ID: nht94-2.10

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William D. McIntosh -- Quality Assurance Manager, Perstorp Components (Ontario, Canada)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/9/93 from William D. McIntosh to Chief Council, NHTSA (via John Messera)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S 571.302), applies to your product. You state that you manufacture a "composite assembly acoustical abatement product" that is installed against ve hicle sheet metal and is then covered by carpet, trim, or the instrument panel. You had further questions about testing your product and certifying its compliance if the Standard applies to it. I apologize for the delay in responding.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the national Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (The "Safety Act") establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety st andards. Since Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle, and not the manufacturer of the individual component, is responsible for certifying compliance with Standard No. 302. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Under the Safety Act's authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 302 which specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of new motor vehicles. Section S4.1 lists the components in vehicle occupant compartments tha t the vehicle manufacturer must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. The components listed include seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash deployed elements, tha t are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. Among the listed items that might be applicable to your acoustical abatement product are floor coverings and engine compartment covers. That is, the standard would apply to your product if the acoustical abatement material is a part of one of the covered items and is within 1/2" of the occupant compartment.

You indicate in your letter that you are uncertain whether to test your product to Standard No. 302 as a composite with other materials. S4.2.2 of Standard No. 302 states, "Any material that adheres to other material(s) at every point of contact shall m eet the requirements of S4.3 when tested as a composite...." You indicate in your letter that your product has multiple layers that always

adhere to each other. Accordingly, assuming your product is subject to Standard No. 302, the agency would test your product as a composite material, in accordance with S4.2.2.

Please note that there are other NHTSA requirements that could affect the manufacture and sale of your product. A motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer incorporating your product in its vehicles or equipment would be subject to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles or equipment do not contain any safety related defect. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective v ehicle or equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard..." Under this section, the entities mentioned above are required to ensure that the addition of your product would not adversely affect the compliance of any component or element of design on a vehicle with an applicable Federal safety standard. With respect to Standard No. 302, the addition of your product must not reduce the vehicle's overall flammability resistance.

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

ID: nht94-7.8

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William D. McIntosh -- Quality Assurance Manager, Perstorp Components (Ontario, Canada)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/9/93 from William D. McIntosh to Chief Council, NHTSA (via John Messera)

TEXT:

This responds to your inquiry about whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S 571.302), applies to your product. You state that you manufacture a "composite assembly acoustical abatement product" that is installed against vehicle sheet metal and is then covered by carpet, trim, or the instrument panel. You had further questions about testing your product and certifying its compliance if the Standard applies to it. I apologize for the delay in responding.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the national Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (The "Safety Act") establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Since Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle, and not the manufacturer of the individual component, is responsible for certifying compliance with Standard No. 302. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Under the Safety Act's authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 302 which specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of new motor vehicles. Section S4.1 lists the components in vehicle occupant compartments that the vehicle manufacturer must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. The components listed include seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. Among the listed items that might be applicable to your acoustical abatement product are floor coverings and engine compartment covers. That is, the standard would apply to your product if the acoustical abatement material is a part of one of the covered items and is within 1/2" of the occupant compartment.

You indicate in your letter that you are uncertain whether to test your product to Standard No. 302 as a composite with other materials. S4.2.2 of Standard No. 302 states, "Any material that adheres to other material(s) at every point of contact shall meet the requirements of S4.3 when tested as a composite...." You indicate in your letter that your product has multiple layers that always

adhere to each other. Accordingly, assuming your product is subject to Standard No. 302, the agency would test your product as a composite material, in accordance with S4.2.2.

Please note that there are other NHTSA requirements that could affect the manufacture and sale of your product. A motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer incorporating your product in its vehicles or equipment would be subject to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles or equipment do not contain any safety related defect. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard..." Under this section, the entities mentioned above are required to ensure that the addition of your product would not adversely affect the compliance of any component or element of design on a vehicle with an applicable Federal safety standard. With respect to Standard No. 302, the addition of your product must not reduce the vehicle's overall flammability resistance.

