has been referred to me for reply to your inquiry concerning the effect of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards on fire trucks.

The purpose of Standard No. 107 is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces in the driver's field of view will hinder the safe and normal operation of the motor vehicle. At present, paragraph S4, "Requirements," only covers windshield wiper arms and blades, inside windshield mouldings, horn ring and hub of the steering wheel, and inside rearview mirror frame and mounting bracket.

The initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards contain no mandatory requirement for seat belt installations or seat belt anchorages in trucks. However, if seat belts are installed in trucks they must conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, effective March 1, 1967.

Sincerely,

FIRE APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

June 19, 1967

William Haddon, Jr. Administrator National Traffic Safety Agency

Dear Dr. Haddon:

Our concern is about Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107. In it view, glare, brightness, and reflection is set forth. Is the use of chrome prohibited because of its reflective qualities either inside the vehicle or on the outside of the vehicle? As you are aware, fire trucks have a considerable amount of chrome in their make-up.

One further question would be as to the seat belt assembly requirements. It is our understanding that only the anchoring point is necessary to be installed in the equipment as of March 1, 1967. The actual installation of the seat belt itself is an optional piece of equipment.

May we hear from you?

Very truly yours,

E.L. Koepenick Secretary-Treasurer

ID: 11646RENLUX

Mr. David Baret
President
Baby Comfort Inc.
5553 Ravenswood Rd., Suite 103-104
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312

Dear Mr. Baret:

This responds to your March 6, 1996, letter asking about our requirements for child restraint systems.

You explain that your company would like to sell child restraints manufactured abroad in the United States. During a dynamic test you had conducted on one of the restraints, the seat failed to meet the performance requirements of Standard 213, AChild Restraint Systems,@ when secured to the test seat assembly with only a lap belt. You ask if Standard 213 would permit the child seat to meet performance requirements when secured with a lap and shoulder belt, rather than just a lap belt.

The answer is no. Under S6.1.2 of Standard 213, child restraint systems such as yours must meet performance requirements when secured with only a lap belt. Certain types of child restraints are excepted from the lap belt only requirement, but your restraint is not among these. Among the excluded restraints are Abelt- positioning@ child seats, which are defined in S4 of the standard as:

[A] child restraint system that positions a child on a vehicle seat to improve the fit of a vehicle Type II [lap and shoulder] belt system on the child and that lacks any component, such as a belt system or a structural element, designed to restrain forward movement of the child=s torso in a forward impact. (Emphasis added.)

As Ms. Fujita of my staff discussed with you in a March 25, 1996, telephone conversation, your child seat has an internal belt system harness and thus is not a belt- positioning seat. Accordingly, your child restraint system would be tested secured with only a lap belt. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tests most child restraint systems with only a lap belt because lap belts are provided in the rear seats of many older model vehicles still on the road, and in the center seating position in the rear seat of many newer model vehicles as well. If your seat cannot meet Standard 213's requirements with only a lap belt, you could not in good faith certify your product as complying with Standard 213.

I have enclosed an information sheet for your information, which briefly outlines NHTSA=s standards for new manufacturers. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:4/16/96

ID: nht92-9.51

DATE: January 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Sue Ellen Russell, Esq. -- Brand & Lowell

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/24/91 from Sue Ellen Russell to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6599)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 24,1991, concerning Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You stated that Glaval Corporation, which you represent, recently notified NHTSA of its intention to conduct a notification and remedy campaign to respond to "an apparent noncompliance with the safety belt anchorage strength requirements as they apply to the rear bench seat in Glaval vans." According to your letter,these seats contain three designated seating positions, and each seat belt anchorage is "mounted on the seat, not the floor." You stated that in the course of evaluating potential remedies, you became aware of an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter sent by this agency to Mr. R.W. Schreyer of Transportation Manufacturing Corporation, in which the agency stated that only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing. Because the Glaval van bench seat anchorages were tested simultaneously in NHTSA's compliance test, you asked the following questions:

1. Consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, should the seat-mounted anchorages of the Glaval bench seat have been loaded sequentially in NHTSA's test? If so, how does NHTSA's test on the Glaval bench seat, where the loads were applied simultaneously, affect NHTSA's tentative conclusion of noncompliance?

You are correct that, consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing under current requirements. However, based on our understanding of the Glaval design, and as discussed below, we consider the anchorages in the Glaval van to be floor-mounted. Therefore, the Schreyer interpretation is not relevant to whether the Glaval van is incompliance with Standard No. 210.

Based on photographs included in the Final Report of FMVSS 210 Compliance Testing of 1991 Glaval Van (Report No. 210-GTL-91-003), it appears that the seat belts are attached to a bar which runs along the floor behind the bench seat. The bar is directly mounted to floor brackets which run along each side of the seat.

Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions are simultaneously tested. The term "seat belt anchorage" is defined in section S3 as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure."

In the design at issue, the seat belt anchorage, or provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure, includes the seat belt bar. Since the seat belt bar is mounted to the floor by

means of the two brackets along the sides of the seat, the seat belt anchorage is "floor-mounted."

I note for your information that, on April 30, 1990, the agency published a final rule amending Standard No. 210 to, among other things, require simultaneous loading of all anchorages common to the same occupant seat. This amendment is effective on September 1, 1992.

2. Since Standard 207 requires simultaneous loading of the forces required by Standard 207 along with those required by Standard 210, does the Schreyer interpretation mean that, for a bench seat with seat-mounted anchorages, the proper loading for a test pursuant to FMVSS 207 should be 20 times these at weight plus the proper load for one designated seating position on the bench seat?

Your understanding of the Standard No. 207 test is correct.

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.