ID: nht92-4.31

DATE: August 20, 1992

FROM: Richard Allison -- Program Manager, The Bott Group, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars", Request for Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/21/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard Allison (A39; Std. 216)

TEXT:

The Bott Group, Inc. (a Design, Sales & Engineering firm for manufacturers of roof racks (luggage racks), decklid racks and accessories), on behalf of all O.E.M. clients who use our products, requests the Agency render an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216, "Roof Crush Resistance-Passenger Cars", while considering the conditions as described herein.

To be specific, The Bott Group requests an interpretation of 1) the proper application and orientation of the test device (S6.2 of this standard) and 2) the distance the test device is allowed to travel (paragraph S4 of this standard), when testing vehicles equipped with roof mounted accessories, such as roof racks (luggage racks).

This accessory neither contributes to nor detracts from the actual strength of the roof panel and would collapse easily upon application of the forces as specified in paragraph S6.3 of the standard. The roof rack examples we present for consideration, in the attached documentation, can be easily removed for compliance testing.

Roof racks are positioned on the roof panel surface to lend aesthetic enhancement to vehicle contours. This could influence the positioning of the test device (per S6.2), as well as render impossible compliance with the maximum allowed travel of the test device (per S4), and thus, not achieve the true objective of the standard.

The Bott Group roof rack designs fall into two unique categories:

1) Four Seasons Style Has adjustable/removable crossbar assemblies with end supports that move fore and aft above the vehicle roof in fixed, outer channels. Refer to Figure 1 on attachment "A".

2) Elevated Siderail Style (with fixed position end supports) Has adjustable crossbar assemblies that move fore and aft above the roof surface by sliding in an elevated, channeled siderail assembly, however, the end supports are in fixed positions on the vehicle roof. Refer to Figure 2 on attachment "B".

Please consider, for instance, the roof rack example in Figure 2 on attachment "B". The fixed position, front end support of the siderail assembly is mounted in the area of the "B" pillar on the roof surface.

Under normal conditions this style of roof rack assembly is not removable during use, but it can be easily removed for testing.

The adjustable crossbar assembly on the roof rack example shown in Figure 1 on attachment "A" (normal forward positioning is also in the "B" pillar area) can:

1) be adjusted to its rearward most position out of the contact area of the test device or,

2) be removed completely or,

3) the entire roof rack assembly can be easily removed for testing.

The Bott Group believes that there are three different test conditions which should be considered. We have illustrated the differences in the positioning of the test device (refer to Figure 3 on attachment "C").

Condition 1- Test conducted without a roof rack installed or the roof rack has been removed and the test device has been positioned as outlined in S6.2. The first point of contact has been established and is indicated (marked "A").

NOTE: Test condition 2 & 3 assumes that the "elevated siderail style" roof rack with the fixed position end supports is used.

Condition 2- Test conducted with a roof rack installed and the test device positioned the same as in test condition-1. Using the first point of contact established in condition-1 (marked "A"), as reference, the test proceeded. The actual first point of contact during this condition was to the fixed end support of the roof rack (marked "B") and this was a considerable distance rearward from the original contact point "A" established in condition-1.

The dimension between point "A" and point "B" varies according to the fore/aft positioning of the fixed end support of the roof rack on the roof surface.

When the first point of contact, "B", occurred, the second item we identified was a gap between the bottom of the test device and the roof surface at point "A". This may not comply with S6.2(c).

Condition 3- Test conducted with a roof rack installed and the test device positioned as outlined in S6.2 to the contact point (marked "B") established in test condition-2. This condition seemed to create three situations.

a) The complete test device is relocated some distance rearward of the original positioning in test condition-1 and its established contact point (marked "A"). This may not provide test requirements per S4, S6.2 & S6.4 of the standard.

b) The positioning of the test device left a gap between the bottom surface of the test device and the surface of the roof at point "A". The test device, not being tangent to the surface of the vehicle roof, when first point of contact occurs, may not comply with S6.2(c) of the standard.

c) With the test device not making contact (not tangent) with the roof surface at point "A" when the required pressure is applied to the test device, as specified in S6.3, a considerable amount of test device travel is required before contact (tangency) with the roof surface point "A" is made. This may cause non-compliance with S4, as measured in accordance with S6.4, of the standard.

The Bott Group requests the Agency's interpretation of which test condition above, number 1, 2 or 3, is correct and thus, satisfies the intent of FMVSS No. 216.