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

ID: 8950

Mr. William D. McIntosh
Quality Assurance Manager
Perstorp Components
Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
K2G 4R9

Dear Mr. McIntosh:

This responds to your inquiry about whether Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302), applies to your product. You state that you manufacture a "composite assembly acoustical abatement product" that is installed against vehicle sheet metal and is then covered by carpet, trim, or the instrument panel. You had further questions about testing your product and certifying its compliance if the Standard applies to it. I apologize for the delay in responding.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (The "Safety Act") establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Since Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard, the manufacturer of the vehicle, and not the manufacturer of the individual component, is responsible for certifying compliance with Standard No. 302. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

Under the Safety Act's authority, NHTSA has issued Standard No. 302 which specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of new motor vehicles. Section S4.1 lists the components in vehicle occupant compartments that the vehicle manufacturer must certify as complying with the flammability resistance requirements of paragraph S4.3. The components listed include seat cushions, seat backs, seat belts headlining, convertible tops, arm rests, all trim panels including door, front, rear, and side panels, compartment shelves, head restraints, floor coverings, sun visors, curtains, shades, wheel housing covers, engine compartment covers, and any other interior materials, including padding and crash deployed elements, that are designed to absorb energy on contact by occupants in the event of a crash. Among the listed items that might be applicable to your acoustical abatement product are floor coverings and engine compartment covers. That is, the standard would apply to your product if the acoustical abatement material is a part of one of the covered items and is within 1/2" of the occupant compartment.

You indicate in your letter that you are uncertain whether to test your product to Standard No. 302 as a composite with other materials. S4.2.2 of Standard No. 302 states, "Any material that adheres to other material(s) at every point of contact shall meet the requirements of S4.3 when tested as a composite...." You indicate in your letter that your product has multiple layers that always adhere to each other. Accordingly, assuming your product is subject to Standard No. 302, the agency would test your product as a composite material, in accordance with S4.2.2.

Please note that there are other NHTSA requirements that could affect the manufacture and sale of your product. A motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer incorporating your product in its vehicles or equipment would be subject to sections 151- 159 of the Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles or equipment do not contain any safety related defect. If the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a safety related defect exists, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective vehicle or equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative...any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard..." Under this section, the entities mentioned above are required to ensure that the addition of your product would not adversely affect the compliance of any component or element of design on a vehicle with an applicable Federal safety standard. With respect to Standard No. 302, the addition of your product must not reduce the vehicle's overall flammability resistance.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:302 d:4/l/94

ID: 7339

C.N. Littler
Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs
Motor Coach Industries
552 West Stutsman Avenue
Pembina, North Dakota 58271

Dear Mr. Littler:

This responds to your letter of May 25, 1992, concerning possible federal preemption of a bill that has been introduced in the New York State legislature. The bill would require any intercity bus that is operated in the State of New York manufactured on or after July 1, 1993 to be equipped with safety belts at every seating position, unless the bus is operated by a motor carrier which does not operate annually more than 100 days or more than 10,000 vehicle miles within the State of New York. After reviewing the copy of this bill enclosed with your letter, we have concluded that it appears to be preempted by Federal law, to the extent that it requires the installation of seat belts for passenger seats of buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds and that are not State-owned vehicles. This conclusion is explained in detail below.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard. Section 103(d) preempts New York's proposed law if that law covers the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and is different from the applicable Federal standard, with one exception. It would not preempt the law to the extent that the law imposes a higher level of performance upon vehicles procured for use by the State or any of its political subdivisions.

In this case, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) "specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes." (S1 of Standard No. 208). Section S4.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies performance requirements for the protection of bus occupants. Accordingly, there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect and that standard establishes performance requirements for occupant protection in buses. The question then is whether the proposed New York State law, which applies to the same aspect of performance, is either identical to Standard No. 208's requirements.

The applicable performance requirements for occupant protection at passenger seats in buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, differ, depending upon whether the vehicle has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less or a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. For buses (other than school buses) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, S4.4.3.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a lap/shoulder belt to be provided at every forward-facing outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt to be provided at every other seating position. New York's law, requiring seat belts at every seating position in buses, would not be preempted with respect to these small buses if it were interpreted to require the same types of safety belts as required under Standard No. 208.

