ID: nht67-1.28

DATE: 10/04/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 16 in which you attached a letter from your constituent, Mrs. Beverly Hoffman of San Diego. Mrs. Hoffman asked if there is any Federal or state regulation, or city ordinance, which forbids the removal or concealment of passenger seat belts in taxicabs. Mrs. Hoffman has raised an important question and one which is of vital concern to the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966: the retention of a safety equipment in a vehicle after its original purchase.

Since I expect that California law is of most interest to both Mrs. Hoffman and you, I will answer her question on the basis of the California Vehicle Code. Since January 1, 1964, Section 27309 has made it an offense to sell in California any new passenger vehicle which does not have at least two state approved restraint belts or harnesses in its front seat. Retention of the front seat belts by the vehicle owner is indirectly required by Section 40001(b) (2) which makes it unlawful for "an owner to request, cause, or permit the operation of any vehicle which is not equipped as required in this Code." (emphasis supplied) Since California has no annual motor vehicle inspection, enforcement of this law has presumably been by spot inspection. Members of the California Highway Patrol (Section 2804) and city traffic officers (Section 2806) have the authority to inspect a vehicle to determine whether its equipment is in compliance with the code.

With respect to rear seat-belts which most directly concern Mrs. Hoffman as a passenger, their installation has not been required by the Code. Such belts as she may have seen in the rear of California taxis have been provided as a courtesy of the owner rather than as a requirement of the law. But, as she directly notes, all passenger cars including taxicabs manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, must comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One of these, Standard No. 208, will require taxis to be manufactured with lap restraint belts installed in each rear seating position. But if the California legislature has not amended the Vehicle Code itself to require their installation it would appear that there is no legal reason why a cab owner may not remove rear seat belts should he wish to go to the trouble.

Under the Act, the Secretary of Transportation does not have the authority to directly regulate motor vehicles "after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." Instead, Congress intended that used vehicles be regulated by periodic state inspection. To implement this intent the Secretary has been directed to study state inspection systems and, in due course, to establish uniform standards applicable to all used motor vehicles. A hypothetical standard and one which we shall consider -- requiring the presence of original equipment safety items at time of each inspection would be sufficient to cover retention of rear seat safety belts. But the Act establishes no requirement that the states or any individual follow any used vehicle standard. For the probable enforcement mechanism of used car standards it is necessary to turn to the companion Highway Safety Act of 1966. Under this Act each state is required to have a highway safety program in accordance with standards promulgated by the Secretary. One such standard, already issued, establishes minimum requirements for periodic motor vehicle inspection. Eventually it is possible that used car standards will be suggested to the states through this motor vehicle inspection standard, but enforcement of the used car standards will be left to the states.

Concerning concealment of the belts, I am aware of no legislation, Federal, state, or municipal, which requires that a safety item not only be retained but also available for use. But I believe that sufficient authority may exist in the Highway Safety Act's mandate to the Bureau to include "vehicle operation" in the highway safety program standards to warrant our serious consideration of it.

I hope that this has answered Mrs. Hoffman's questions and I appreciate her interest in traffic safety.

ID: nht72-3.39

DATE: 03/02/72

FROM: ELWOOD DRIVER FOR ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Lindburg Cadillac

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 16, 1972, to Secretary John Volpe, concerning the length of seat belts in a 1972 Cadillac automobile.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203, Occupant Crash Protection, copy enclosed, specifies requirements for occupant restaint systems. Effective January 1, 1972, car manufacturers are required to provide Type 2 belt assemblies (lap-shoulder belts) at the front outboard seating positions and lap belts at other positions. The Type 2 belt assemblies may have either integral or detachable shoulder belts, but the distance between the intersection of the lap-shoulder belt and the vertical counterline of a 50th-percentile adult male occupant must be at least six inches when the seat is in its rearmost position. The purpose of this requirement is to reduce the possibility of the shoulder belt pulling the lap belt up onto the occupant's abdomen where it could cause serious injury in a crash.

We have examined several 1972 model cars and have found that some manufacturers have chosen belt designs that provide distances of ten inches or more between the lap-shoulder belt intersection and the centerline of the occupant. The (Illegible Word) not prohibit distances greater than six inches, but it is obvious that the greater this distance, the closer the inboard end of the belt is to the seat and the more difficult it is to buckle the belt. I am happy to inform you that we have already initiated rule making action to amend Standard No. 208 that would prohibit such excessive distances.

Under the requirements of the National Motor Vehicle and Traffic Safety Act, copy enclosed, it is a violation of the law to sell a vehicle that does not conform to an applicable standard. Although the Act does not prevent the purchaser of a vehicle from altering or removing a safety device, after he has completed the purchase, we strongly advise him against such action. A dealer who perform such services after he has sold the vehicle does not violate the law, but he does his customer a disservice.

In regard to the belts in the Cadillac you sold to Mr. and Mrs. T. Albert McCulley, we do not have the authority to grant or deny you permission to lengthen the inboard end of the belt. We can only suggest that perhaps you could lengthen the belt only to the extent that is necessary to provide a distance of not less than six inches between the interraction of the lap-shoulder belt and the centerline of a 50th-percencile adult (Illegible Word) occupant measured in accordance with paragraph s7.1.2 of Standard No. 206.

Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely, LINDBURG CADILLAC

February 16, 1972

Honorable John Volpe Secretary of Transportation U. S. Dept. of Transportation

Dear Mr. Volpe:

Recently we delivered a new 1972 Cadillac S/N6D47R2Q-194774 to Mr. and Mrs, T. Albert McCulley, 434 Sherwood Forest, Belleville, Illinois 02225 fitted with the new seat belt warning system.

The center buckle section is so short that Mr. and Mrs. McCulley experienced difficulty in fastening the outside section to the center section. We have inquired from Cadillac the possibilities of lengthening the center buckle sections approximately eight inches which would still leave the warning system in operation and would greatly facilitate the fastening, put Cadillac informs us that the installation is strictly according to federal regulations and cannot be changed.

Would you grant us permission to add eight inches to the center buckle section for this particular vehicle?

VERY TRULY YOURS,

George A. Maty Vice President and Sales Manager.

CC: MR. AND MRS. T. ALBERT MCCULLEY; SEN. STUART SYMINGTON; SEN.THOMAS EAGLETON; REP. MELVIN PRICE

ID: porschevrhs

Walter J. Lewis, Manager
Regulatory Affairs
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
980 Hammond Drive, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30328

Dear Mr. Lewis:

In your letter of September 10, 2004, you requested information concerning the proper classification of a new vehicle for purposes of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program.

Specifically, you are interested in whether the agency concurs with your opinion that "an SUV [sport utility vehicle] equipped with a driver-controllable variable ride height suspension system that may not satisfy 523.5 (a) but does satisfy the four out of five criteria of 523.5 (b) (2) when the vehicle is in the off-road ride height position" should be classified as a "light truck". Your view is that the vehicle "does not need to satisfy the four-out-of-five criteria at all suspension heights in order to be deemed capable of off-highway operation". We agree that 523.5(b)(2) does not require a vehicle to meet four of the five criteria at all ride heights; however, a vehicle must meet four out of the five criteria in at least one ride height.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not "approve" the classification of a motor vehicle. Under the statutes administered by NHTSA, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer, in the first instance, to make any necessary classifications of vehicles and to ensure that the vehicle complies with all applicable regulatory requirements. For purposes of CAFE compliance, each manufacturer must classify its vehicles consistent with the definitions contained in 49 CFR Part 523. You are interested in knowing whether a vehicle, as described above, is properly classified as a light truck for CAFE purposes. This letter provides the agency's opinion based on the facts stated above.