If test condition 2 or 3 is deemed correct, can the additional amount of test device travel, required between first point of contact and the actual contact (point "A") on the roof surface, be added to the "allowed distance" of test device travel when determining compliance with paragraph S4 of the standard?

The Bott Group is concerned for the timeliness of this matter because of the design timelines we work under (several model years in advance) and we would like to thank the Agency, in advance, for its kind, prompt, attention and consideration of this matter.

(Figures omitted)

ID: nht92-4.32

DATE: August 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: C.N. Littler -- Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs, Motor Coach Industries

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/25/92 from C.N. Littler to Mary Versailles (OCC 7339)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 25, 1992, concerning possible federal preemption of a bill that has been introduced in the New York State legislature. The bill would require any intercity bus that is operated in the State of New York manufactured on or after July 1, 1993 to be equipped with safety belts at every seating position, unless the bus is operated by a motor carrier which does not operate anually more than 100 days or more than 10,000 vehicle miles within the State of New York. After reviewing the copy of this bill enclosed with your letter, we have concluded that it appears to be preempted by Federal law, to the extent that it requires the installation of seat belts for passenger seats of buses that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds and that are not State-owned vehicles. This conclusion is explained in detail below.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent ... any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.

Section 103(d) preempts New York's proposed law if that law covers the same aspect of performance as an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, and is different from the applicable Federal standard, with one exception. It would not preempt the law to the extent that the law imposes a higher level of performance upon vehicles procured for use by the State or any of its political subdivisions.

In this case, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208) "specifies performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes." (S1 of Standard No. 208). Section S4.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies performance requirements for the protection of bus occupants. Accordingly, there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect and that standard establishes performance requirements for occupant protection in buses. The question then is whether the proposed New York State law, which

applies to the same aspect of performance, is either identical to Standard No. 208's requirements.

The applicable performance requirements for occupant protection at passenger seats in buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, differ, depending upon whether the vehicle has a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less or a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. For buses (other than school buses) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, S4.4.3.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a lap/shoulder belt to be provided at every forward-facing outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt to be provided at every other seating position. New York's law, requiring seat belts at every seating position in buses, would not be preempted with respect to these small buses if it were interpreted to require the same types of safety belts as required under Standard No. 208.

With respect to buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, S4.4.3.1 of Standard No. 208 requires compliance with either of two options for the driver's seating position, the installation of an automatic restraint or the installation of either a lap belt or lap/shoulder belt, and does not require any type of occupant protection system at any other seating position. NHTSA expressly determined that there is not a safety 'need for safety belts or another type of occupant crash protection at these seating positions. See, 39 FR 27585, July 30, 1974. With respect to these large buses, the New York bill would be preempted to the extent that it requires seat belts to be installed at seating positions other than the driver's seating position.

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.

ID: nht92-4.33

DATE: August 18, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Timber Dick -- Safeline Children's Products Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/92 from Timber Dick to Deirdre Fujita (OCC 7293)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," and the Sit'n'Stroll child restraint system you manufacture. The restraint is designed to be rear-facing for children weighing up to 25 pounds.

Your letter relates to our April 22, 1992 interpretation to Mr. Mark Sedlack regarding rear-facing restraints for children weighing up to 25 pounds. In that letter, I stated that under Standard No. 213, such a restraint could be tested with either the six-month-old or the three-year-old dummy in the agency's compliance tests. I further stated that the restraint must physically permit the dummies to be positioned in accordance with the procedures in S6.1.2.3.1 of Standard No. 213. If the restraint cannot permit the dummies to be so positioned, the restraint cannot be recommended for children weighing more than 20 pounds.

You ask whether we would consider the Sit'n'Stroll as permitting the proper positioning of the three-year-old dummy. The photographs enclosed with your letter show the dummy in the restraint with its legs at a right angle to the torso. The backs of the dummy's heels rest on the standard seat assembly's seat back, about five inches below the top of the seat back.

At the outset, I must note that NHTSA cannot provide you with an unqualified answer on whether your restraint accommodates the three-year-old dummy, because we do not know the details of your design. However, we can offer general guidance on the positioning of the dummy's legs, an aspect of the dummy's positioning that is of particular concern to you.

S6.1.2.3.1(b) and (d) of Standard No. 213 specify the procedure for positioning the three-year-old dummy's legs in the child restraint. S6.1.2.3.1(b) states: "... Extend the legs of the dummy as far as possible in the forward horizontal direction, with the dummy feet perpendicular to the centerline of the lower legs." S6.1.2.3.1(d) states: "...(R)otate each dummy limb downwards in the plane parallel to the dummy's midsagittal plane until the limb contacts a surface of the child restraint system or the standard seat .... Position the limbs, if necessary, so that limb placement does not inhibit torso or head movement in (the standard's dynamic) tests...."