With respect to buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, S4.4.3.1 of Standard No. 208 requires compliance with either of two options for the driver's seating position, the installation of an automatic restraint or the installation of either a lap belt or lap/shoulder belt, and does not require any type of occupant protection system at any other seating position. NHTSA expressly determined that there is not a safety need for safety belts or another type of occupant crash protection at these seating positions. See, 39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974. With respect to these large buses, the New York bill would be preempted to the extent that it requires seat belts to be installed at seating positions other than the driver's seating position.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:8/19/92

ID: nht92-4.32

DATE: August 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C.N. Littler -- Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs, Motor Coach Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/25/92 from C.N. Littler to Mary Versailles (OCC 7339)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 25, 1992, concerning possible federal preemption of a bill that has been introduced in the New York State legislature. The bill would require any intercity bus that is operated in the State of New York manufactured on or after July 1, 1993 to be equipped with safety belts at every seating position, unless the bus is operated by a motor carrier which does not operate anually more than 100 days or more than 10,000 vehicle miles within the State of New York. After reviewing the copy of this bill enclosed with your letter, we have concluded that it appears to be preempted by Federal law, to the extent that it requires the installation of seat belts for passenger seats of buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds and that are not State-owned vehicles. This conclusion is explained in detail below.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103(d) preempts New York's proposed law if that law covers the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and is different from the applicable Federal standard, with one exception. It would not preempt the law to the extent that the law imposes a higher level of performance upon vehicles procured for use by the State or any of its political subdivisions.

In this case, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) "specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes." (S1 of Standard No. 208). Section S4.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies performance requirements for the protection of bus occupants. Accordingly, there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect and that standard establishes performance requirements for occupant protection in buses. The question then is whether the proposed New York State law, which

applies to the same aspect of performance, is either identical to Standard No. 208's requirements.

The applicable performance requirements for occupant protection at passenger seats in buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, differ, depending upon whether the vehicle has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less or a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. For buses (other than school buses) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, S4.4.3.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a lap/shoulder belt to be provided at every forward-facing outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt to be provided at every other seating position. New York's law, requiring seat belts at every seating position in buses, would not be preempted with respect to these small buses if it were interpreted to require the same types of safety belts as required under Standard No. 208.

With respect to buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, S4.4.3.1 of Standard No. 208 requires compliance with either of two options for the driver's seating position, the installation of an automatic restraint or the installation of either a lap belt or lap/shoulder belt, and does not require any type of occupant protection system at any other seating position. NHTSA expressly determined that there is not a safety 'need for safety belts or another type of occupant crash protection at these seating positions. See, 39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974. With respect to these large buses, the New York bill would be preempted to the extent that it requires seat belts to be installed at seating positions other than the driver's seating position.

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

ID: nht89-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/27/89

FROM: SCOTT K. HILLER -- CE WHITE COMPANY

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 01/12/90 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO SCOTT K. HILLER -- CE WHITE COMPANY; REDBOOK A35; STANDARD 210

TEXT: Dear N.H.T.S.A.:

I request a written, legal interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 with regard to test procedures involving multi-passenger, passenger seats for school buses under 10,000 GVWR.

The situation is as follows:

1. The seat belts are mounted to the frame itself via a 1 1/4" angle bar running the width of the seat. (See photographs)

2. Each seating position has an individual set of seat belt mounting holes punched into the angle iron bar. (See photographs)

My question is does each seating position, when tested per @ 5.1 of FMVSS 210, have to be pulled simultaneously or should they be pulled individually?

I will be looking forward to your letter. Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

(Photo Omitted)

Two passenger school bus passenger seat frame with seat belts attached. Front View.

(Photo Omitted)

Back view of a two passenger school bus seat with frame attached seat belts.

(Photo Omitted)

Top view of a 2 passenger school bus seat with seat belt bar mounted on seat frame for frame mounted seat belts. Note two separate sets of holes.

(Photo Omitted) Front view of a two passenger school bus seat with seat belts attached to seat frame.

(Photo Omitted)

Top forward view of a two passenger school bus seat frame which illustrates the seat belt attachment bar as frame mounted.

ID: nht88-1.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Rogers -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert A. Rogers Director, Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090-9015

Dear Mr. Rogers.

This respond to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFa 5571.209). Specifically, you stated that you believe that Standard No. 209 does not specifically address remotely actuated emergency-locking re tractors. You explained that you were referring to retractors that are actuated by a deceleration sensor that is located some distance from the retractor itself. You stated that the existing uncertainty discourage; vehicle manufacturers from considering the introduction of this technology. Additionally your letter claims that it is not clear whether the test procedures in Standard No. 209 are compatible with remote s ensors. NHTSA does not agree that there are existing uncertainties with respect to the applicability of Standard No. 209 to remotely actuated retractors.