Section 32901(a)(16) of Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the United States Code defines the term "passenger automobile" for CAFE purposes. The term "passenger automobile" does not include "an automobile capable of off-highway operation" that the agency decides by regulation has a significant feature (except 4-wheel drive) designed for off-highway operation and "is a 4-wheel drive vehicle or is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight". In the agencys implementing regulations for vehicle classification for CAFE purposes, the definition of light truck (49 CFR Part 523.5) provides, in relevant part:

1. A light truck is an automobile other than a passenger automobile which is either designed for off-highway operation, as described in paragraph (b) of this section, . . .
2. An automobile capable of off-highway operation is an automobile
1.               
1. That has 4-wheel drive; or
2. Is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and
2. That has at least four of the following characteristics . . .
1. Approach angle of not less than 28 degrees.
2. Breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees.
3. Departure angle of not less than 20 degrees.
4. Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters.
5. Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters each.

Based on the information you have provided, we conclude that the vehicle in question may be classified as a light truck on the basis of its off-highway capabilities, provided that it either has 4-wheel drive or is rated at more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. We have determined that it is appropriate, for the limited purpose of classifying the vehicle for CAFE purposes, to measure the vehicles running clearance with the vehicles adjustable suspension placed in the position(s) intended for off-road operation under real-world conditions.

We note that this conclusion does not constitute or imply an opinion as to whether the vehicle would be classified as a passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck for purposes of the safety standards. Definitions for classification purposes under the safety standards may be found in 571.3 of 49 CFR.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:523
d.10/21/04

ID: Will_ltr

Mr. Kent Will
Project Engineer
Oshkosh Truck Corporation
2307 Oregon Street
P.O. Box 2566
Oshkosh, WI 54903-2566





Dear Mr. Will:

This is in reply to your letter asking two questions regarding the rearview mirror requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 111, Rearview mirrors.

You have stated that you have selected a mirror to be installed as an outside, rearview mirror on a truck weighing between 7,575 and 15,773 kilograms (kg). You indicate that the mirror has a radius of curvature of 2,200 millimeters and that it provides a reflective surface area of 526.6 square centimeters. You ask whether this mirror would be considered a convex mirror and, if so, whether it would be subject to the labeling and radius of curvature requirements for convex mirrors contained in Paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.3 of FMVSS No. 111.

The term "convex mirror" is defined as "a mirror having a curved reflective surface whose shape is the same as that of the exterior surface of a section of a sphere." 49 CFR 571.111 (S4. Definitions). You have described your mirror as having both a "radius of curvature" and a "reflective surface." Therefore, assuming that the shape of your mirror is spherical, it would be considered a convex mirror as defined in FMVSS No. 111. The next question to be addressed is which set of performance requirements applies to the mirror in question. The answer to that question depends on the type and weight of the vehicle receiving the mirror.

You have indicated that the mirror in question will be installed on a truck. FMVSS No. 111's performance requirements for rearview mirrors installed on trucks vary according to the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of the particular truck involved. Given that you intend to install the mirror on a truck with a GVWR between 7,575 kg and 15,773 kg, the applicable performance requirements are found in Paragraphs S7 and S8. The requirements in Paragraph S7 apply to trucks with a GVWR between 4,536 kg and 11,340 kg and the requirements in Paragraph S8 apply to trucks with a GVWR of 11,340 kg or more. Considering that the rearview mirror performance requirements in these two paragraphs are identical, though, it is not necessary for the purposes of this interpretation to differentiate between trucks with a GVWR between 7,575 kg and 11,340 kg and those with a GVWR between 11,340 kg and 15,773 kg.

Both paragraphs require trucks to "have outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 323 [square centimeters] of reflective surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle." Both paragraphs also indicate that the mirrors must "be located to provide the driver a view to the rear along both sides of the vehicle and [must] be adjustable both in the horizontal and vertical directions to view the rearward scene." 49 CFR 571.111.

A "unit magnification mirror" is defined, in relevant part, as a "plane or flat mirror with a reflective surface through which the angular height and width of the image of an object is equal to the angular height and width of the object when viewed directly at the same distance." 49 CFR 571.111 (S4. Definitions.) Considering that your mirror appears to be a convex mirror, it would not be not flat enough to qualify as a mirror of unit magnification. Accordingly, installing such a mirror as an outside, rearview mirror on a truck with a GVWR between 7,575 kg and 15,773 kg would fail to satisfy the requirements of S7/S8 unless it was a supplemental mirror, installed in addition to a complying mirror.

I note that, in your letter, you ask about the labeling and radius of curvature requirements for convex mirrors found in paragraphs S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. These requirements are only relevant to passenger cars and trucks with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less. If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this Office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:111
d.8/22/01

ID: bright.d3

Mr. C. B. Bright
C.B. Bright Leasing
Route 1, Box 1
Ashland, MS 38603

Dear Mr. Bright:

On August 11, 1997, you requested blanket permission to deactivate the passenger-side air bag on vehicles that you modify for rural postal carriers and driver's education instructors. You currently modify vehicles for your clients by affixing a dual-control steering system to the right dashboard and are concerned that a deploying air bag could cause serious injury by displacing the dual control. This letter responds to your request.

Air bags are installed in cars and light trucks in conformity with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, which requires automatic protection for front seat occupants. Federal law prohibits motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperable components installed to comply with motor vehicle safety standards. 49 U.S.C. section 30122. A "motor vehicle repair business" is defined under the statute as a person holding itself out to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA interprets the term "motor vehicle repair business" to include mechanics, technicians, or any other individuals or commercial entities that add, remove, replace or make modifications to motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment for compensation. NHTSA's interpretation is not dependent upon whether the vehicle or component was previously "broken" or needed to be "repaired". Rather, its interpretation is based upon the commercial relationship between the vehicle owner and the individual or company performing the work on the vehicle or component.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently issued a final rule that will allow for the installation of air bag on-off switches under limited circumstances. The on-off switch does not appear to be a reasonable option for your customers since the dual-control steering system is permanently mounted to the dashboard and would always interfere with safe air bag deployment. Accordingly, your clients would need to have the passenger-side air bag permanently deactivated if they are to use a dual control.

We have spoken to the United States Postal Service regarding the use of dual controls in personal vehicles by individuals contracted to serve as rural carriers. The Postal Service agrees that the use of dual controls is preferable, from a safety standpoint, to the most likely alternative, carriers straddling the seat in order to drive while delivering mail from the right side of the vehicle. The Postal Service's preference is that rural carriers purchase vehicles with a right-side steering control directly from vehicle manufacturers, but it acknowledges that cost constraints would often prevent this. Given the Postal Service's position, NHTSA has determined that the need to have dual controls in order to deliver mail as a rural carrier justifies the deactivation of the passenger-side air bag.

In your letter, you indicated that you could add an "approved right side air bag in the right side steering wheel which will add at least $750.00 to the cost of dual controls." NHTSA has expressed concerns in the past about possible safety implications of after-market produced air bags, and cannot comment on the safety of any aftermarket air bag. This is because air bags are specifically designed for a particular vehicle design. Accordingly, the agency will not require you to install an air bag in the right-side steering wheel as a condition for deactivation of the passenger-side air bag.

Driver's education vehicles can be, and often are, only supplied with a brake pedal on the passenger-side of the vehicle. There is no need for a dual control steering system to be installed. Accordingly, deactivation requests will not be granted for this purpose.

Please have your rural carrier clients send a request for passenger-side air bag deactivation to this office. The request should state the need for deactivation. Once we have received the request, we will return an authorization letter to your client, who should bring it to you. This letter will indicate that no Federal enforcement action will be taken against you for making a vehicle safety system inoperable. Please be aware that this letter will not release you from any obligations under state law. Accordingly, you should check with your state department of motor vehicles before commencing work on the air bag system.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.3/23/98

ID: 0705r

Mr. Jeffrey D. Shetler
Manager of Government Relations
Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A.
P.O. Box 25252
Santa Ana, CA 92718-2016

Dear Mr. Shetler:

This responds to your letter of February 2, 1995, asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 108 and 123 permit a motorcycle turn signal pilot indicator to be green.

You have noted that, under Table III of Standard No. 108, SAE J588 NOV84 is the appropriate standard that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has incorporated by reference for motorcycle turn signal lamps. You have further noted that the SAE standard specifies requirements for turn signal pilot indicators if the front turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Finally, paragraph 5.4.3.3 of SAE J588 specifies that the indicator, if located on the outside of the vehicle, should emit a yellow-colored light. On the other hand, Standard No. 123, which specifies requirements for turn signal lamp identification, does not specify a color for turn signal pilot indicators.

You believe that SAE J588 was written with passenger cars in mind and that its color and area requirements are specified because the location of an outside indicator lamp is further away than a lamp located inside the vehicle on the instrument panel. You also believe that Standard No. 123 does not need to address distance from the driver's eye because the turn signal lamp will always be within a reasonable distance from the driver's eye. Thus, you have concluded that any pilot lamp color would be acceptable.

We have reviewed specifications of both the SAE and Standard No. 123. SAE J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 MM in Overall Width is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, and, under Table III, is the standard specified for motorcycle turn signal lamps. Because paragraph S5.1.1 of Standard No. 108 does not contain a section modifying the applicability of J588 to motorcycles, all the requirements of J588 apply to motorcycles, including

turn signal pilot indicators and their color. All that Standard No. 123 does, through Table III, is to specify the shape of the turn signal indicator. It is silent as to the color of the indicator.

We believe that you are correct in your conclusion that J588 was not written with motorcycles in mind, at least for two-wheeled motorcycles such as Kawasaki makes. Two colors are prescribed by SAE J588, the choice of which depends on the location of the indicator. Under paragraph 5.4.3.2, a green-colored light "with a minimum area of 18 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicator is located inside the vehicle." Under 5.4.3.3 a yellow-colored light with "a minimum projected illuminated area of 60 sq. mm." must be used "if the illuminated indicators are located on the outside of the vehicle, for example on the front fenders." Since two-wheeled motorcycles do not have enclosed cabins, all references to "inside" and "outside" the vehicle are inapposite.

Since you brought this matter to our attention, we have conducted an informal survey of the color of turn signal indicators on motorcycles sold in the United States. We find that the predominant color is amber, though Harley-Davidson, accounting for 12% of the market, uses green. We view the use of either color as in accord with J588. Therefore, if Kawasaki wishes to change its indicator color from amber to green, it will not violate Standard No. 108 by doing so.

As J588's color specifications are coupled with those for the minimum illuminated area of the display, and you have not raised the question of an appropriate size for a green turn signal indicator, we call your attention to paragraph S5.2.2 of Standard No. 123 which requires that the display for turn signal lamps and other equipment "be visible to a seated operator under daylight conditions."

If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson of this office will be glad to answer them for you (202- 366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/3/95

ID: 10839

Mr. C. Rufus Pennington, III
Margol & Pennington, P.A.
Suite 1702 American Heritage Tower
76 South Laura Street
Jacksonville, FL 32202

Dear Mr. Pennington:

This responds to your letter concerning the rear seats of a 1979 Porsche 911 SC, which were not equipped with any type of seat belt. You asked two questions relating to whether these seats should have been equipped with seat belts. Your questions are addressed below.

1. Did the manufacturer's designation of "two front" passenger seats eliminate any obligation on the part of the manufacturer to provide seat belts in the rear seats under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208?

As explained below, a manufacturer's designation that a vehicle has two front seats does not eliminate the obligation to provide seat belts at rear seats, if those positions are "designated seating positions."

By way of background information, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), which specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Standard No. 208 required passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1973 and before September 1, 1986, to have either a Type 1 (lap) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) seat belt assembly at each rear "designated seating position."

The term "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1980, the term "designated seating position" was defined as:

any plan view location intended by the manufacturer to provide seating accommodation while the vehicle is in

motion, for a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female, except auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

In a May 22, 1978, notification to vehicle manufacturers, the agency stated that manufacturers are responsible for determining the number of seating positions that are in the vehicle. The agency also stated:

This does not mean, however, that the manufacturer's designation will be accepted by the agency if there are additional, obvious seating positions that are likely to be used by occupants while the vehicle is in motion. The agency unquestionably intends to require protection for all vehicle occupants.

Thus, a manufacturer's specification that a vehicle has two front seats did not eliminate Standard No. 208's requirement for a seat belt assembly at each rear seat, if those locations met the above definition.

2. Did the Porsche 911 SC comply with, or did it violate, the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208?

NHTSA cannot make a determination as to whether a vehicle complied with applicable safety standards outside a compliance proceeding. However, I can advise you of the factors the agency would look at to determine if the rear locations are designated seating positions. If those locations are designated seating positions, they should have been equipped with a seat belt assembly when originally manufactured.

The May 22, 1978, notice provides a good summary of the agency's position. That notice states:

the agency will consider any position ... capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female to be a "designated seating position", if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the manufacturer knows the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion.

I note that the hip breadth of a sitting fifth percentile female is approximately 13 inches, and the sitting height is approximately 31 inches. These are the measurements NHTSA would consider in determining whether a position is capable of accommodating a fifth percentile female.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:571#208 d:6/6/95 The definition was amended effective September 1, 1980. Copies of the September 28, 1978 notice of proposed rulemaking and April 19, 1979 final rule are enclosed. 43 FR 21893. A copy of this notice is enclosed. While that notice was focused on front seats, the rationale would apply to any seat.

ID: 1933y

Mr. Robert W. Kahle
4111 Blood Road
Metamora, MI 48455

Dear Mr. Kahle:

This responds to your letters to Mr. Jettner of our Office of Vehicle Safety Standards asking about the application of Federal safety standards to your manufacture of an "aftermarket" head restraint for light trucks. Your letters have been referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in responding.

You ask whether you need this agency's approval of your product. The answer is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraints sold as an item of "aftermarket" equipment for pickup trucks.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

A commercial business that installs your head restraint would be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed). Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108.

However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

You ask for a copy of an "order" requiring head restraints on new pick-up trucks in 1991. Please note that NHTSA has thus far only proposed to require head restraints in new light trucks and vans (10,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight rating), and has proposed a September 1, 1991 effective date for the requirement, if the proposed rule is adopted. I have enclosed a copy of the proposal for your information. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding shortly.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures /ref:VSA#202#302 d:8/7/89

ID: 12975-1.pja

Dana Schuman
1443 Revelation Road
Meadowbrook, PA 19046

e-mail: CloonCraze@aol.com

Via e-mail and mail

Dear Dana Schuman:

This responds to your October 27, 1996 e-mail to President Clinton enquiring about where you could get information about writing a bill to require seat belts on school buses. Your inquiry was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) because this agency is authorized to develop motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses.

Before referring you to sources of information on school bus seat belt legislation, I will briefly review this agency's existing belt installation requirements for school buses and the rationale behind them. Small school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating under 10,000 pounds, must be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions. For larger school buses, our requirements only specify that a safety belt must be installed for the bus driver. Note that NHTSA regulates only belt installation. Belt use regulation is left to the States.

We have not required large school buses to have safety belts for passengers because we have not found sufficient justification for such a requirement, given that these buses have excellent safety records. This safety record arises in part from the fact that, in crashes with other vehicles, buses tend to be substantially heavier than the other vehicle. As a result, the crash forces experienced by bus occupants tend to be less than those experienced by car occupants. Also, because of the elevated seating positions in large buses, bus occupants sit above the area typically damaged in a collision with another vehicle. Since the size and weight of small school buses are closer to those of passenger cars and trucks, the agency believes seat belts in those vehicles are necessary to provide occupant protection.

Larger school buses have a protection system so that children are protected without the need to buckle-up. Our regulations require large school buses to use a concept called "compartmentalization," which protects occupants by a protective envelope consisting of strong, closely-spaced seats that have energy-absorbing seat backs. The effectiveness of compartmentalization has been confirmed in studies by the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

Although large school buses are not required by Federal law to have passenger safety belts, NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions from requiring safety belts on their own large buses. If you are considering drafting such legislation, we urge you to include provisions designed to promote proper belt use. The NAS report states that if seat belts are to be beneficial, "states and local school districts that require seat belts on school buses must ensure not only that all school bus passengers wear the belts, but that they wear them correctly."

Since no Federal legislation requiring seat belts on school buses has been introduced, the best sources of information are in the two States that have such requirements, New York and New Jersey. We suggest you contact one of the following people:

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d:12/4/96

ID: 15521.drn

Mr. Gerald Plante
Manager, Compliance & Technical Liaison
Saab Cars USA, Inc.
4405 - A International Blvd.
Norcross, GA 30093

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your request for an interpretation whether, in a vehicle identification number (VIN), the third position in the fourth section (the twelfth position overall) can be designated with an alphabetical letter, rather than a number. As provided below, the answer is yes.

NHTSA's VIN regulations are at 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number Requirements. Section 565.6, Content requirements, states that the VIN consists of four sections of characters and describes each section. Section 565.6(d)(3) states that: "The third through the eighth characters of the fourth section [i.e., the twelfth through the seventeenth positions of the VIN] shall represent the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process if the manufacturer produces 500 or more vehicles of its type annually." (Emphasis added.)

You state that Saab wishes to use an alphabetical letter in the twelfth position of the VIN to "denote the introduction of significant running changes" during a model year. As an example, if a significant running change is made in production beginning with the 25,001 produced vehicle, VIN positions twelve through seventeen would go from A25000 to B25001. Your letter states that positions thirteen through seventeen would remain as sequential serial numbers.

In a telephone conversation with George Entwistle and Dorothy Nakama of this agency, you explained that Saab manufactures fewer than 100,000 worldwide of any Saab model in any model year, and does not use the twelfth position for numbering its vehicles. You also stated that Saab does not wish to use a number in the twelfth position because those unfamiliar with the Saab VIN numbering system may look at the twelfth position and get the mistaken impression that 100,000 or 200,000 of a particular model have been manufactured.

For the following reasons, Saab may use the twelfth VIN position to designate significant running changes made in vehicle production during a model year. The views offered in this interpretation letter are limited to the twelfth VIN position. This letter is also limited to situations where fewer than 100,000 vehicles are manufactured for the U.S. market in a model year.

In a VIN, the twelfth through seventeenth positions (a total of six positions) are available so that manufacturers can number the production sequence of a particular vehicle model in the hundreds of thousands. Because Saab produces fewer than 100,000 of each of its models, the twelfth position presumably has an "0" occupying it. We do not believe there would be ambiguity about or misunderstanding of the meaning of the twelfth position if we permitted use of an alphabetical letter, instead of the 0. The twelfth through the seventeenth positions would "represent" the number sequentially assigned by the manufacturer in the production process, as required by 565.6(d)(3).

In allowing your use of a letter in the twelfth position for production of fewer than 100,000 vehicles, we considered that the purpose of the VIN is "to simplify vehicle identification information retrieval and to increase the accuracy and efficiency of vehicle recall campaigns." (49 CFR 565.1) Identifying significant running changes during the course of a model year could increase the accuracy and efficiency of recall campaigns by limiting the affected vehicles to those manufactured during a specified running change, rather than affecting the entire production run of a model during a model year.

If Saab uses the twelfth VIN position to designate running changes with alphabetical letters, it must comply with the following. Section 565.7(c) requires that manufacturers shall submit to NHTSA the information necessary to decipher the characters contained in its VINs. Amendments to the information shall be submitted to the agency for VINs containing an amended coding. Section 565.7(d) specifies that the information required under paragraph (c) shall be submitted at least 60 days prior to offering for sale the first vehicle identified by a VIN containing that information. Thus, you must inform NHTSA at least 60 days before the offer for sale of the first vehicle with a VIN containing a letter in the twelfth position. Also, Saab must ensure that the letters assigned in the twelfth position are sequentially assigned and are the letters specified in Section 565.4(g). Saab need not notify this agency every time a letter in the twelfth position is changed.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:565
d.8/4/97