Based on the photographs you enclosed, the Sit'n'Stroll permits the dummy's legs to be positioned as specified in S6.1.2.3.1(b). That is, the legs are extended "as far as possible" in the forward horizontal direction. The standard does not specify whether "forward" is relative to the standard seat assembly or to the child. However, interpreting "forward" as relative to the seat assembly would have the effect of disallowing the use of the three-year-old dummy to test a rear-facing restraint, since the positioning procedures would be inappropriate for the restraint. In the absence of

language in the standard to that effect, we are disinclined to so conclude. Instead, we conclude "forward" as used in S6.1.2.3.1(b) is relative to the child.

Although the Sit'n'Stroll permits the legs to be positioned in accordance with S6.1.2.3.1(b), under S6.1.2.3.1(d) the leg placement must not inhibit torso or head movement during the dynamic tests of the standard. It does not appear that the dummy's legs would inhibit torso or head movement due to the forward (relative to the seat assembly) movement of the torso and head in the dynamic tests. However, we cannot make a definite determination based on the information in your letter.

Please note that it is likely that NHTSA will propose amending Standard No. 213 such that a child restraint designed for use with children weighing up to 25 pounds would be tested with a new array of child test dummies, such as the 9-month-old dummy described in subpart J of our regulations (49 CFR Part 572). It is possible that a future amendment to the standard could specify that a new dummy, such as the 9-month-old, will be used instead of the 3-year-old dummy to test such a child restraint. NHTSA has announced its intention to consider rulemaking on incorporating new dummies, including the 9-month-old, in Standard No. 213 compliance tests. This intention was discussed at length in NHTSA's "Planning Document on Potential Standard 213 Upgrade," July 1991.

I also would like to note our concern with the ability of your restraint to meet Standard No. 213's occupant excursion requirement (S5.1.3.2). S5.1.3.2 states: "In the case of each rear-facing child restraint system, (in a dynamic test) ... no portion of the target point on either side of the dummy's head shall pass through the transverse orthogonal planes whose intersection contains, the forward-most and top-most points on the child restraint system surfaces ...." It appears from your photograph that the restraint's seat back might be too low to enable the restraint to meet S5.1.3.2 in a dynamic test. One means of avoiding any potential compliance problem with the excursion requirement would be for your company to raise the height of the seat back on this child restraint system.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: nht92-4.34

DATE: August 17, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Henry, Jr.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/1/92 (est) from Charles Henry, Jr. to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7297)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter that requested information about how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a device you wish to market. Since your device is an item of "motor vehicle equipment," it would be subject to our jurisdiction as explained below.

In your letter, you stated that when installed in a motor vehicle, your device would automatically shut down the "lighting circuits of an automobile or vehicle" within a prescribed time period after the motor is turned off. In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the lights controlled by the device are the headlights and tail lights.

By way of background information, NHTSA has no authority to approve, endorse or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system part, or component or as any accessory or addition to the motor vehicle...

As an "addition" to the motor vehicle that automatically shuts off the vehicle's lights, after the motor is shut down, we would consider your device as "motor vehicle equipment."

There are no specific provisions in the safety standards that set forth requirements for devices that automatically shut off lights on motor vehicles, after the motor is shut down. Thus, your company as the manufacturer of such a device would not have to certify that the device complies with any safety standards before offering it for sale to the public.

From your letter, it appears that your device is initially intended for installation after first sale of the motor vehicle to the public, but may later be sold for installation before such sale. The addition of this device to a vehicle before the vehicle's first sale could affect the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards. NHTSA's certification regulation requires vehicle manufacturers to permanently attach a label to each of their new vehicles stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR S567.4. The certification regulation also sets forth requirements for persons who modify previously certified vehicles by adding, modifying, or substituting readily attachable components. Such persons are considered "alterers" of the previously certified vehicles. Alterers are required to

leave the original manufacturer's label in place and affix an additional label identifying the alterer and stating that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. See 49 CFR S567.7. As you may be aware, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101; Controls and displays, specifies requirements for the illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays, and Standard No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, specifies requirements for lamps on motor vehicles.

While your letter gave no details about how this device would be installed in a vehicle, it seems highly unlikely that a device would be regarded as "readily attachable" if it is designed to automatically shut off lights on a motor vehicle, when the motor is shut down. Thus, any person that installed this device on a new vehicle before the vehicle's first sale to the public would be required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable safety standards, including Standards No. 101 and 108, with this device installed.

After the first sale of the vehicle to the public, certain persons who modify vehicles are subject to the prohibition in section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)). That section provides 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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..."

To avoid a "rendering inoperative" violation for vehicles that comply with any of our safety standards, commercial after market installers of your device should examine any installation instructions that you may have for your device and compare those instructions with the requirements of our safety standards, to determine if installing the device in accordance with those instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with any of those safety standards. If the installation of your device would not result in a "rendering inoperative" of the vehicle's compliance with the safety standards, the device can be installed by manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair shops without violating any Federal requirements.

The prohibitions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing your device even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your device are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in your device, your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

(2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an information sheet for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. This sheet gives a brief description of our regulations and explains how to obtain copies of those regulations. You should also be aware that state laws may apply to the use of your device. For further information on state laws, you may wish to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Attachment

NHTSA Information Sheets: Information For New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment; and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations (Text omitted)

ID: nht90-4.79

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1990

FROM: Robert H. Jones -- President, Triple J Enterprises, Inc.

TO: Clive Van Orden -- Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Ref O-3J005

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10-11-90 from Robert H. Jones to Congressman Ben Blaz; Also attached to letter dated 7-6-89 from Bob Jones to Congressman Ben Blas; Also attached to letter dated 7-5-90 from Robert H. Jones to Director, Office of Vehicl e Safety Compliance Enforcement, NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Robert H. Jones (A37; VSA Sec. 103(8)); Also attached to letter dated 1-22-91 from Robert H. Jones to Clive Van Orden (OCC 5733)

TEXT:

I am indebted to Congressman Ben Blaz for your name and area of responsibility.

I am enclosing some correspondence that will give you some details of our problem. In a nut shell, we want the Federal Government to enforce the FMVSS and FMCSR regulation in the CNMI or wave them completely until such time they are ready and able to im plement and enforce them.

As you may know, there are no pollution problems on Saipan, Tinian or Rota and the speed limit is 25 in most places, 35 maximum. I doubt that it is advantageous to the CNMI residents to pay the extra 3 or $400 for automobile EPA and Safety features that are not needed.

Governor Guerrero has taken a position that these regulations are not needed or desired. I agree with that position 100%. But, I have bigger problems with the regulations being, so called, applicable and not monitored or enforced.

ID: nht90-4.8

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: September 14, 1990

FROM: Loren Thomson -- Thomson & Weintraub

TO: Dorothy R. Nakama -- Rule Making Attorney, United States Department of Transportation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-14-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Loren Thomson (A37; Std. 205; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

I represent the Glass Specialty Companies. They, as well as others in the glass repair and replacement industry have concerns with the types of repair being afforded by some members of the industry and with the replacement of original equipment, automob ile glass, with substandard glass.

Edward H. Barnes, the president of Glass Specialty with whom you have talked, indicates to me that you've indicated that the Federal Motor Vehicle Standard, No. 205, is not specific upon standards with respect to the repair or replacement of automobile g lass. The only standard being that the repair or replacement must not leave the vehicle, "inoperable," or render it so.

Our position is that if a windshield or a side glass is likely to shatter or distort the vision of an operator, the vehicle is indeed "inoperable."

We would respectfully request an interpretive letter from your department of what the term "render inoperable" means in safety standard no. 205 as regards a chipped, cracked, or broken windshield.

If you have any questions on the matter, please direct them to me.

ID: nht90-4.80

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Joe W. Humphrey

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-9-90 to P.J. Rice from J.W. Humphrey

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter of November 9, 1990, with respect to the center high-mounted stop lamp.

You have asked if it is acceptable to add amber turn signal lamps to each side of the center stop lamp. The answer is yes, if the turn signal lamps are separate from the stop lamp. Under the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting, the center stop lamp cannot be combined with any other lamp or reflective device.

I hope that this answers your question.

ID: nht90-4.81

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Danny Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Utilimaster Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-13-90 to Chief Counsel, NHTSA from Danny Pugh (OCC 5214)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). More specifically, you asked about the requirements for safety belts at the various seating positions in vehicles with a gross vehic le weight rating under 10,000 pounds that you called "van conversions."

You first asked whether a "van conversion" would be classified as a passenger car, truck, or multipurpose passenger vehicle. Vehicles commonly called "vans" may be classed in four different vehicle categories (set forth at 49 CFR S571.3) for the purpose s of our safety standards, depending on the configuration of the particular "van." Most cargo vans are classified as "trucks" under our safety standards, because those vehicles are "designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpos e equipment." Most passenger vans are classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles," because they do not meet the definition of a "truck" but are constructed on a truck chassis." Those vans that have eleven or more designated seating positions are cl assified as "buses" because they are "designed for carrying more than 10 persons. Finally, one minivan (the Nissan Axxess) was certified by its manufacturer as a "passenger car" because it was "designed for carrying 10 persons or less."

Additionally, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifica tion before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification in the course of any enforcement actions. If you are interested in the appropriate classification for a particular van conver sion, we will offer our tentative opinion if you will provide us with detailed information on the van conversion in which you are interested.

You next asked on what date safety belts were required in "van conversions," what type of safety belts, and at what locations those belts were required. As explained above, we do not class vehicles as "van conversions" for the purposes of our safety sta ndards. If the vans were classed as passenger cars, passenger cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the car. Beginning December 11, 1989, passenger cars were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at both front and rear outboard seating positions, with either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating p osition. Since September

1, 1989, all passenger cars are required to be equipped with automatic crash protection for outboard front-seat occupants.

Multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to have lap/shoulder safety belts at the front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulder o r lap-only safety belts at every other seating position in the vehicle. Beginning September 1, 1991, vans classified as multipurpose passenger vehicles or trucks (other than motor homes) must have lap/shoulder belts at both front and rear outboard seati ng positions, with either lap or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions. Motor homes manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 will continue to be required to have lap/shoulder belts at front outboard seating positions and either lap/shoulde r or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position. In addition, effective September 1, 1991 vans must meet dynamic crash test injury criteria for the front outboard seating positions.

If the vans were classed as buses, buses manufactured on or after July 1, 1971 were required to be equipped with either a lap/shoulder or a lap-only safety belt at the driver's seating position. Beginning September 1, 1991, buses with a gross vehicle we ight rating of 10,000 pounds or less (except school buses) must be equipped, with lap/shoulder belts at all front and rear outboard seating positions, and either lap/shoulder or lap-only safety belts at every other seating position.

Also, the agency has proposed extending the automatic crash protection requirements mentioned above to these other vehicle classifications.

I hope this information is useful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht90-4.82

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M.J.P. Ravier -- R&D Director, Valeo

TITLE: Re Your ref 861 M 90

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-13-90 to P.J. Rice from J.P. Ravier and Guy Dorleans (OCC 5304); Also attached to letter dated 7-30-90 to J.P. Ravier from Kathleen Demeter

TEXT:

This is in further reply to your letter of July 13, 1990, with respect to whether your "Aiming concept for headlamps, Solution 2" is acceptable under paragraph S7.7.5.2 On-vehicle aiming of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Ms. DeMeter of t his Office has previously addressed your request for confidentiality.

The headlamp aiming concept consists of a spirit level affixed to the reflector, and has its axis parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. Correct vertical aim is accomplished by ensuring that the bubble in the spirit level is centered at zero. Correct horizontal aim is ensured through a coaxial screw and nut with markings which align with markings on the vehicle body. The system bears graduations that accord with those imposed by S7.7.5.2.

As Valeo was informed when the device was demonstrated to members of this agency on June 29, 1990, the concept is an acceptable vehicle headlamp aiming device under S7.7.5.2. It is designed to meet the vertical aim requirements of S7.7.5.2(a)(1) and the horizontal aim requirements of (a)(2). We are pleased to provide a confirmation in writing.

ID: nht90-4.83

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: December 13, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase -- General Manager, Technical Administration Department, Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-20-90 to Paul Jackson Rice from M. Iwase (OCC 5458)

TEXT:

This is in response to your letter of November 20, 1990 with respect to "interpretation and/or petition" concerning combination headlighting systems.

Koito has asked about the permissibility of two or four lamp headlighting systems in which the upper beam would be provided by integral beam headlamps, and the lower beam by replaceable bulb headlamps.

The systems you describe would not be permissible under Standard No. 108, which allows only the three types of headlighting systems that you mention. Integral beam headlighting systems must be comprised of integral beam headlamps which, by definition, a re headlamps other than sealed beam or replaceable bulb headlamps. Replaceable bulb headlighting systems are those that incorporate the standardized replaceable light sources listed in Standard No. 108.

We are transmitting your request to the Office of Rulemaking, for consideration as a petition for rulemaking.