The agency first addressed this issue many years back. In a letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota, dated March 16,1973 (copy enclosed), NHTSA explained that Standard No. 209 does address the issue of remotely actuated retractors. In that letter, we explained that both the remotely located sensor(s) and the individual solenoids, or other actuating devices on the retractor mechanism itself, would be considered seat belt assembly hardware for the purposes of Standard No. 209. All assembly hardware must be certi fied as complying with the requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 209, including corrosion resistance and temperature resistance. This 1973 letter is still an accurate expression of the agency's opinion on this subject. Accordingly, there is no need to ini tiate rulemaking for Standard No. 209 to "ensure compatibility with the remotely actuated retractor concept."

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

January 26, 1988

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On December 1, 1987, representatives from General Motors (GM) and TRW participated in discussions with NHTSA relative to the concept of externally remotely actuated emergency-locking retractors as it might be applied to future seat belt assemblies. At th at time, GM noted that FMVSS 209 does not specifically address a retractor which is actuated by an electrical signal from a remotely located deceleration sensor. This omission introduces a regulatory uncertainty which discourages vehicle manufacturers fr om considering the incorporation of this relatively new technology into their restraint planning. Further, it is unclear whether or not the test procedures contained in FMVSS 249 are compatible with remote sensing. With this letter, we are requesting tha t the agency: 1) provide an interpretation affirming the regulatory permissibility of seat belt assemblies that incorporate remotely actuated emergency locking retractors, and 2) initiate rulemaking, if necessary, aimed at ensuring the compatibility of t he FMVSS 209 hardware and assembly test requirements and the remotely actuated seat belt retractor concept.

As the GM representatives noted in the December meeting, a strong case can be made for the position that FMVSS 209 currently provides for the use of remotely actuated retractors. There do not appear to be restrictions in the FMVSS 209 definition of seat belt assembly" which would preclude the use of specific seat belt assembly designs. Further, FMVSS 209 defines an emergency-locking retractor as one, "incorporating adjustment hardware by means of a locking mechanism that is activated by vehicle accelera tion, webbing movement relative to the vehicle, or other automatic action during an emergency and is capable when locked of withstanding restraint forces. We believe that this definition applies to a remotely actuated retractor.

There was general agreement among those in attendance at the December meeting that use of the term "retractor in the FMVSS 209 test procedures that apply (S4.3 and S5.2) could be interpreted logically to be a short hand notation for "retractor sub-system " . Such an interpretation is supported by the fact that neither the regulatory history of FMVSS 209 nor SAE J4c, which served as the basis for FMVSS 209, reference a need to restrict the design of retractors to ones with "built-in " mechanical sensing m echanisms. This view further supports a position that no restrictions have been or were intended to be placed on retractor designs given that the performance requirements of FMVSS 209 could be met.

It is our understanding based on discussions with TRW personnel that remotely actuated retractors can be designed to meet all existing FMVSS 209 performance requirements, including sensitivity. In fact, research to date suggests that the threshold sensit ivity of a retractor actuated by an electrical signal from a remote sensor exceeds that achievable with a retractor which incorporates a built-in mechanical pendulum. Thus, no easing of FMVSS 209 requirements would be needed to enable vehicle manufacture rs to include remotely actuated retractors in their restraint planning. Nor would special considerations be needed to encourage vehicle manufacturers to fully investigate the potential of remote sensing. As noted in TRW's discussion paper which was submi tted to NHTSA after the December meeting (copy attached), remote sensing offers significant potential for retractor downsizing and optimization of retractor locations--important factors in vehicle restraint design. Manufactures may also find further ince ntives when the flexibility offered by retractors which activate by electrical signals from remotely placed sensors is fully analyzed.

GM considers this request to be important because it relates to the compatibility of existing safety requirements with new and emerging technology. It is our understanding that agency policy dictates that its rulemaking not be technology limiting. on tha t basis, we request that NHTSA provide an interpretation that FMVSS 209 currently accommodates seat belt assemblies that incorporate remotely actuated retractors. Consistent with such an interpretation, we request that the agency review the hardware and assembly test requirements of FMVSS 209 for the purpose of ensuring compatibility with the remotely actuated retractor concept.

