ID: nht95-2.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 9, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Science Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/19/95 LETTER FROM LANCE TUNICK TO MARY VERSAILLES (OCC 1085)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your FAX of April 19, 1995, requesting clarification of an April 3, 1995, letter from this office. You asked for verification that the "seat belt anchorages in the following scenario are exempt from the location requirement of Standard No. 210:

A vehicle with 2 front seating positions that is fitted with an air bag and manual three-point seat belt at each position, and such restraint meets the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 with the air bags alone and with the belts and air bags together, but the belts alone are not crash tested under FMVSS 208."

Your understanding is correct.

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.

ID: nht73-3.38

DATE: 03/05/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 26, 1973, in which you asked a question concerning the relationship of the seat belt interlock and warning system required by Standard No. 208.

You asked whether the informative warning system, required by S7.3.5.4 to operate when the driver turned the ignition to "start" position and "the operation of the seatbelt systems required by S7.4.1 to start the engine has not been performed", is required to operate when the driver turn the ignition to start under the "free start" provisions of S7.4.3.

The answer is no. The "start" warning of S7.3.5.4 is only required to operate when a seatbelt operation "required to start the engine" has not been performed. When the engine is free to start under S7.4.3, the warning is not required. Of course, if the driver puts the vehicle in gear, the warning must sound under the provisions of S7.3.1 if the required seatbelt operations have not been performed.

ID: nht88-4.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/25/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KAREN WHITEHEAD

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 5-9-88, TO NHTSA, FROM KAREN WHITEHEAD, OCC2019

TEXT: This is in response to your letter in which you sought information about Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @ 571.213; copy enclosed). You provided a diagram of your back and head rest attachment which would a ccompany a child's car toddler seat. You noted that your device will allow a child's head and shoulders to be supported in an up-right position and that the back rest is anchored by slipping the motor vehicle's seat belt through elastic loops by the bac k rest and around the toddler seat. I apologize for the delay in my response.

You should be aware that your device would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, and you would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The safety Act specifies that all of our standards applicable to items of motor vehicle equipment, including Standard No. 213, apply to the child restraint system before its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. The general rule is that aftermarket accessories, s uch as your back and head rest, may be added to a child restraint system after its first sale.

This general rule is, however, limited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any devi se 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 should be aware that some elements of design incorporated in child restraint systems in compliance with Standard No. 213 might be affected by adding your headrest. For example, under section S5.7, all child restraints are required to incorporate the flammability resistance requirements under standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your letter indicates that you are aware of these requirements and that your product would be in compliance with these requirements. Also, child restraint s recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds

must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of Standard No. 213. That paragraph requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. If the installation of your back and head rest by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business would impair features provided in compliance with these or any other provision in the standard, then these entities would be rendering inoperative a Federally required element of design in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of t he Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108. Each child restraint on which a Federally required element of design was rendered inoperative would be considered a seperate violation of section 108.

Since an owner of a child restraint is not among the parties listed in section 108(a)(2)(A), he or she is not required to avoid rendering inoperative elements of design specified in the safety standards. Nevertheless, this agency urges you to voluntaril y ensure that your back and head restraint would not render any such elements inoperative.

You should also be aware that as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act, you would be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act, concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor ve hicle safety. If you as manufacturer or the agency determined that your product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify all purchasers of the defect and either:

1. repair the visor so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the visor with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

Whichever of these options was chosen, you as the manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the notification and remedy. Therefore, you could not charge owners of the back and head restraint for remedy if the device were first purchased less t han eight years before the notification campaign.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

ID: aiam4525

"Dear Mr. Tokunaga: This letter responds to your inquiry in which yo ask a number of questions concerning Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 124, Accelerator Control Systems. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you describe a new accelerator control system that operates through electrical rather than mechanical signals. You state that the moving components of this system are the accelerator pedal, stepping motor arm, linkage, and the throttle lever. When a driver depresses the accelerator pedal, a pedal sensor converts the displacement into a proportional electric signal. The signal goes through a control unit to a position switch, and then to a stepping motor. This stepping motor works to move the motor's arm and linkage, and they in turn work the throttle lever. Therefore, you say, the engine speed is controlled in proportion to the amount of accelerator pedal displacement. You further inform us that Isuzu already has distributed vehicles equipped with this system in Japan, and that the company would like to market this kind of vehicle in the United States. You present three questions and a diagram of the system components, and request an agency response. First, please be aware that in issuing this interpretation, NHTSA is neither approving, certifying, nor endorsing your new accelerator control system. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. However, based on the information you supplied in your letter, I have the following responses. Question I: In this vehicle, Isuzu considers the battery that drives the stepping motor to be one of the energy sources under S5.1, and the return springs (accelerator pedal and throttle lever return springs) the other sources. Is this interpretation correct? We do not have enough information to state whether the battery that drives the stepping motor, or the return springs would be considered energy sources under S5.1. Section S5.1 of Standard 124 requires, among other things, that there be a minimum of two energy sources capable of returning the throttle to idle whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force, or if there is a single severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. With respect to the battery, if all system elements are operating properly, then it would appear that removing the actuating force will cause the electrical circuit from accelerator pedal sensor to stepping motor to return the throttle to idle. On the other hand, if there is a failure caused by a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system between the pedal and the stepping motor, it is not clear to me whether the stepping motor will return to zero, and bring the throttle springs back to idle, or lock the arm and linkage in an 'open-throttle' position. Similarly, it is not clear to me that the accelerator pedal and throttle return springs are capable of returning the throttle to idle in the event of a failure caused by an ACS severance or disconnection. (While you include the throttle lever in your description of the accelerator control system, the agency considers it as part of the fuel metering device. However, as NHTSA explained in the preamble to 124, an energy source under the Standard may be attached to the fuel metering device. 37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972. ) Ordinarily, the agency would have no difficulty in finding that either of the throttle return springs is an energy source capable of returning the throttle to idle. But I cannot tell from your description and diagram whether a severance or disconnection in the electrical system would cause the throttle to lock in a position other than idle. I would make the same observation with respect to the accelerator pedal. I can not tell from the information you supplied what impact a severance or disconnection failure would have on the pedal. For example, it is not apparent whether some element in the electrical system senses a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system, so that a sensor transmits a signal to the appropriate energy sources that the throttle should return to idle. If the pedal and return springs can operate mechanically and in concert to return the throttle to idle in the event of a failure in the accelerator control system caused by a severance or disconnection, then together they may be an energy source under the Standard. Question 2a: Is a severance in electric wires in this system a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2? Isuzu considers negative because electric wires are not a moving part. A severance or disconnection of the electric wires in this system would be a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2 of Standard 124. Section S4.1 of Standard 124 defines a 'driver-operated accelerator control system' as 'all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force.' You stated in your letter that, in this new system, when the driver depresses the accelerator pedal, the mechanical displacement is converted into electrical signals. These electrical signals are transmitted by wires to a control unit that regulates engine speed in direct response to pressure on the accelerator pedal, again by means of wires that connect the control unit's electrical signal to the appropriate components. Thus, the control unit, all of the components to which it is connected, and the wires that make those connections are 'vehicle components ... that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force.' Under S4.1, then, the control unit, the components to which it is connected, and the wires that make the connection are components of the driver-operated accelerator control system. Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires that the throttle return to idle 'from any accelerator position or any speed...whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point.' Please note that this language does not limit the requirement to disconnections or severances of components that are moving parts. Thus, all severances or disconnections of any component of the accelerator control system are within the ambit of the standard. In this case, since the wires are a component of the accelerator control system, the throttle must return to idle whenever a wire is disconnected or severed. Question 2b: If a severance in electric wires were a severance or disconnection under S5.2, what about a short-circuiting that may result from such a severance? Does the Standard require that the throttle returns to the idle position even in such a condition? Yes. Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires the throttle to return to the idle position whenever any component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point, regardless of the other consequences of the disconnection or severance. In the case of this system, this language requires the throttle to return to idle when any wire is severed, even if the severance results in a short circuit. Question 2c: Our understanding is that a failure (other than severance or disconnection) of a system component itself (i.e. a failure in the accelerator pedal sensor with pedal position switches, control unit, throttle valve position switch, or stepping motor) is not subject to the throttle return requirement under the Standard. Is this correct? Your understanding is partially correct. Standard 124 addresses those circumstances where (1) the driver removes the opposing actuating force, and (2) a severance or disconnection in the ACS causes a failure. Therefore, you are correct that Standard 124 addresses only those failures resulting from a severance or disconnection within the system. However, for electrical systems, shorted or open circuits are the consequence of a change in one or more of the electrical components in the system. The agency would consider such a change a disconnection or severance in the context of this Standard. Question 3: It is our interpretation that the battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit are not a part of the accelerator control system under this definition. (That is, the definition of 'driver-operated accelerator control system.') Is this interpretation correct? No, your interpretation is incorrect. We have set out the definition of 'driver-operated accelerator control system' in section S4.1 above, in response to your Question 2a. With respect to your electrical accelerator control system, the electrical impulse that travels between the vehicle battery and the control unit is a direct consequence of the driver's applying an actuating force to the accelerator pedal. Given this aspect of your system's design, both the vehicle battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit fall within the definition of 'driver-operated accelerator control system.' I hope you find this information helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam4086

Dear Ms. Fiedler: Thank you for your letter enclosing corresponence (sic) from you constituent, Mr. William Griffiths of Newbury Park, who asked several questions about our regulations for safety belts on passenger motor vehicles, buses and school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply.; Your constituent asked why safety belt designs vary between differen seating positions and among different types of motor vehicles. He observes that some vehicles have a combination of pelvic and upper torso restraints ('lap and shoulder belts') in the front seats, while providing only lap belts for the rear seats. He further notes that safety belts are not required for passengers in buses and school buses. Apparently Mr. Griffiths believes that shoulder belts are uncomfortable and feels that they should not be installed in the front seats of passenger motor vehicles.; I am pleased to have this opportunity to clarify our requirements fo your constituent. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards for all new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, establishes performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. Under FMVSS No. 208, motor vehicle manufacturers must provide lap and shoulder belts for front outboard passenger positions in order to comply with the standard. Since persons in the front seating positions of an automobile should be protected from rigid structures forward of those positions, such as the windshield pillars, we believe that an upper torso restraint of some kind is necessary. Our requirements differ for the rear seating positions, where only a lap belt need be provided, because the area forward of those positions does not contain the relatively hard surfaces found in the areas surrounding the front seats.; As Mr. Griffiths has noted, our safety standards for buses and schoo buses do not require safety belts for passengers. NHTSA does not require safety belts for transit-type buses because the crash forces experienced by those vehicles are less severe than those of lighter vehicles in similar collisions. Also, the safety record for transit buses is good. Accordingly, we believe that revising our requirements for their seating systems would not reduce injuries substantially. Safety belts are not required for passengers in large school buses because those vehicles are required to provide high levels of occupant crash protection through a concept called 'compartmentalization.' Compartmentalization requires that the interior of large school buses be constructed so that children are protected without the need to use safety belts. The seating improvements include higher and stronger seat backs, additional seat padding, and improved seat spacing and performance.; Your constituent might be interested to know that we have addressed hi concern regarding the discomfort some passengers experience with safety belts equipped with shoulder restraints. We have taken steps to improve the comfort and convenience of safety belt systems by a recent amendment to our safety standards. A copy of the amendment is enclosed.; I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contac my office if you have further questions.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: George L. Simonton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 28, 1985 George L. Simonton, Esq. Simonton & Simonton 1092 Sheridan Avenue Cody, Wyoming 82414-3594 Dear Mr. Simonton: Thank you for your letter on behalf of the Park County School District #6. You asked whether the school district could obtain an exemption from this agency in order to operate the used American Eagle bus that it purchased to transport school children to extracurricular activities. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. We are familiar with the issues facing the Park County School District. Mr. B. Bruce Bennion, the Assistant Superintendent of Schools, asked Senator Alan Simpson to look into he matter, and Senator Simpson wrote to us on December 5, 1984. We have informed Senator Simpson that there is nothing under Federal law which would prohibit the school district from operating the used bus that they purchased. Since Park County is not prohibited from operating its used school bus, your request for an exemption from the Federal regulations is unnecessary. Secretary Dole has also recently written Senators Simpson and Wallop and Representative Cheney clarifying the Department's regulations pertaining to the use by school districts of commercial-type buses as activity buses. A copy of the Secretary's letter is enclosed. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss with you NHTSA's regulations on school buses. To begin, there are two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that could affect a school district's choice of school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563; 15 U.S.C. 1381-1426) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects on school bus safety, including emergency exits, seating systems, and windows and windshields. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured after that date. If Park County bought a new bus for use as an activity bus, the manufacturer and dealer had to certify that the bus complied with the motor vehicle safety standards applicable to school buses. An American Eagle type bus is not manufactured to comply with these standards, and could therefore not be sold for use as a new school bus. Since Park County bought a used bus, however, the Vehicle Safety Act standards do not apply. There is nothing under that Act to prevent the school district from buying a used American Eagle bus for school use. There might, however, be an impediment under State law, if Wyoming has adopted the provisions of the standard on school transportation issued by our agency under the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564; 23 U.S.C. 401-408). This standard, Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), specifies that a bus used to transport more than 16 pupils to and from school should be painted yellow, be equipped with special mirrors and warning lights, and be marked "School Bus." We have ruled that the States should apply these specifications to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation. We have also issued instructions under HSPS 17 that any bus manufactured after April 1, 1977, the effective date of the motor vehicle safety standards on school buses, should comply with those standards. I want to stress that HSPS 17 has no direct effect on the purchase of used buses by local school districts. HSPS 17 will affect Park County only if Wyoming has adopted it and if Wyoming accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. If Wyoming chooses to exempt activity buses from being painted, signed, and equipped as school buses, we might disagree with the wisdom of its decision but we would no insist on compliance with HSPS 17 to the extent of taking action against the State. Congress has given us the discretion under the Highway Safety Act not to insist that a State comply with every requirement of the highway safety standards. While we have stressed the importance of a strong pupil transportation program, consistent with HSPS 17, we have not insisted that the States comply with every feature of the standard. Having said this, I will conclude by restating the importance that our agency attaches to the use of safe buses to transport children. It remains the agency's position that a yellow school bus meeting the motor vehicle safety standards is the safest means of transportation for school children. It may not be the most comfortable for long trips, since it lacks the reclining seats and restroom facilities of the inter-city buses, but it has safety features that the inter-city buses lack, such as seat backs designed to cushion impacts, windows that prevent ejections, and exits that facilitate escape after crashes. In the years since buses began to be manufactured with these features, there has been a marked improvement in school bus safety. We urge schools and school districts to consider these features when they decide to buy a used school bus. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Diane K. Steed Diane K. Steed Enclosure

ID: nht74-3.15

DATE: 02/27/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Excel Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 14, 1974, inquiring whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release" (49 CFR 571.217), prohibits the use of sliding windows as emergency exits in buses. You refer to language in S5.3.1 and S5.4 of the standard which refers specifically to the use of push-out windows as emergency exits.

Standard No. 217 is not intended to prohibit the use of sliding windows as bus emergency exits, but such windows must comply with all of the standard's requirements for emergency exits.

Yours truly,

January 14, 1974

Lawrence Schneider

NHTSA

Excel Industries has, in the past few years, been in the production of a sliding window that is used in multi-purpose vehicles, motor homes, trailers, and other related recreational vehicles. With the energy crisis, some of our customers are attempting to convert these motor homes into people carriers, limousines, airport buses, ski lodge transportation, etc.

Under amendments to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of 393.61 and amendments to 393.63 of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations as published in the Federal Register on June 10, 1972, "On a bus manufactured on and after September 1, 1973, having a seating capacity of more than 10 persons, each push-out window shall conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Part 571 of this title."

Furthermore, under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, paragraph S5.2.1, it states that unobstructed opening requirements are to be provided which conform to S5.3 through S5.5 for vehicles with a GVWR of greater than 10,000 lb. Paragraph S5.2.2 states the unobstructed openings for buses with a GVWR of less than 10,000 lb. Under subparagraph (b) of this paragraph, it merely states, "Windows that can be opened manually to a position that provides an opening large enough to admit. . . ." etc. In reviewing these standards, we feel that our windows would definitely conform to the buses defined in S5.2.2 and, by meeting the window retention requirements in S5.1 and the emergency release requirements in S5.3, our window would conform to the definition of an emergency exit for buses defined in S5.2 except for the wording on push-out windows or other emergency exits, Paragraph S5.3.1 and S5.3.2, "The release mechanism or mechanisms shall require for release. . . . . of the initial push-out motion of the emergency exit (outward and perpendicular to the exit surface.)" In re-reading these specs, many references are made to windows as being push-out windows. However, in discussing this with Mr. Frank Bergsman of your Standards Office (ph. 202-426-2807), he feels that, if our sliding window can be opened to permit the 20x13 ellipsoid to pass through it, our window could conform as an emergency exit in both paragraphs; i.e., S5.2 for over 10,000 lb. buses and S5.2.2 for buses of 10,000 lb. or less.

Mr. Bergeman has said he has discussed this spec with you, and we would like a written reply on this interpretation as soon as possible.

S. A. Spretnjak

Chief Design Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

EXCEL INDUSTRIES

PARADE OF NEW PRODUCTS

FOR THE MOBILE HOME AND R.V. INDUSTRY

ROUND CORNERED BAGGAGE DOOR

SQUARE CORNERED BAGGAGE DOOR

MOTOR HOME SEAT PEDESTAL

ROUND CORNERED SLIDING WINDOW

VAN SCREENS

MOBILE & MODULAR SINGLE HUNG WINDOW

CAMPER TAILGATE SPRING LIFT ASSIST

ID: aiam5064

"Dear Mr. Thurman: This responds to your letter of October 1, 199 requesting information on whether certain modifications can be made to a van to make room for a wheelchair to enter the vehicle. You explained that you currently own a 1983 Ford van with a lift. The passenger seats behind the front seats were moved back in your 1983 van to make room for the wheelchair lift. You are currently trying to purchase a new Ford van with the same modifications but have been told that federal law no longer permits moving seats or safety belts. As explained below, there is no federal requirement that expressly prohibits moving seats or safety belts, provided that the relocated seats and belts continue to comply with the applicable safety standards. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, if a vehicle were originally manufactured in the manner you have described, the manufacturer would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. If some party were to modify a vehicle along the lines described in your letter before the vehicle's first sale to a consumer like yourself, that party would be required to leave the original manufacturer's certification in place and add its own certification that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. Moving the rear seats and the seat belts for those seats could affect compliance with four safety standards: 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. Standard No. 207 establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. Based upon the information in your letter, it appears that the vehicle you wish to have modified would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) for purposes of NHTSA's regulations. Standard No. 208 requires an MPV to have a lap/shoulder belt at every rear outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other rear seating position. Standard No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. Standard No. 210 establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business that modifies a van for you along the lines described in your letter after you have purchased the van would be subject to the requirement of the Safety Act (at 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) that: No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Since the rear seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design installed in the van in compliance with applicable safety standards, this section prohibits any of the named commercial entities from making any modification or repair to the rear seats and/or their accompanying safety belts if such modification or repair would cause the vehicle no longer to comply with an applicable safety standard. As you can see, there is nothing in Federal law that prohibits persons from moving rear seats and their accompanying safety belts. Instead, Federal law requires that modifications to a van that include moving the rear seats and the safety belts be done in such a way that the repositioned seats and safety belts continue to provide the safety protection mandated by the safety standards. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information on this matter, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht94-4.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Honorable Thomas H. Andrews -- House of Representatives District Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attachment dated 7/7/94: Letter from Suzanne C. Onos to John Horsley

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter from Ms. Suzanne Onos of your staff, concerning a question asked by your constituent, Ms. Betty Williams. Your letter was referred to me for reply. Ms. Williams stated that the design of the safety belt in her 1991 Chrysler is uncomfortable. When she asked her car dealer to change the seat belt, she was told that changing the belt would be against the law. Ms. Williams would like to know if this is true and if there is any alternative to address this problem.

I am pleased to provide the following information to you. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new mot or vehicle equipment. One of our safety standards, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires safety belts in vehicles, and sets performance requirements that ensure that the belts provide a high level of safety. Several other safety standar ds also have requirements that relate to the performance of safety belts.

There is a provision in Chapter 301 (49 U.S.C. @ 30122) which prohibits dealers and certain other commercial entities from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipmen t in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Since the safety belt in Ms. Williams' car was installed in accordance with applicable safety standards, the dealer could not lawfully change the safety belt in a manner that would negatively affect co mpliance with a safety standard. The dealer was probably referring to this provision in advising Ms. Williams that it would be against the law for it to change the safety belt.

Ms. Williams asked if there is any alternative to address this problem. If she has not done so, Ms. Williams may wish to check with Chrysler, the manufacturer of her vehicle, to see if it has any suggestions of which the dealer may not have been aware. In

addition, we know there are belt positioning devices that are sold for the advertised purpose of improving the fit of the vehicle's belt, particularly on children and small adults. However, we would like everyone who might consider using a belt position ing device to be aware that such a device could be potentially unsafe, depending on how it affects the vehicle's belt. Our safety concerns are discussed in the enclosed letter (addressed to Ms. Angela R. Caron, March 16, 1994).

NHTSA is aware that many consumers would like to see improvements in the fit of their safety belt, and we have recently addressed this by issuing a rule to improve the fit, comfort and adjustability of the belt system. The rule becomes effective in 1997 , and while it will not affect the belts already on existing vehicles, we anticipate it will greatly improve the fit of belts on future vehicles.

We regret that Ms. Williams finds her safety belt uncomfortable. However, we strongly urge your constituent to wear her safety belt to have the benefits of the safety system in a crash. Please call me if you or Ms. Williams have any further questions o r concerns. Our telephone number is (202) 366-9511.

Enclosure

ID: aiam4040

Dear Mr. Cima: This responds to your letter asking about the identification an visibility requirements applicable to a gear position indicator for an automatic transmission. You asked whether the indicator must be visible to the driver (1) when he or she enters the car or (2)whenever anyone is behind the wheel. As discussed below, the indicator must be visible whenever anyone is in the driver's seating position.; 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 standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 *Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect*, requires that the '(i)dentification of shift lever position of automatic transmissions and of the shift lever pattern of manual transmission . . .shall be *permanently displayed in view of the driver*.' (Emphasis added) NHTSA has previously interpreted this provision as requiring a display that can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. Thus, it is not permissible for the display to be visible (e.g., in the case of an electronic display, become activated) only after the driver turns on the ignition.; Your letter raises the issue of whether it is permissible for a electronic display to become activated at the time the driver enters the car and, if so, whether it must remain activated indefinitely as long as the driver remains in the car, even if the ignition is not turned on. It is our opinion that it is permissible for an electronic display to become activated at the time the driver enters the car and need not be activated when there is no person in the driver's seating position. Section S3.2's requirement that the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions be 'permanently displayed' is modified by the phrase 'in view of the driver.' It is our opinion that no such display is required at times when no driver is in the car, i.e., no person in the driver's seating position. We also conclude, however that such a display must remain activated indefinitely as long as the driver remains in the driver's seating position even if the ignition is not turned on. If the display only remained activated for a specific period of time, such as five minutes, it would not be 'permanently' displayed.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel