ID: 1985-01.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John S. Cucheran

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John S. Cucheran Vice President Design and Engineering Jac Products, Inc. 1901 E. Ellsworth Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Dear Mr. Cucheran:

This is in reply to your letter of November 30, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Figure 10 of Standard No. 108 establishes the minimum design photometrics for center high mounted stoplamps. The test procedure for this particular part of Standard No. 108 which is specified in SAE J186a, stipulates that the "lamp axis shall be taken as the horizontal line through the light source." However, I believe that you have misinterpreted the light cone that is involved. The pertinent light cone in this case has its vertex at the photometer and a cross section at the plane of the lamp which encompasses the lens areas. From Drawing A that you have provided, it appears that your rail would interfere with this light cone.

In order to determine if your rack interferes with the photometric requirements, the vehicle must be tested with the rack in position as installed on the vehicle. As the agency has noted before, the photometric requirements do not specify that the entire lens must be visible from each 5 degree down test point. Instead, they specify the intensity of light that must be visible from those points. Therefore, the requirement can be met with a lamp whose lens is partially obscured by a portion of the vehicle when viewed from some of the test points.

We hope that this interpretation is helpful to you.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel November 30, 1984 Mr. Taylor Vinson U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Subject: Center Mounted Stop Light

Dear Mr. Vinson:

As you are aware, the cross rail on our deck mounted luggage racks supplied to O.E. automotive manufacturers infringes the 50 down cone requirement of Standard Number 108. This infringement will cause our products to be deleted from 1986 model vehicles equipped with center mounted stop lights with 50 cones that do not clear the rear rails.

Because we were not successful in getting a variance to allow infringement of the 5o cone on vehicles equipped with deck mounted luggage racks, our company will lose approximately 3 million dollars worth of business per year starting next summer, plus the loss of many jobs in an area already hit with some of the highest unemployment figures in the country. We are doing everything possible to adapt our products on new vehicles to save as many of our employees jobs as possible.

One thing that might make a difference on some potential 1986 business, is a clear definition of where the horizontal line, to establish the 5o cone, is taken from in the side view. I have enclosed two illustrations to clarify my request.

Illustration A shows the relationship of the light cone taken from the center of the lens, to a cross rail section. As you will notice, the light cone clears the bar.

Illustration B shows the relationship of the light cone taken from the bottom of the lens, to a cross rail section. As you will notice, the light cone is infringed by the cross rail. Mr. T. Vinson U.S. Department of Transportation November 30, 1984 Page Two

Several of our customers have taken for granted that the intent of the Standard is to establish the light path from the bottom of the lens. As you can see from our illustrations, the location of this point can mean approval or rejection of our products in cases such as this.

Your interpretation of our request, at your earliest date, would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, John S. Cucheran Vice President Design and Engineering cc: Mr. Barry Felrice/Associate Administrator for Rulemaking Mr. Jack Bott/President-JAC Products Inc.

ID: 002323cmc

Mr. Jeff Kennedy
Four Winds International
701 C.R. 15
Elkhart, IN 46516

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

This is in response to your letter dated March 3, 2003, in which you asked about the strength requirements applicable to Type 2 and Type 2a seat belt assemblies installed in the driver and front passenger seat locations. As explained below, Type 2a belts are generally prohibited, however, your understanding of the strength requirements for Type 2 belts appears correct.

In your letter you stated that you are developing upgrades for the new models of your recreational vehicles and plan on using a "Type 2 or Type 2a seat belt assembly at the driver seat and front passenger seat locations." You stated that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, "does not appear to list any strength requirements for the anchorages used to locate the upper torso restraint [of a Type 2a seat belt]." You further stated that you understood that the "anchorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts" for both the lap and shoulder portions of Type 2 seat belt assemblies are subject to the strength requirements of S4.2.2(b) of FMVSS No. 210.

Generally, installation of Type 2a shoulder belts is prohibited. FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, defines a Type 2a shoulder belt as "an upper torso restraint for use only in conjunction with a lap belt as a Type 2 seat belt assembly."The agency has determined that the integrated assemblies of Type 2 seat belts are safer than the Type 2a shoulder belts. Original equipment Type 2a shoulder belts may only be used at the driver seating position of vehicles intended to accommodate a wheel chair.(59 Federal Register 25826; May 18, 1994.) Since a Type 2a shoulder belt may not be used as you had intended, there is no need to further address your question regarding the strength requirements applicable to these types of belts.