Finally, GM believes that time is of the essence and urges NHTSA to expedite its action on this request. Toward that end, we stand ready to provide any additional information at our disposal that

ID: Tanabe.1

Kenji Tanabe, Director
Mitsubishi Motors R&D of America, Inc. ,
Regulatory Affairs and Certification
2300 Clarendon Boulevard, Suite 1109
Arlington, VA22201




Dear Mr. Tanabe:

This responds to your August 30, 2005, letter in which you seek clarification regarding any requirements under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, that would be applicable to a removable wind deflector for use on convertible vehicles. Specifically, you asked whether the thin, tubular frame of the folding deflector would constitute a "pillar" when it is in the raised position. You also sought to confirm that the front seat backs would not need to be tested with the vertical surface of the wind deflector in the "up" position, because rear seat occupancy is not possible when the device is installed. We are pleased to have the opportunity to explain the requirements of our regulations, as they relate to your product.

In your letter, you stated that the wind deflector (as depicted in the attached diagrams) would be an original equipment option on certain convertible vehicle models. Its purpose is to reduce wind buffeting on the front seat occupants, thereby improving comfort and reducing noise. Specifically, you stated that the wind deflector is comprised of a "two-piece tubular frame with a pliable mesh screen that creates both a vertical, lateral surface behind the head restraints of the two front seats and a horizontal surface that spans the opening of the two rear seating positions". Your letter also stated that the movable tubular frame does not support the roof or any other structure of the vehicle, and the thin-wall frame is not designed to act as a roll-bar. According to your letter, the horizontal surface of the frame snaps into the rear occupant compartment side interior trim, and from there, the vertical surface can pivot to a vertical position to provide the wind screen. You also stated that the frame is mounted inboard of the windows and that it is not adjacent to or supporting any glazing. Once installed, the wind deflector prevents use of the rear occupant seating area. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

FMVSS No. 201 establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. One purpose of that standard, of particular relevance here, is to set energy-absorption requirements for the back of the front seat, in order to protect occupants in the rear seat who may be thrown forward in a crash (see S5.2, Seat Backs).

Furthermore, the standard establishes other relevant requirements under S6, Requirements for upper interior components, although a vehicle need not meet those requirements for "[a]ny target located on a convertible roof frame or a convertible roof linkage mechanism" (see S6.3(a)). "Convertible roof frame" is defined in S3 as "the frame of a convertible roof". "Convertible roof linkage mechanism" is defined in S3 as "any anchorage, fastener, or device necessary to deploy a convertible roof frame". The terms "pillar" and "roll-bar" are defined under S3 as follows:

Pillar means any structure, excluding glazing and the vertical portion of door window frames, but including accompanying moldings, attached components such as safety belt anchorages and coat hooks, which:

(1) Supports either a roof or any other structure (such as a roll-bar) that is above the drivers head, or

(2) Is located along the side edge of a window.

Roll-bar means a fixed overhead structural member, including its vertical support structure, that extends from the left to the right side of the passenger compartment of any open body vehicles and convertibles. It does not include a header.

Based upon the information provided in your letter, it is our opinion that your removable wind deflector would not be subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 201. We agree that the wind deflector in question would not be considered a roll-bar, because it is not a fixed overhead structural member, but is instead readily detachable. We also agree that it is not a pillar, in that it provides no structural support and is not located along the side edge of a window.

Our opinion is contingent upon the fact that the device, when installed, precludes rear seat occupancy. If rear seat occupancy were possible with the wind deflector installed, we would need to determine whether the device would be considered part of the seat back for the purposes of S5.2, because its location would cause concern if a rear seat occupant made contact with your product in the event of a crash.

We note further that if the wind deflector were installed as original equipment on a new motor vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards. For example, the deflector could affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, (safety belts and other restraint systems), and Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (driver field of view).

If you need further assistance, please contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.11/5/05

ID: 000808ogm

Mr. Warren Howard
9340 Halsell Road
Gulfport, MS 39501

Dear Mr. Howard:

This responds to your telephone calls asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, as they relate to a device you have developed. According to your calls, the device would prevent the radio or sound system of a vehicle from emitting any sound unless the occupants of all designated seating positions have their seat belts fastened. You ask if the statutes and regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would prohibit the sale or use of such a device.

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

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

Requirements for audible and visual warnings for seat belts are established in S7 of FMVSS No. 208. S7.3 specifies that the driver's seating position be equipped with a seat belt warning system that activates, under specified circumstances, a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of "not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds."

