ID: nht90-3.80

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 4, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: Emory J. Lariscy -- Lariscy Enterprises, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-28-89 from E.L. Lariscy to G. Shifflett (OCC 3910) with Patent Application for Vehicle Safety Light Assembly (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Mundy to E. Lariscy; Also attached to le tter dated 7-14-89 from J.M. Staples to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 8-8-89 from L. Baer to E.L. Lariscy; Also attached to letter dated 7-28-89 from A.M. Kennedy to E.L. Lariscy

TEXT:

We understand that you have waived the request for confidentiality in your letter of August 28, 1989, to George Shifflett, and now wish us to proceed with our legal opinion with respect to your "safety light assembly." In connection with this opinion, o ne of my staff attorneys viewed the videotape that you enclosed (which we return to you with this letter).

Your concept is to provide a warning to following drivers when the driver of the vehicle immediately ahead has released his or her foot from tbe accelerator, and the vehicle has begun to decelerate. On trucks, the device would be mounted singly or in pa irs (as it was in the videotape) "on the safety bumper bracket. In this configuration, it is a rectangular amber lamp 8 inches in height and 3 inches in width with the word "caution" on the lens. Passenger cars would be equipped with either a single sma ller lamp above the center highmounted stop lamp, or to one side, or with two smaller lamps flanking the center lamp. The system works as follows: it is "connected to a switch disposed on the vehicle carburetor and receives current from the vehicle fuse block such that the throttle valve arm on the switch is 'on' and the accelerator pedal is not depressed. When the accelerator pedal is depressed, tbe throttle valve arm moves out of contact with the switch to permit spring actuated opening thereof." Th is means that the system remains activated when the brakes are applied. You believe that the system is simple enough to be installed "by the novice mechanic or vehicle owner."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which this agency administers and which is the relevant Federal statute with respect to your invention, imposes somewhat different requirements for new and used vehicles. If you wish to sell this device to motor vehicle manufacturers or dealers for installation on vehicles before or at the time of their delivery to their first owner, the manufacturer or dealer must ensure that the vehicle remains in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards when the vehicle is delivered.

There are three Federal motor vehicle safety standards that are relevant to this interpretation: Standard No. 108, pertaining to lighting,

Standard No. 124 on accelerator control systems, and Standard No. 301 relating to fuel system integrity in crash situations. Judging from your letter, Mr. Shifflett has previously advised you that supplementary lighting equipment such as your system is permissible as original equipment on new motor vehicles as long as it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. The "impairment" that is of most concern to us is in the effectiveness of the stop lamp to si gnal that the vehicle is braking. From this standpoint, it would be preferable for the amber lamps to be extinguished when the stop lamps go on. However, this is not the way your system operates. Intuitively, the closer your lamps are to the required s top lamps in both location and intensity, the more likely they are to impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps. We are providing you with these views, as the determination of impairment is made in the first instance by the vehicle manufacturer or deal er who installs it.

Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, specifies that the throttle must return to the idle position within 2 seconds after pressure is released from the accelerator pedal on a vehicle whose GVWR is more than 10,000 pounds, and within 1 second if the GVWR is less. Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, establishes a maximum permissible limit to fuel spillage during and after 30 mph front and rear moving barrier impacts, and at 20 mph for a side impact. Because your modifications are related t o the accelerator and fuel systems, you should ensure that they do not affect the ability of the vehicle on which they are installed to comply with these standards.

If you wish to sell the system in the aftermarket for installation on vehicles already in use, similar considerations apply. The Act specifically prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We have interpreted this to mean that modifications that result in a noncompliance with a safety standard are prohibited. Thus, the modifier should ensure that there is no impairment of the rear lamps, or of the ability of the throttle to return to idle within the specified time, or of the ability of the fuel system to meet the impact test requirements.

However, there is no Federal prohibition against modifications by the owner, even if a noncompliance results. Nevertheless, the acceptability of any modifications, whoever performs them, remains subject to the laws of any State in which a vehicle is reg istered or operated. We are unable to advise you whetber your system is legal under the laws of Virginia or any other state, but suggest that you write for an opinion the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlin gton, Virginia 22203.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety and wish you well.

ID: nht90-3.81

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 4, 1990

FROM: Hiroshi Kato -- Vice President, Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.

TO: Jack Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawing of proposed illumination on rear panel garnish and photo of 1988 Pontiac Fiero (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 9-26-90 from P.J. Rice to H. Kato (A36; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This letter serves to request an interpretation of FMVSS 108, Lights and Relectors. S.5.1.3 of Standard 108 states that "no additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lightin g equipment required by this standard."

We are considering lighting the rear panel garnish of a vehicle to illuminate the word "MITSUBISHI" at 0.1 cd (0.02 cd/in) when the vehicle headlamp system is turned on. This illumination would not be lighting required by FMVSS 108. The enclosed page s hows the proposed illumination and specifications. A similar illumination on the 1988 model year Pontiac Fiero is also shown.

We would like your determination as to whether the illumination described above would be considered impairment of the effectiveness of required lighting as described in S.5.1.3.

If the described illumination is considered an impairment due to the candela power, we would like to know what candela would be acceptable.

Also, we would like to confirm that if the center of the rear panel garnish was illuminated as a supplemental tail lamp and the word "MITSUBISHI" was not illuminated, this type of lighting would be allowed under FMVSS 108.

Your prompt response would be appreciated.

Enclosure

Drawing of proposed illumination on rear panel garnish and photo of 1988 Pontiac Fiero (graphics omitted).

ID: nht90-3.82

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 4, 1990

FROM: W.C. Glasscock -- Sun-Cool, & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-9-90 from P.J. Rice to W.C. Glasscock (A36; Std. 205)

TEXT:

Thank you for your attention to this letter as I am sure you recieve many with the position you hold.

My name is: William Charles Glasscock, operator of a small business located in Spfld. Il. known as Sun-Cool, & Co. which sells, services and installs solar film by Madico; on commercial, residence and last but not least automobiles.

I have personally engaged in this business for 18 years. Most recently I have contacted your office in Washington along with several Federal offices whose numbers were recieved thru several phone calls and by divine guidance with the last one directing me to the Chief Council Office. The answers to many questions I was searching for have left me no alternative but to address this letter formally and with utmost concern.

FMVSS205 has existed on the Federal Dept. of Transportation National Institute of Highway Transportation Associations book since 1968. This particular law, which until recently was not made clear to me as a layman of common interpretation, has shocked m e into reality faster than anything has in my 38 years thus far.

I first got started doing the Art of Window Tinting in 1972 in the state of Florida, where I was born. Circumstances have led me to return to Illinois where I had been raised and have resided for the last twenty years.

Sir, the problems I am now faced with are as follows:

Federal Law: FMVSS205 prohibits the use of materials on windows required for driving purposes to be installed by any after market specialty shop on any passenger vehicles that reduce the light transmission to less than 70% visible light.

State enacted laws have been revised and altered in accordance with the now existing Federal Law. Illinois for example, allows tinting on the rear and sides of vehicles manufactured after January 1st. 1982, as long as owner of said vehicle has a letter from a physician licensed to practice in the state of Illinois gives them a letter explaining the medical excuse for such need.

As I see now,a conflict does exist between State and Federal laws.

With the fact in mind that a Federal law supersedes State law, I personally would like to be able to understand why the people of the United States have had to pay State Government and Legislation to enact

their own laws in regards to the use of materials on automobiles, when in all reality there exists this Federal law that strictly prohibits its use as stated above. I personally have been going to our States Capitol office off and on for several years, to speak to representatives pertaining to this matter. I have been harassed by local and state police officers to the point that I was in a state of deep depression with many productive hours lost and personal health as well as respect in the community I and my family reside in.

In addition to the embarassment due to the neglect of enforcement by state and federal authorities of this particular law, I am now afraid to continue the business I am engaged in; which leaves me no means of support for myself and my family.

I am also very confused as to why advertising on the part of all manufactures of this material do so state by pictures that this is a legitimate business and that anyone that so desires may by video or personal training engage in this practice. Understa nding the laws of advertising, I would also like an answer to the reason major auto manufactures are allowed through subliminal message as I see it to advertise new automobiles on television and brochures that these autos may come already tinted less tha n the Federal standards allow. Major film studios are using in certain films automobiles that portray an image of criminal activity or wealth towards individuals driving certain automobiles, limo's, mercedes and the like, which I believe also to be decep tive practices.

I do believe that the crime here should not fall on the responsibility of the individuals such as myself, and that there seems to be a lack of intention on the part of Illinois government bodies as well as parts of the United States Government, to correc t what appears to be inconsistency in upholding the law. With all probability it is possible that through closed eyes for what I believe to be in essence of capitol gains, damage would intail loss of life as well as damage to the environment, through th e obvious procrastination of correction with this matter.

At this point in time I would like to close with the hopes of an immediate response to help with this dilema.

ID: nht90-3.83

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Daniel L. Giles -- Christianson, Stoneberg, Giles & Myers, P.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-90 from D.L. Giles to S.P. Wood; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-90 from D.L. Giles to D. Baker; Also attached to memo dated 3-6-90 from B. Wilson to D. Giles; Also attached to memo dated 2-22-90 from D. Baker to B. Wilson; Also attached to letter dated 3-18-88 from R.C. Rost to Chief Council, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 8-26-88 from E.L. Jones to R.C. Rost

TEXT:

This is in reply to your FAX of March 14, 1990. You report that Wayne Busettes, as delivered by Minnesota Body and Equipment Company, are equipped with an amber warning lamp system. You have asked whether tbese vehicles, which are used in the Head Star t program by Western Community Action, Inc., must be equipped with the amber lamp system, and, if so, when the system is to be used. You report that the Minnesota State Highway Patrol states that the vehicles are not "school buses" under Minnesota law, and have advised that the lamps must be removed or disabled.

Further, you have enclosed a copy of an opinion letter of this Office to Minnesota Body and Equipment Company, dated August 26, 1988. Finally, you report that the State has theorized that because the vehicles are being used entirely in Minnesota, they a re not subject to regulation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

We begin our reply with a comment on the compliance status of the Head Start buses themselves. Preliminarily, our review indicates tbat the Minnesota law on school bus lighting (M.S.A. Sec. 169.44, Subd. 1a) is congruent with the requirements of section S5.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Our standard allows a choice between a four-lamp system of two red lamps on the front and rear of the bus, or an eight-lamp system consisting of four red and four amber lamps on the front and rea r. Minnesota requires "prewarning flashing amber signals and flashing red signals", which we interpret to be the Federal eight-lamp system. Our engineers called Western Community Action to determine the type of warning lamp system with which the Head St art buses are actually equipped. They learned that the buses have a six-lamp warning system consisting of two red lamps on the front, and two red and two amber warning lamps on the rear. Thus, the six-lamp system on Head Start buses is a system that do es not conform to Federal requirements and apparently does not comply with State requirements either.

We continue to believe that tbe Head Start buses are school buses. Further, we believe that the existing lighting on Head Start buses should be brought into conformity with Federal and Minnesota requirements by the addition of two amber lamps to the fron t of tbe bus.

The 1988 letter to Minnesota Body and Equipment remains valid. Minnesota cannot forbid the dual system on vehicles that the Department of Transportation has determined to be school buses, even if these vehicles are not considered to be school buses unde r Minnesota law. Further, it must allow operators of these vehicles to retain and use the amber warning lamp system. These conclusions of law are clearly set forth in the 1988 letter.

The argument that the vehicles are exempt from Federal regulation because they are operated wholly within Minnesota is incorrect under the Vehicle Safety Act. Under the Act, all motor vehicles must be manufactured for sale, and sold, in conformance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The fact that a vehicle, once sold, may be operated exclusively within the borders of a single State, does not allow that State to regulate that vehicle in a manner that is inconsistent with or fru strates the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Such regulations are preempted by the express preemption provisions of the Act, and the general principles of Federal preemption.

We are concerned with the position of Minnesota regarding these matters, and believe it may originate in a misunderstanding arising from what the State may perceive to be its prerogative under the Federal Highway Safety Program. In 1972, our agency issu ed Highway Safety Program Standard 17, "Pupil Transportation Safety." With respect to buses carrying less than 16 passengers, Standard 17 (since 1987, Guideline 17) provides the States with the option of either requiring compliance with school bus requi rements (e.g., color, lighting, identification as "School Bus") or specifically prohibiting such compliance. Minnesota appears to be exercising a prohibitive option with respect to the Head Start buses. Guideline 17, however, does not provide authority for a State to exercise its prohibitive option with respect to buses that the Department of Transportation has determined in the first instance to be school buses. This may not be clear to Minnesota.

For the reasons expressed in our previous letter and this one, we believe that the proper legal solution to the Head Start lighting question is the addition of two amber lamps to the front of the buses, rather than removing or disabling the two that are on the rear.

ID: nht90-3.84

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Abernethy -- Idea's Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-22-90 from B. Abernethy to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 4858; OCC 4583); Also attached to Automotive Engineering Magazine editorial, dated July, 1985, entitled "Regulation at its Best?"

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letters of March 21 and May 22, 1990, requesting an interpretation of the Federal standard on motor vehicle lighting, No. 108, as it relates to an invention of yours, and of July 2, 1990, withdrawing a request for confidentiality made in your earlier letter.

As we understand it, based upon your conversation with Mr. Van Iderstine of this agency, your device would make the light emitted from a lamp increase or decrease in intensity based on the level of acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle. Thus, as a vehicle decelerates, the intensity of the lamp would change from a high value to a low value as the vehicle proceeded to stop. You believe that this would discourage tailgaters.

However, the device would also simultaneously modulate in intensity at an unknown rate. The reason that it would do so is that it is sensitive to external forces and is of low inertia. This means that it would also respond to minute changes in decelera tion that occur because of other factors. These factors include uneven road surfaces, uneven brake rotor thickness that causes surging, and tire imbalance which causes vehicle vibrations. Thus, as the intensity changes from a higher to a lower level du ring the stop, it would randomly modulate from a slightly higher intensity to slightly lower and back as the device sensed the random accelerations and decelerations from these other effects. The actual signal resulting would vary from vehicle to vehicl e, and from roadway to roadway as these extraneous factors interacted with the device. A driver following would not see a signal that was consistent or reliable in its meaning.

Therefore, we have concluded that Standard No. 108 would not permit your device. Under the standard, rear lights such as stop lamps and taillamps must be steady burning when in use, and they would not be when your device is employed. Further, equipment not required by Standard No. 108 may not be used if it would impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard does require. We believe that your device would impair the distinctive "message" (either as a signal light or as a presenc e light) that each rear lamp is intended to convey.

ID: nht90-3.85

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1990

FROM: Wayne Trueman -- Plant Manager BX-100 International

TO: Barry Felrice -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, U.S. Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to drawings of Brake Equalizer, Quick Release Valve, and Relay Valve (graphics omitted); Also attached to letter dated 11-20-90 from P.J. Rice to W. Trueman (A36; Std. 106; Std. 121); Also attached to NHTSA Information Sheet entitled I nformation For New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, dated 9-85 (text omitted)

TEXT:

I would like to thank you for your prompt response to my previous information request.

We are presently in the research and development stage of producing two (2) new products that will have the BX-100 Brake Equalizer integrally combined with a Quick Release valve and another with a Relay valve. We have completed prototype testing with bo th of these units and have proven them to be very reliable. What I would like to know from your department is if there are any design, manufacturing criteria, tests, or any other requirements that must be met in order to satisfy all local, state and fed eral regulations for items to be placed into a truck's air brake system.

I would appreciate any information that your office could provide or assistance in insuring compliance with all appropriate regulations and expectations of the regulating bodies.

Enclosed, to provide clarification on the above mentioned products, are functional view drawings on (1) BX-100 Brake Equalizer, (2) BX-100 & Quick Release Valve Assembly, (3) BX-100 & Relay Valve Assembly.

ID: nht90-3.86

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 7, 1990

FROM: Carol C. Verenes -- District Transportation Supervisor, Aiken County Public Schools

TO: Joseph J. Levin, Jr. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-15-91 to Carol C. Verenes from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance in providing our school district with written correspondence relative to the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, adopted safety standards effective April 1, 1977, whic h applies to vans transporting school children. Additionally, our district is considering modifying several of our existing vans for the purpose of transporting school children to school sponsored events and would like information pertaining to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 220, 221, and 222.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation regarding our request. Please contact me at (803) 648-1311, ext. 246, if you have any questions.

ID: nht90-3.87

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas J. Loughran -- V.P. Engineering, The Grote Manufacturing Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-13-90 from T.J. Loughran to J.R. Curry; Also attached to article entitled It's the Law - Rear Amber Reflector (Text omitted)

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter to the Administrator of August 13, 1990, in which you point out an error in an interpretation of Standard No. 108 furnished The Bargman Company on February 26, 1990.

The interpretation intended to refer to an amber turn signal lens, not an amber taillamp lens, as you surmise. We regret the confusion that we have inadvertently caused; the agency does not intend to allow an amber taillamp lens.

Nevertheless, tbe interpretation correctly stated that use of an amber reflex reflector with an amber lamp on the rear is permissible, providing that it does not impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting and marking equipment, but that it is nevertheless subject to State and local laws regarding vehicles in use. This is consistent with long-standing interpretations on the use of lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment other than those that Standard No. 108 requires.

ID: nht90-3.88

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Rembert Ryals

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-2-90 from R. Ryals to S. Krapzke (OCC 5063); Also attached to letter dated 9-12-79 from F. Berndt (signature by S.P. Wood) to F. Pepe (Std. 209)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff in which you asked for an interpretation of tbe requirements of Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.208 and S571.209, respectively). Specif ically, you asked whether manufacturers were required to install a lap belt at seating positions equipped with automatic belts certified as complying with the occupant protection requirements in Standard No. 208. Your letter indicated that you were part icularly interested in the requirements that applied to 1980 model year cars. The answer to your question is no.

S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating posit ions, safety belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that, those positi ons comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a safety belt at every seating position, h ave automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3, requires the manufacturer to install safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. All cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be certified as complying with Option 1.

However, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 contains an important proviso. This provides that an automatic belt system may be used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option set forth in S4.1.2 and in place of any safety belt system that would othe rwise be required by that option.

I have enclosed a copy of the December 14, 1971 rule (36 FR 23725) that added the current version of S4.5.3 to Standard No. 208.

In telephone conversations with you, Mr. Kratzke has explained that there is no requirement in the Federal safety standards that seating positions equipped with automatic belts include a lap belt either as part of the automatic belt or as a separate manu al belt. Your letter indicates that you believe that two regulatory provisions appear to require a lap belt in 1980 Volkswagens at seating positions equipped with an automatic shoulder belt and knee bolsters.

First, you suggested that Option I (S4.1.2.1) of Standard No. 208 requires automobiles to meet lateral and rollover crash protection requirements, in addition to providing automatic protection in frontal crashes. This is an erroneous reading of S4.1.2.1 (c). Manufacturers have the cboice of certifying compliance with the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements (S4.1.2.1(c)(1)) or of providing manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that the vehicle meets the protecti on requirement with a test dummy protected by both tbe safety belt and the automatic protection system (S4.1.2.1(c)(2)). When this latter option is chosen, the vehicle manufacturer could use the automatic safety belt in place of the specified manual saf ety belt, in accordance with the provisions of S4.5.3. Hence, a manufacturer could certify compliance with Option I without providing a manual lap belt at seating positions equipped with an automatic shoulder belt and knee bolsters.

It is not clear, however, that Volkswagen chose to certify that its cars complied with Option I in Standard No. 208. In a January 30, 1974 notice (39 FR 3834; copy enclosed), NHTSA indicated its understanding that the Volkswagen automatic belts were cer tified as complying with Option 2. In that notice, the agency stated that S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 "permits the use of the Volkswagen passive belt system to meet the perpendicular impact protection requirements of option two and to replace the require d seat belt assemblies." If Volkswagen certified its vehicles as complying with Option 2, the requirements of Option 1 would not be relevant.

Second, you noted that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CPR S571.209) specifies that a seat belt assembly "shall provide pelvic restraint (i.e., a lap belt) whether or not upper torso restraint is provided, ..." You suggested that t he Volkswagen belt system without a lap belt does not appear to comply with this requirement of Standard No. 209.

As Mr. Kratzke explained to you in your telephone conversation, the applicability of Standard No. 209 to crash-tested automatic belts is addressed in S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208. That provision in Standard No. 208 provides that automatic belts that are not required to meet the crash protection requirements shall conform to the webbing, attachment hardware, and assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The agency explained this provision as follows in the 1971 notice that added this langu age to Standard No. 208, "On reconsideration, the NHTSA has decided tbat relief from Standard No. 209 should be afforded if a passive belt is capable of meeting the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 in a frontal perpendicular impact and amen ds S4.5.3 accordingly." 36 FR 23725; December 14, 1971. Thus, automatic belts that are certified as complying with the occupant crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are not generally subject to the requirements of Standard No. 209.

In a September 12, 1979 letter from this office to Mr. Frank Pepe (copy enclosed), NHTSA explained that automatic belts must meet the adjustment requirements of S7.1 of Standard No. 208 and those parts of Standard No.

209 that are incorporated by reference in S7.1 of Standard No. 208. That letter also noted that automatic belts installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements are exempted from all other requirements of

Standard No. 209 by virtue of S4.5.3.4 of Standard No. 208. Since S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is not incorporated by reference in S7.1 of Standard No. 208, seating positions equipped with automatic belts that are certified as complying with the frontal crash protection requirements are not required to provide lap belts either as part of the automatic belt or as a separate manual belt.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any more questions about this issue, feel free to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-3.89

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 10, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steve Pickering -- Valley Sales Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to undated letter from S.W.A. Pickering to S.R. Kratzke (OCC 4846); Also attached to photos (graphics omitted); Also attached to Report on Test of Sofa Bar according to FMVSS No. 210, submitted by Kenneth Lauer, P.E., April 1986 (text omitted); Also attached to Test Report Number 096441-89 dated 12-15-89 (Text omitted, test results are available in the file)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking how our safety standards would affect a product you are seeking to patent. This planned product is a molded plastic insert intended to be installed on the cargo bed of pickup trucks near the cab, and consists of two rear-facing seats. Throughout the rest of this letter, I will refer to this product as a "crossbed seat." You asked this agency to comment on the extent to which this crossbed seat would comply with several safety standards . I am pleased to have this opportunity to do so.

Before addressing your specific questions, some background information might be helpful. This agency has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) establishes a process under which this agency is authorized to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Every manufacturer must then certify that each of its motor vehicles and each item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable safety standards.

Since your product would be used as a seating position in a motor vehicle while the vehicle is in motion, each occupant position on the crossbed seat would be considered a "designated seating position" within the meaning of S571.3. Thus, if your product were to be installed as an item of original equipment on a pickup before its first sale to a retail purchaser, the designated seating positions on your product would have to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You indicated in your letter that you plan to install Type 1 (lap-only) safety belts at these seating positions to comply with Standard No. 208. This would be consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 208, which permits these designated seating positions to be equipped with either Type 1 or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) safety belts.

Your letter did not indicate that you had considered Standard No. 207 in your examination of the relevant safety standards. If you have not already done so, you should consider whether the seating positions on your planned crossbed seat would comply wit h the requirements of this standard.

You also identified two standards that you had considered with respect to your crossbed seat. The first of these was Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. S6 of Standard No. 111 provides that pickup trucks may either meet the rearward visibility requirem ents applicable to passenger cars or have outside mirrors on both sides of the vehicle that provide visibility to the rear along both sides of the vehicle. These requirements would not necessarily preclude the installation of your crossbed seat in new p ickups.

The second standard you identified was Standard No. 202, Head Restraints. S4.3 of Standard No. 202 requires each "outboard front designated seating position" to be equipped with head restraints that meet the specified performance criteria. The seating p ositions on your crossbed seat are rear seating positions. Since Standard No. 202 does not require rear seating positions to be equipped with head restraints, you are free to choose whetber or not to install head restraints for your crossbed seats.

You should note that you would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment if you begin to manufacture these crossbed seats. As such, the Safety Act would make you responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if you or the a gency were to determine that this product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or fails to comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet briefly describing these responsiblities and explaining how to obtain copie s of our regulations is enclosed.

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.