ID: aiam4033

Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell: Thank you for your letter of September 12, 1985, concerning th applicability of S7.4.5 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, to manual Type 2 safety belts in passenger cars. As explained below, S7.4.5 is not currently applicable to manual Type 2 belt systems in passenger cars. However, as a result of a recent amendment to Standard No. 208, the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard will be applied to manual Type 2 belt systems in passenger cars, beginning on September 1, 1989, if the automatic restraint requirements are rescinded.; As you pointed out, S7.4(b) of Standard No. 208 requires vehicles wit gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less to meet the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard, including the requirements of S7.4.5. However, S7.4(b) specifically excludes manual Type 2 safety belts installed in the front seats of passenger cars from the comfort and convenience requirements. Thus, you are correct that a manual Type 2 safety belt installed in the front outboard seating position of a passenger car currently does not have to meet the requirements of S7.4.5.; In April of this year, the agency issued a notice of propose rulemaking (50 FR 14580) proposing that if the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 are rescinded for passenger cars, then manual Type 2 safety belt systems in those vehicles would have to meet all of the comfort and convenience requirements, including the requirement of S7.4.5, beginning on September 1, 1989. On November 6, 1985 (50 FR 46056), the agency issued a final rule adopting that requirement.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1725

>>>Re: Petition for Rulemaking - Proposed Amendment of S4.5.6, Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, As Revised, *October 31, 1970.*<<<; Dear Mr. Kintner: This is in response to the petition for rulemaking of January 1 submitted on behalf of your client, Ideal Corporation, for an amendment of S4.5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment*, 35 F.R. 16840.; It is our understanding, based upon the meeting held on February between representatives of your firm, Ideal Corporation, and NHTSA, that your client wishes to continue its established marketing practice of selling variable load flashers in the after market and of advertising these flashers as 'all purpose' flashers. We understand further that variable load flashers frequently are purchased as replacements for fixed load flashers. When a variable load flasher is installed as a replacement for an original equipment fixed load flasher, it does not provide the outage indication required by S4.5.6. Your client therefore questions whether, under these circumstances, it could properly certify compliance with Standard No. 108 when the standard becomes applicable to replacement equipment.; The amendment proposed in the petition would add the following sentenc to S4.5.6:; >>>'Variable load flashers are permitted as replacement equipment b Standard 108 for any vehicle contemplated by Paragraph S2 herein, where such devices shall operate in accordance with Tables I and III, as applicable.'<<<; In our view Standard No. 108 permits your client to continue it practice and to properly certify compliance. S2 states in pertinent part that the standard applies to 'lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies.' This means that equipment must comply with applicable requirements regardless of whether it is used as original or replacement equipment. For example, original and replacement variable load flashers must both meet the appropriate requirements of SAE Standard J590b, 'Automotive Turn Signal Flashers,' October 1965. It is not intended that a variable load flasher used as replacement for a fixed load flasher must provide the outage indication required by S4.5.6 for vehicles originally equipped with a fixed load flasher.; Although there presently is no legal prohibition on the advertising an sale of variable load flashers, we believe that your client should, in the interest of safety, either market variable load flashers only as replacements for like items or call prospective, purchasers' attention to the fact that the flashers do not provide an outage indication. While the owner of a vehicle originally equipped with a fixed load flasher should be free to balance the merits of a fixed load flasher (such as the outage indication) with those of a variable load flasher (such as the continuing flash), he should not be misled as to the characteristics of each type, including the one with which his vehicle was originally equipped.; Please advise us within 10 days of the date of this letter if you wis to pursue this petition further, otherwise we shall consider the petition withdrawn.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2660

Dear Mr. Ryan: This responds to your August 18, 1977, letter asking whether the hea protection zone requirements of Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, apply to a portion of your bus located directly above the side windows.; You enclosed a sketch which details the bus sidewall and roo structure. On that sketch, you have shaded a small area asking whether that portion of the bus constitutes part of the bus sidewall or part of the roof structure. The head protection zone requirements of the standard (S5.3.1.1) do not apply to the sidewalls of school buses.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) interpret your sketch to show the sidewall ending and the roof structure beginning at the point where the radius of curvature of the interior structure decreases sharply (see the point marked 'A' on the sketch). Since the shaded portion of your sketch falls below that point, it is considered part of the sidewall and need not comply with the head protection zone requirements.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2299

Dear Mr. Henneberger: This is in response to your March 26, 1976, letter concerning th application of S108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act), to aftermarket installations of trailer hitches.; >>>Section 108(a)(2)(A) specifies that: No manufacturer, distributer, dealer, or motor vehicle repair busines shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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...<<<; You have requested clarification of the following sentence appearing i our March 1, 1976, letter to General Motors Corporation:; >>>Therefore, aftermarket trailer hitches must also be installed i such a way that compliance with Standard No. 301-75 is preserved.<<<; A more precise characterization of the law on this subject is tha aftermarket trailer hitches must be installed in such a way that compliance with the standard is not *knowingly* compromised.; You are correct in your understanding that trailer hitch manufacturer are not required to certify that their products comply with Standard No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*. Despite the effect of S108(a)(2)(A), this standard applies only to vehicles. There is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that applies to trailer hitches. Further, there is no duty on the part of hitch manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or installers to certify that the installation of a trailer hitch on a used vehicle does not compromise the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301-75. Please note that the installation of a trailer hitch on a certified vehicle before the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale is governed by S108(a)(1)(A) of the Act and the alterer provisions in 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: 7058

Robert S. McLean, Esq.
King & Spalding
191 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30303-1763

Dear Mr. McLean:

This responds to your March 9, 1992 letter, seeking 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

ref:208#209 d:3/30/92

ID: aiam4340

Dear Mr. Tsujishita: Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of th requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your question concerning Standard No. 101, *Controls and Displays.* A response to your question concerning Standard 219 was sent to you earlier, and we expect to respond to your question concerning Standard No. 201 shortly.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; You asked whether Standard No. 101's illumination requirements apply t controls and displays not otherwise regulated by the standard. You quoted section S5.3.3's requirements for the light intensities of informational readout systems and asked whether those requirements apply to the following such items: digital clock using liquid crystals, radio employed digital frequency indicator using liquid crystals, and miscellaneous illuminations for conventional analog clock, cigar lighter, ashtray, and radio control switches, etc., which are lighted only when the headlights or parking light are activated.; I would like to note that Standard No. 101's requirements for ligh intensities were amended in a final rule published in the Federal Register (52 FR 3244) on February 3, 1987. An effective date of March 5, 1987, was adopted for most of the amendments. Subsequently, in response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA amended 49 CFR Part 571 to permit compliance with either the earlier version of the standard, reissued as Standard No. 100, or the amended standard until September 1, 1989. 52 FR 7150, March 9, 1987. I have enclosed copies of those notices for your convenience.; In answering your question, I will separately discuss the requirement for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, and vehicles manufactured before that date.; *Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989* Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, must meet th requirements of the current version of Standard No. 101. Secton S5.3.5 provides:; >>>S5.3.5 Any source of illuminating within the driver's forward fiel of view which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, must have either a variable intensity, a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or a means of being turned off. This requirements shall not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment illuminated.<<<; As noted in your letter, the items you listed are not among th controls and displays generally regulated by Standard No. 101. However, if sources of illumination for those items are within the driver's forward field of view and are capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, they must meet the requirements of section S5.3.5.; *Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989* Standard No. 100, i.e. the earlier version of Standard No. 101, applie only to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989. The application section of Standard Nos. 100 and 101 make it clear that manufacturers have the option of meeting the requirements of either standard for any control, display or illumination until September 1, 1989. Also, the application section of Standard No. 101 provides that if no requirements are specified in Standard No. 100 for a control, display, or illumination, none need be met as a result of Standard No. 101 for motor vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989.; Section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 100 provides: >>>Light intensities for controls, gauges, and their identificatio shall be continuously variable from: (a) A position at which either there is no light emitted or the light is barely discernible to a drive who has adapter to dark ambient roadway conditions to (b) a position provided illumination sufficient for the driver to identify the control or display readily under conditions of reduced visibility. Light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for nighttime conditions. *The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph.* (Emphasis added.)<<<; In considering manufacturer options under Standards No. 100 and 101 for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989, the following points should be noted:; >>>(1) Some illumination covered by the highlighted language o Standard No. 100 are not covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. An example is a control located in the rear seating area that is illuminated only when the headlights are activated. Since a manufacturer may meet the requirements of either Standard No. 100 or Standard 101 for any illumination and no requirement need be met for such illuminations.; (2) Some illuminations not covered by the highlighted language o Standard No. 100 are covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. An example is a clock, located in the driver's forward field of view, which is always illuminated as a result of utilizing light emitting diodes. No requirement need be met for such illuminations (for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989).; (3) Some illuminations covered by the highlighted language of Standar No. 100 are also covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. For these illuminations, the requirements of section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101 are more flexible. While the highlighted language of Standard No. 100 provides that such illuminations must, depending on the illumination, be either continuously variable or have at lest two values, one for day and one for night, section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101 provides three options for all such illuminations. Such illuminations must have either a variable intensity, i.e., at least two levels of intensity, as single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or a means of being turned off.<<<; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2723

Dear Mr. Henneberger: This responds to your December 1, 1977, request for agreement by th National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the installation as original or aftermarket equipment of an electric retarder on the driveline of an air- braked vehicle would not affect its compliance with Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*.; Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safet Act (15 U.S.C. S 1397(a)(1)(A)) requires, among other things, that no person manufacture or sell any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard. As your letter indicates, you are aware that this provision makes it impossible for the NHTSA to 'approve' the compliance of a vehicle configuration in advance of manufacture of the vehicle, because there can be no certainty that the vehicle as manufactured will actually comply. In this case, for example, the retarder's weight or the manner in which it is mounted would affect the actual compliance of the vehicle in which it is installed.; Jacobs' September 20, 1977, analysis evaluated the likelihood tha certain retarders to be imported or manufactured by Jacobs would affect compliance. With regard to these retarders, it appears that their installation as original equipment or in the aftermarket in the fashion described would not affect compliance of the vehicle with Standard No. 121. This finding is of necessity limited to the retarders evaluated in the September 20, 1977, analysis.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5477