Your understanding of the strength requirements for Type 2 seat belt assemblies is correct. Under S4.2.2, the anchorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts for Type 2 seat belt assemblies shall:

[W]ithstand a 3,000 pound force applied to the lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly simultaneously with a 3,000 pound force applied to the shoulder belt portion of the seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with S5.2 of this standard.

S5.2 establishes the positioning, force, and duration requirements for testing Type 2 seat belt assemblies under S4.2.2.

I hope you find this information helpful.If you have any further questions please call Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Council

ref:210
d.5/22/03

NCC-112:Ccalamita:mar:4/25/03:62992:OCC 002323
CC: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Redbook (2), interp. stds. 208, 210
U:ncc\interps\210\002323cmc.doc

ID: aiam4974

"Dear Mr. McLean: This responds to your March 9, 1992 letter, seekin an interpretation of Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.208 and 571.209, respectively). More specifically, you were interested in how certain provisions of these standards apply to a seating position equipped with an automatic shoulder belt certified as complying with the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208 and a separate manual lap belt. Your letter indicated you were particularly interested in whether the automatic belt is considered a Type 2a shoulder belt, as that term is defined in S3 of Standard No. 209, and whether the automatic belt must provide the warning instructions required for Type 2a shoulder belts by S4.1(l) of Standard No. 209. The answer to both these questions is no. NHTSA has consistently recognized a distinction between automatic safety belts and the manual safety belts defined in S3 of Standard No. 209 (Type 1, Type 2, and Type 2a belts). The origins and application of this distinction is explained at length in this agency's April 14, 1986 interpretation letter to Mr. David Martin, a copy of which was enclosed in your letter to me. Thus, automatic belts are not treated as Type 1, Type 2, or Type 2a belts for the purposes of Standard No. 209, and are not generally subject to the provisions of Standard No. 209 that apply to each of those types of belts. Since automatic belts are not Type 2a belts, automatic belts are not required to include any warnings required for Type 2a belts. Instead, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 defines the term 'automatic belt' and sets forth special provisions for such safety belts. S4.5.3.3 specifies that an automatic belt shall conform to S7.1 of Standard No. 208 (the belt adjustment requirements) and have a single emergency release mechanism, and be equipped with a special warning system in place of the warning system required for manual belts. In addition, S4.5.3.4 specifies that any automatic belts that are not subject to the crash testing requirements for occupant protection under Standard No. 208 must comply with the requirements of S4.2, S4.3, and S4.4 of Standard No. 209 (webbing, attachment hardware, and belt assembly performance requirements, respectively). I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on the requirements applicable to automatic belts, feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 000940 rbm

Robert C. Lange, Executive Director
Vehicle Structure and Safety Integration
GMNA Product Development
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Warren, MI 48092-2025

Dear Mr. Lange:

This responds to your request asking whether a GM driver and passenger seat belt reminder system recently developed by General Motors Corporation (GM) violates any Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The GM system, as described, is not prohibited by any such standards.

According to your letter, the GM system consists of a multi-stage chime and lamp warning cycle that lasts 75 seconds and is repeated three times per ignition cycle. Buckling the driver or passenger seat belt at any time will stop all warning systems for that seating position. Each cycle consists of three phases. The first phase lasts 8 seconds and consists of both a chime and a seat belt warning lamp. The next, 12-second phase consists of a seat belt warning lamp without a chime. The third phase lasts 55 seconds and consists of a flashing seat belt warning lamp. The first cycle begins when the ignition is turned on. The second cycle follows 30 seconds after the first cycle is completed, and the third stage follows 180 seconds after the second cycle is completed.

The only safety standard that could conceivably prohibit the GM system is Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). S7.3 of that standard requires 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," and a continuous or flashing warning light for not less than 60 seconds after the ignition switch is turned on. The 75-second cycle described in your letter meets both of these criteria. Thus, the only remaining question is whether the two additional cycles are permitted under the standard.

The prohibition on any audible signal lasting longer than 8 seconds reflects a statutory requirement imposed by Congress in response to public resistance to seat belt interlock systems.[1] 49 U.S.C. 30124 provides, in relevant part, that a motor vehicle safety standard "may not require or allow a manufacturer to comply with the standard by...using...a buzzer designed to indicate a safety belt is not in use, except a buzzer that operates only during the 8-second period after the ignition is turned to the 'start' or 'on' position."

While the statute prohibits the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from requiring, or specifying as a compliance option, an audible seatbelt warning that sounds outside of the specified 8-second period, it does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from placing such systems in their vehicles. However, given FMVSS No. 208's requirement that the required seat belt warning be no longer than 8 seconds, a vehicle manufacturer wishing to provide a voluntary audible signal must provide some means of differentiating the voluntarily provided signal from the required signal. One way to differentiate between the two signals is a clearly distinguishable lapse in time between the two signals. The GM system, as described, provides a 97-second interval between the first and second audible signals and a 247-second interval between the second and third audible signals. These time lapses are sufficiently long to make the second and third audible signals clearly distinguishable from the initial, required 8-second signal. Accordingly, the two additional cycles are permitted under the standard.

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

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref.208
d.2/38/03





---




[1] See House report 93-1452, pp. 44-45.

ID: postalvehicles.rbm

L.W. Camp
Director
Automotive Safety Office
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Camp:

This letter responds to your request for a legal interpretation of paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you want to know if Ford Motor Company may place a label other than the air bag label required by S4.5.1(b)(i) on a sun visor if the applicable seating position is legally built without an air bag. I apologize for the delay in our response.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

You stated in your letter that you are supplying the U.S. Postal Service with right hand drive vehicles over a period of two years. The Postal Service has requested that the vehicles be built without air bags as allowed by S4.2.2 of FMVSS No. 208. You also stated that Ford would like to place a label on the sun visor over the front outboard seating position informing the driver that the vehicle is not equipped with air bags and that he or she should always wear both lap and shoulder belts. You are concerned that paragraph S2.5.1(b)(3) could be read as preventing Ford from placing such a label on the sun visor.

Paragraph S4.5.1(b)(3), FMVSS No. 208 provides:

Except for information on an air bag maintenance label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(a) of this standard, or on a utility vehicle warning label placed on the visor that conforms in content, form, and sequence to the label shown in Figure 1 of 49 CFR 575.105, no other information shall appear on the same side of the sun visor to which the sun visor air bag warning label is affixed. Except for the information in an air bag alert label placed on the visor pursuant to S4.5.1(c) of this standard, or on a utility vehicle warning label placed on the visor that conforms in content, form, and sequence to the label shown in Figure 1 of 49 CFR 575.105, no other information about air bags or the need to wear seat belts shall appear anywhere on the sun visor.

Paragraph S4.5.1(b)(1)(i), FMVSS No. 208 provides, in part:

Each front outboard seating position that provides an inflatable restraint shall have a label permanently affixed to the sun visor for that seating position on either side of the sun visor, at the manufacturer's option....

The requirements of S4.5.1(b)(3) are limited by the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(1). This is because there is no need to place an air bag label over a seating position for which there is no air bag. Likewise, there is no need to restrict the content of a label that is voluntarily placed on a sun visor when no label is required. The reason that NHTSA has specified a particular air bag label is because we believe this is an area where uniformity in message and design furthers the interest of motor vehicle safety. If no label is required, there is no need to prevent another label that provides an important safety message. Accordingly, we have no objection to Ford placing a label on the sun visor notifying occupants that there is no air bag and that they should use the available restraint system.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or desire additional information, please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.4/21/2000

ID: nht79-2.2

DATE: 09/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: P. L. Whitehorn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 31, 1979, following your discussion with Mr. Vinson of this office.

Your client, ZEMCO Inc., has developed a fuel saving device for the automobile aftermarket the operation of which you have described as follows:

". . . if a vehicle approached a read light requiring the driver to stop . . . several seconds after the accelerator was released and the automobile stopped the device would automatically shut off the engine. To restart, the driver would press the accelerator pedal and the device would automatically trigger the ignition to start the engine."

In your opinion two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards appear to conflict with the ZEMCO device, Standards Nos. 102 and 124. Paragraph S3.1.3 of 49 CFR 571.102, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 imposes a starter interlock requirement under which "the engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position." You point out that ZEMCO's device "has been designed to automatically restart the engine with the transmission in either forward or reverse." Paragraph S5.1 of 49 CFR 571.124, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124 requires the throttle to return to the idle position within a specified time period "whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force." The ZEMCO device shuts off the engine several seconds after driver's foot is removed from the accelerator.

You have cited Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which prohibits the manufacture of any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and Section 108(a)(2)(A) which forbids manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses from "Knowingly rendering inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle. . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

You have asked whether the ZEMCO device is in conflict with the Act.

The ZEMCO device does not violate Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Although it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by Section 102(a) of the Act, there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to a device of this nature, so that its manufacture and sale would not be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A).

With respect to Section 108(a)(2)(A) we do not see that the device conflicts with Standard No. 124 as long as the device does not prevent the accelerator from returning to idle in the standard's specified time period before the engine is shut off. The ZEMCO device appears to come into play after the accelerator has return to idle, a period of time outside the coverage of the standard.

You are correct, however, in your concern with Standard No. 102 as the activation of the starter in forward or reverse gear is diametrically opposed to the standard's requirement. Its installation would appear to "render inoperative" the starter interlock that is required by Standard No. 102. Although ZEMCO's manufacture of the device would not violate Section 108(a)(2)(A), its installation by a person other than the vehicle owner would appear to.

You are also correct that this agency has not issued the regulation authorized by Section 108(a)(2)(B) under which any person may be exempted from Section 108(a) (2) (A) upon a determination that the exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the purposes of the Act.

If you wish to petition the agency to issue such a regulation or to amend Standard No. 102 in an appropriate manner you have, of course, the right to do so, and I enclose a copy of our petition procedures, 49 CFR Part 552, for your information.

I return your patent materials herewith.

SINCERELY,

CANNADY & WHITEHORN

August 31, 1979

Frank Berndt, ESQ Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Petition for Exemption from Section 108 of Title I of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are counsel for ZEMCO, INC., a California corporation. ZEMCO is in the process of developing a fuel or gasoline saving device for the automobile aftermarket. A literal reading of Section 108 of Title I of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 suggests that ZEMCO's fuel saving device is in conflict with Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 102 and 124. We discussed this problem with Mr. Benson of your office, earlier this week, and he advised us to furnish your office with more particulars. Mr. Benson also suggested that we request a clarification and interpretation of the Act as it applies to ZEMCO's device.

The ZEMCO fuel saving device will automatically control the shutdown and restarting of a vehicle engine in order to conserve fuel at times when the vehicle would be otherwise stopped, with the engine running at idle speed. For example if a vehicle approached a red light requiring the driver to stop at the limit line, several seconds after the accelerator was released and the automobile stopped the device would automatically shut off the engine. To restart, the driver would press the accelerator pedal and the device would automatically trigger the ignition to start the engine. A copy of ZEMCO's confidential patent application is enclosed which more fully describes the fuel saving device.

Two motor vehicle safety standards appear to conflict with the application of ZEMCO's device to motor vehicles. Standard No. 102 requires an interlock to prevent starting of the car with the transmission shift lever in the forward or reverse drive positions. ZEMCO's fuel saving device has been designed to automatically restart the engine with the transmission in either forward or reverse.

Standard No. 124 requires the vehicle's throttle to return to the idle position when the driver's foot is removed from the accelerator. ZEMCO's device would of course go further and shut off the engine several seconds after the driver's foot is removed from the accelerator.

As you know, Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides in part that "no person shall manufacture for sale . . . any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment . . . unless it is in conformity . . . " with the motor vehicle safety standards. Subparagraph (2) (A) further provided in part that "no manufacturer . . . shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . "

We understand from our discussions with Mr. Benson that the Secretary of Transportation has not yet issued regulations for the granting of exemptions from the act. However it is our understanding that the Office of the Chief Counsel will issue interpretations and clarify potential conflicts between safety standards and proposed automotive devices. The ZEMCO fuel saving device, although in technical conflict with the safety standards mentioned above, has been carefully designed to be compatible and consistent with motor vehicle safety.

Therefore, on behalf of ZEMCO, we respectfully request a clarification and interpretation of the Act particularly with respect to the potential conflict between Safety Standards Nos 102 and 124 and ZEMCO's fuel saving device. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Phillip L. Whitehorn

cc: JOAN CLAYBROOK; ZEMCO, INC.

ID: 3116yy

Mr. Mickey Hale
General Sales Manager
Jackie Cooper Olds-GMC
900 E. Main, P.O. Box 850239
Yukon, OK 73085

Dear Mr. Hale:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke, our Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, asking what type of safety belt must be installed at rear seating positions in conversion vans. You indicated that these conversions would be made to used 1990 Chevrolet full-sized vans. You intend to install lap/shoulder belts at the front two seating positions and lap-only belts at each of the middle and rear seating positions, and asked if this planned installation would conflict with the safety belt installation requirements set forth in NHTSA's safety standards. The answer is that this planned installation would not conflict with Federal requirements, as explained below.

To begin, NHTSA does not classify vehicles as "vans." Instead, cargo vans are generally classified as "trucks," and passenger vans are generally classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles." S4.2.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) requires that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard and rear forward-facing outboard seating positions and with either lap/shoulder or lap-only belts at every other designated seating position. Any of these vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1991 are required to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and with either lap/shoulder or lap-only belts at every other designated seating position. Thus, if your van conversions were new vehicles, your planned safety belt installations would be permissible for van conversions manufactured before September 1, 1991, but impermissible for conversions manufactured after that date.

You stated, however, that the van conversions in question would not be new vehicles, but would instead be used 1990 model year vehicles. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, the Safety Act includes a provision that prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. This prohibition applies to both new and used vehicles and means that the named commercial entities may not remove safety equipment required by the safety standards, such as seat belts, unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle will not be used during the time its compliance with the safety standards has been "rendered inoperative." In the case of safety belts, this means that your dealership could remove belts to make repairs or modifications, but must reinstall or replace the belts before returning the vehicle to a customer.

NHTSA does not consider it to be a violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition when a dealer modifies a used vehicle in such a way that the vehicle is equipped with safety belts at every designated seating position and those safety belts are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted to be installed at that seating position in the vehicle when it was new. In this case, your letter states that you would equip the used 1990 conversion vans with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and lap-only belts at all other seating positions. This belt installation was permitted by Standard No. 208 for new 1990 multipurpose passenger vehicles. Therefore, your planned installation would not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition of the Safety Act with respect to the safety belt installation requirements for these vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:208#VSA D. 8/14/91

ID: nht91-5.24

DATE: August 14, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mickey Hale -- General Sales Manager, Jackie Cooper Olds-GMC

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-18-91 from Mickey Hale to Steve Kratzke (OCC 6173)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke, our Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, asking what type of safety belt must be installed at rear seating positions in conversion vans. You indicated that these conversions would be made to used 1990 Chevrolet full-sized vans. You intend to install lap/shoulder belts at the front two seating positions and lap-only belts at each of the middle and rear seating positions, and asked if this planned installation would conflict with the safety belt installation requirements set forth in NHTSA's safety standards. The answer is that this planned installation would not conflict with Federal requirements, as explained below.

To begin, NHTSA does not classify vehicles as "vans." Instead, cargo vans are generally classified as "trucks," and passenger vans are generally classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles." S4.2.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208) requires that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard and rear forward-facing outboard seating positions and with either lap/shoulder or lap-only belts at every other designated seating position. Any of these vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1991 are required to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and with either lap/shoulder or lap-only belts at every other designated seating position. Thus, if your van conversions were new vehicles, your planned safety belt installations would be permissible for van conversions manufactured before September 1, 1991, but impermissible for conversions manufactured after that date.

You stated, however, that the van conversions in question would not be new vehicles, but would instead be used 1990 model year vehicles. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act specifies that vehicles must conform with all applicable safety standards up until the first purchase for purposes other than resale. After the first purchase, the vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform with all safety standards. However, the Safety Act includes a provision that prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. This prohibition applies to both new and used vehicles and means that the named commercial entities may not remove safety equipment required by the safety standards, such as seat belts, unless the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business reasonably believes the vehicle will not be used during the time its compliance with the safety standards has been

"rendered inoperative." In the case of safety belts, this means that your dealership could remove belts to make repairs or modifications, but must reinstall or replace the belts before returning the vehicle to a customer.

NHTSA does not consider it to be a violation of the "render inoperative" prohibition when a dealer modifies a used vehicle in such a way that the vehicle is equipped with safety belts at every designated seating position and those safety belts are the type that Standard No. 208 permitted to be installed at that seating position in the vehicle when it was new. In this case, your letter states that you would equip the used 1990 conversion vans with lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and lap-only belts at all other seating positions. This belt installation was permitted by Standard No. 208 for new 1990 multipurpose passenger vehicles. Therefore, your planned installation would not violate the "render inoperative" prohibition of the Safety Act with respect to the safety belt installation requirements for these vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-5.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 28, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; John Womack

TO: Roger Matoba

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 7/29/94 FROM ROGER MATOBA TO PATRICIA BRESLIN

TEXT: This responds to your letter, addressed to Patricia Breslin, asking us to review our safety belt requirements for rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans. You stated that manufacturers interpret Safety Standard No. 208 to require the installat ion of shoulder belts for these seating positions. You expressed concern that this requirement creates a safety hazard for vehicles with a side aisle to rear seating locations. According to your letter, passenger seats next to the side aisle have should er belts that cross the aisle. You believe that these shoulder belts would block the exit of more rearward passengers in an emergency, and suggested that we eliminate this requirement.

Your understanding of Standard No. 208's requirements is not entirely correct. It is correct that the standard requires (S4.2.4) lap/shoulder safety belts in all forward-facing "rear outboard designated seating positions" in new passenger vans with a GVW R of 10,000 pounds or less. However, under S4.2.4.1, the term "rear outboard designated seating position" excludes, for purposes of this requirement, any seating positions that are "adjacent to a walkway located between the seat and the side of the vehi cle, which walkway is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions." Therefore, the seating positions that you are concerned about are not required to have shoulder safety belts. The standard instead only requires manufacturers to provide lap safety belts for these seating positions.

NHTSA decided not to require shoulder safety belts at these seating positions because the agency recognized that the belts might obstruct an aisle designed to give access to rear seating positions. Manufacturers are, however, permitted to provide lap/sh oulder belts if they choose to do so.

With respect to your concerns about the safety of shoulder safety belts which cross an aisle, I note that such belts do not in fact prevent rearward passengers from existing the vehicle. Such passengers may exit the vehicle by going under or over the be lt.

They may also move the belt aside by spooling out the webbing, or even unlatch the belt. Indeed, any difficulty that rearward occupants face in exiting the vehicle is much smaller than that faced by rear seat occupants in a two-door car or the occupants of middle seats. In considering the safety of such belts, it is also important to consider the extra protection offered by the shoulder belt to the occupant who wears it. We believe the vehicle manufacturer is in the best position to balance, for its vehicles, the benefits associated with this extra protection against any difficulties related to occupants entering and exiting the vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10243

Mr. Roger Matoba
5665 White Mountain Ct.
Martinez, CA 94553

Dear Mr. Matoba:

This responds to your letter, addressed to Patricia Breslin, asking us to review our safety belt requirements for rear outboard seating positions in passenger vans. You stated that manufacturers interpret Safety Standard No. 208 to require the installation of shoulder belts for these seating positions. You expressed concern that this requirement creates a safety hazard for vehicles with a side aisle to rear seating locations. According to your letter, passenger seats next to the side aisle have shoulder belts that cross the aisle. You believe that these shoulder belts would block the exit of more rearward passengers in an emergency, and suggested that we eliminate this requirement.

Your understanding of Standard No. 208's requirements is not entirely correct. It is correct that the standard requires (S4.2.4) lap/shoulder safety belts in all forward-facing "rear outboard designated seating positions" in new passenger vans with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. However, under S4.2.4.1, the term "rear outboard designated seating position" excludes, for purposes of this requirement, any seating positions that are "adjacent to a walkway located between the seat and the side of the vehicle, which walkway is designed to allow access to more rearward seating positions." Therefore, the seating positions that you are concerned about are not required to have shoulder safety belts. The standard instead only requires manufacturers to provide lap safety belts for these seating positions.

NHTSA decided not to require shoulder safety belts at these seating positions because the agency recognized that the belts might obstruct an aisle designed to give access to rear seating positions. Manufacturers are, however, permitted to provide lap/shoulder belts if they choose to do so.

With respect to your concerns about the safety of shoulder safety belts which cross an aisle, I note that such belts do not in fact prevent rearward passengers from exiting the vehicle. Such passengers may exit the vehicle by going under or over the belt. They may also move the belt aside by spooling out the webbing, or even unlatch the belt. Indeed, any difficulty that rearward occupants face in exiting the vehicle is much smaller than that faced by rear seat occupants in a two-door car or the occupants of middle seats. In considering the safety of such belts, it is also important to consider the extra protection offered by the shoulder belt to the occupant who wears it. We believe the vehicle manufacturer is in the best position to balance, for its vehicles, the benefits associated with this extra protection against any difficulties related to occupants entering and exiting the vehicle.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:208 d:12/28/94