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

It is our position that a device such as you have described, which would disable a vehicles radio or sound system if occupants are not belted, may be installed in addition to, but not in place of, the warning system required by S7.3. Such a device may be offered either as an original equipment option or an aftermarket item, but it must be configured such that it can be differentiated from the warning system required by S7.3.

You should assure that the installation of your device does not negatively impact any required safety system. After the first sale of a vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in that vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition (49 U.S.C. 30122) requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation.

In addition, the device you describe would be considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the vehicle safety act. Therefore, if the device contained a defect (either in manufacture, design, or performance) that relates to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would be required to conduct a recall campaign to notify owners and to remedy the defect free of charge.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

cc:      Greg Smith


Garvey, Smith, Nehrbass & Doody, LLC
Suite 3290
3838 North Causeway Blvd.
Metairie, LA 70002

ref:208
d.4/11/03

ID: 007713

Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety And Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Mr. Strassburger:

This responds to your request that we reconsider a May 2, 2003, letter of interpretation we issued to Hyundai concluding that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) no. 108 does not preempt a California statute regulating the distance between front turn signal lamps and fog lamps. As discussed below, after carefully reconsidering our interpretation, we conclude that FMVSS No. 108 preempts State laws regarding the distance between front turn signal lamps and fog lamps. This letter withdraws and supersedes our May 2, 2003, interpretation.

We note that, in a letter dated July 1, 2003, Hyundai requested that we reconsider our May 2, 2003, interpretation. However, the California Highway Patrol subsequently informed Hyundai that it recognized that the lamp spacing requirements in its regulations are not identical to those contained in FMVSS 108, and that the provisions of FMVSS No. 108 covering the same aspect of performance prevailed over the State regulation. Therefore, in a letter dated August 12, 2003, we advised Hyundai that we considered its July 1, 2003, request as mooted. you expressed concern, however, that other States may nonetheless rely on the May 2, 2003, interpretation letter, and asked that we clarify our position on this issue.

The California law at issue provided that fog lamps must be mounted so that the inner edge of the lens retaining ring is no closer than 10 cm (4 in.) to the optical center of the front turn signal lamp. FMVSS No. 108 provides, by means of incorporation by reference of SAE Recommended Practice J588, that if the lighted edge of "the low beam headlamp or any additional lamp used to supplement or used in lieu of the lower beam, such as an auxiliary low beam or fog lamp" is closer than 100 mm (4 in.) to the geometric centroid of the front turn signal functional lighted area, the luminous intensity of the turn signal lamp is required to be higher than it would be if the spacing between the turn signal and other lamp were 100 mm or greater. Thus, the standard expressly contemplates the placement of fog lamps in an area that would be prohibited under the California law.

Under 49 u.s.c. 30103(b), preemption, a State may prescribe or continue in effect a standard "applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle only if the standard is identical to" a federal motor vehicle safety standard that is in effect. Thus, the relevant issue is whether the California law addresses the same aspect of performance as one addressed by FMVSS No. 108.

In our August 12, 2003, letter to Hyundai, we summarized our May 2, 2003, interpretation as follows:

In brief, fog lamps are not required items of lighting equipment under FMVSS No. 108. thus, if California were to preclude fog lamps, FMVSS No. 108 would not preempt such an action. similarly, California can address the spacing between fog lamps and turn signal lamps. However, California could not regulate fog lamps in a manner that would be inconsistent with the functioning of front turn signal lamps, which we do regulate.

We note that, in our May 2, 2003, interpretation, we stated that we believed the thrust of J588 was to regulate performance of turn signal lamps, and that the reference to fog lamps was illustrative.

We have reconsidered our May 2, 2003, interpretation. As noted above, the relevant issue is whether the California law and FMVSS No. 108 address the same aspect of performance.

On reconsideration, we believe that both FMVSS No. 108 and the California law seek to prevent obscuration of the turn signals. FMVSS No. 108 requires that if a fog lamp is closer than four inches to the turn signal lamp, the turn signal lamp must be brighter. The California law requires that fog lamps not be any closer than four inches to turn signal lamps. Since the California law addresses the same aspect of performance as FMVSS No. 108 and is not identical, it is preempted.

We note that you Stated in your letter that the alliance agrees that a State law prohibiting fog lamps would not be preempted, and we are not changing our view on that issue.

I hope this clarification is helpful. If you have any questions, you may call Edward Glancy of this Office (202-366-2992).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.4/1/04