"Dear Ms. Dawson: This responds to your letter of August 8, 1994 regarding the test procedure in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer can certify that a passenger seat complies with Standard No. 210 with the seat attached to a 1/2' steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. If the seat manufacturer can certify using 1/2' steel plate, your letter also asks whether the final stage school bus manufacturer must retest using a typical 14 gauge school bus floor to certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 210. By way of background information, each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, as your letter recognizes, manufacturers are not required to test their products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with all relevant standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. Section S2 of Standard No. 210 states that the standard applies to 'passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.' The standard does not apply to seats as items of equipment. Therefore, it is the vehicle manufacturer rather than the seat manufacturer that is required to certify compliance with the standard. More specifically, the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the vehicle, with the seat installed, complies with Standard No. 210. Of course, one of the bases for the vehicle manufacturer's certification may be test results and other information provided by the seat manufacturer. If the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised 'reasonable care' in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)). Standard No. 210 includes strength requirements for seat belt anchorages. The test procedure requires the specified force to be applied through body blocks at specified angles and for specified periods of time. As you state in your letter, the procedure allows the agency to replace the seat belt webbing with 'material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the seat belt assembly.' If substitute material is used, the test procedure requires the material to 'duplicate the geometry, at the initiation of the test, of the attachment of the originally installed seat belt assembly.' This provision was included to ensure that the material was strong enough to pass the load to the anchorage during the test and, therefore, that the strength of the test anchorage rather than the seat belt was tested. Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer may base its certification on a test performed with the seat attached to a 1/2' steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. This, in effect, is a request for a determination of whether a vehicle manufacturer's reliance on the fact that the seat belt anchorages did not fail when a 1/2' steel plate test fixture is used would constitute 'reasonable care' in assuring that the completed vehicle complied with the standard. This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute 'reasonable care' in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes 'reasonable care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. However, I would like to say that attachment of a seat or anchorage to stronger material (whether 1/2' steel plate or some other material) than the material used in the construction of the vehicle in which it will actually be installed would not appear to provide a manufacturer with information on whether or not the anchorage, when attached to the vehicle structure, will withstand the specified loads. You should also note that, while the exercise of 'reasonable care' may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam2065

Dear Mr. Casson: This responds to your September 23, 1975, request for confirmation tha a manufacturer of air-braked buses that conform to Standard No. 121, *Air Brake Systems*, may direct owners of these vehicles to disconnect the antilock system used to meet the standard, for the period necessary to correct a safety-related defect in the system that may make its operation hazardous. Your concern is with S 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) that states:; >>> S 1397 (2)(A) No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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 <<<; Section 108(a)(2)(A) prohibits, with one exception, the knowin disconnection of the antilock system by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. This prohibition does not prevent an owner of air- braked buses from disconnection of the antilock system. The NHTSA has determined that a manufacturer of air-braked buses that conform to Standard No. 121 may instruct the owners of its products to disconnect the antilock system used to meet the standard, for the period necessary to correct a safety-related defect in the system that may make its operation hazardous.; A manufacturer that has determined the existence of a safety- relate defect in his vehicle must, of course, comply with the Defect Report requirements of 49 CFR Part 573 and the Defect Notification requirements of 49 CFR Part 577.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3590

Dear Mr. Braden: This responds to your recent letter requesting information concernin the type of seat belts which must be used in the driver and passenger seats of a Ford van F150. Your company is apparently converting these vehicles by adding 'plush' seats and a rear sofa.; Paragraph S4.2.2 of Safety Standard No. 208, *Occupant Cras Protection*, (49 CFR Part 571) specifies that trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the same requirements of the standard that are specified for passenger cars. This would include the Ford van to which you refer. Paragraph S4.1.2.3 of the standard specifies that passenger cars must be equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly (non-detachable lap and shoulder belt) at each front outboard designated seating position. At all other seating positions, either a Type 1 belt assembly (lap belt only) or a Type 2 assembly must be used. Therefore, the vans that you are converting must have Type 2 belts in the two front seating positions and must have either Type 2 or Type 1 belts in the rear seating positions. The only exception to this requirement is that a forward control van manufactured prior to September 1, 1981, was permitted to have either Type 1 or Type 2 belts in front outboard seating positions. I gather from your letter that the vans you are converting were manufactured after that date and would not qualify under this exception.; You should also note that the sofa you are installing in the rear o the van would likely qualify as having three designated seating positions and would have to have three sets of seat belts (Type 1/lap belts). I assume the sofa has three seating positions since your letter states the van is a 7-passenger vehicle.; Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any furthe questions.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel