ID: aiam5006

"Dear Mr. Chun: This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992 requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below. First, you asked about the meaning of 'manufactured date,' in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the 'manufactured date' would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance. For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the 'manufactured date' for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea. Second, you asked whether 'manufactured date,' as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as 'model year.' The answer is no. The term 'model year' is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) as 'the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years.' As explained above, the concept of 'manufactured date' refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer. Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years. See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars. I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: nht72-3.43

DATE: 08/02/72

FROM: JAMES E. HOFFERBERTH FOR ROBERT L. CARTER--NHTSA

TO: Peugeot-Renault

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your teletype of July 8, 1972, regarding the question of a manikin's neck. In response to your specific need, and for your general information, I am enclosing a procurement specification for a 50th percentile test dummy recently let out for bid by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. This specification represents our present thinking on some of the desirable aspects of a test dummy. We are also working on the development of a proposed regulation that will define the dummy more precisely than standard No. 208 presently does, and, of course, that regulation may differ from the procurement specification.

In the meantime, as we have stated in the Federal Registar, any dummy that meets the requirements of Standard No. 208 may be used by a manufacturer to test its vehicles.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

U.S. COAST GUARD TELECOMMUNICATIONS CENTER

NO 9499 Nov. 7, 1972 10#05

M. BUREAU PEGLEMFNTATION

A. M. ROBERT L CAPTER ASSOCIATE ASMINISTPATOR NHTSA

FOLLOWING PRESSING QUESTIONS ASKED TO MR TOMS AND YOU AT SAE CONFERENCE OF DETROIT IN MAY CONCERNING FMVSS 208 WE HAVE A VERY POSITIVE FIRST ANSWER IN DOCKET 69-7 NOTICE 19

HOWEVER, WE ARE STILL UNABLE TO COMPLETE OUR CONFIRMATION TESTS ON RESTRAINT SYSTEMS FOR 73 MODELS SINCE WE ARE NOT AWARE OF THE EQUIPMENT TO BE PROPOSED FOR DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF MANIKINS' NECK

CAN YOU ALREADY GIVE US SOME MORE DETAILS ON THESE SPECIFICATIONS SINCE OUR HOMOLOGATION SERVICES CANNOT GO ON WITH THEIR WORK

BEST THANKS

N. BUREAU CHIEF REGULATIONS DEPARTMENT AUTOMOBILES PEUGEOT

ID: aiam4432

"Dear Mr. Bowyer: This responds to your request for an interpretatio of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209). I regret the delay in this response. More specifically, you noted that S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 requires dynamic testing of manual lap/shoulder belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991. Section S4.6.3 of Standard No. 208 provides: 'A Type 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(c) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209.' Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that: 'A seat belt assembly that meets the dynamic testing requirements of Standard No. 208 shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the following statement: This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in insert specific seating position(s), e.g., 'front right' in insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s) .' You expressed your opinion that dynamically tested belts must be labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 if the belts do not comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. In these situations, you suggested that the labeling requirements help ensure that the belts will not be installed 'into inappropriate vehicles.' However, you stated your belief that the labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to dynamically-tested manual belts that also comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. Your understanding of these requirements is incorrect. Section S4.6(b)of Standard No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208 shall be marked or labeled with certain information. This section contains no exception for seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements and satisfy the performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The reason for not including any such exception was that the agency intended that all dynamically tested manual belts be marked or labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b). You suggested that there is no reason to require labeling of belt assemblies that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209, just because those belt assemblies also comply with the dynamic testing requirements when installed in a particular vehicle. This assertion would be correct if the protection provided by safety belts depended only on the performance of the safety belts themselves. However, such is not necessarily the case. We emphatically agree with you that a belt assembly that complies with all requirements of Standard No. 209 will provide very substantial protection to an occupant of any vehicle in a crash. However, the protection provided by safety belts to occupants of a particular vehicle depends on more than the performance of the belts themselves, it also depends on the structural characteristics and interior design of the vehicle. The dynamic testing requirements measure the performance of the safety belt/vehicle combination, while Standard No. 209 focuses on measuring the performance of the safety belts alone. See 52 FR 44899-44900, November 23, 1987. With the advent of dynamic testing for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, NHTSA explained why Standard No. 209 was amended to require labeling of dynamically tested belts, regardless of whether those belts comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209. The final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles explained that NHTSA was adopting the same belt labeling requirements previously adopted for passenger car belts. 52 FR 44898, at 44907, November 23, 1987. In the preamble to the final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for passenger cars with manual belts at front outboard seating positions, NHTSA explained why it was establishing belt labeling requirements for these dynamically tested safety belts. The agency said: NHTSA believes that care must be taken to distinguish dynamically tested belt systems from other systems, since misapplication of a belt in a vehicle designed for use with a specific dynamically tested belt could pose a risk of injury. If there is a label on the belt itself, a person making the installation will be aware that the belt should be installed only in certain vehicles. 51 FR 9800, at 9804, March 21, 1986. The same concerns apply to dynamically tested belts for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Even if Land Rover installs dynamically tested belt systems that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209 in all of its vehicles, those belt systems might not be appropriate for use in other light multipurpose passenger vehicles. This is particularly true if other light multipurpose passenger vehicles are designed for use only with specific dynamically tested belt systems different from the Land Rover belt system. The chances of the Land Rover belt system being installed in a vehicle for which it would not be appropriate are minimized if there is a label on the belt system indicating that it should be installed only in specific seating positions in Land Rover models and any other vehicles for which the belt system is appropriate. Accordingly, the belt labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 apply to all dynamically tested belts for use in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether those dynamically tested belts comply with all other requirements of Standard No. 209. You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our review of it. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel cc: Mr. D. Bruce Henderson Legislative Programs Manager Range Rover of North America 4390 Parliament Place P.O. Box 1503 Lanham, MD 20706";

ID: aiam2870

Dear Mr. Gill: This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1978, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*. Specifically, you have asked whether Honda's proposed manual fuel shutoff control design would comply with the standard. In this proposed design, in your word 'a second 'Off' position will be provided 180 degrees from the required position.'; Standard No. 123 requires the manual fuel shutoff control to b 'operable as specified in Column 3 [of Table 1]' (S5.2.1). Table 1 specifies that the 'Off' position is with the 'control forward.' Although the control in your proposed design shuts the fuel valve when pointed forward, it also shuts the valve at a position 180 degrees from the complying one, with the 'control backward,' so to speak. Thus, the control is not 'operable as specified' within the meaning of the requirement.; As you know, the safety purpose of standardization of control locatio and operation is to insure that the novice cyclist, and those who change cycles frequently, are not confused when controls must be operated under emergency conditions. Since your proposed control design is operable both forward and backward it does not comply with Standard No. 123.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: nht73-3.43

DATE: 03/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 9, 1973, concerning the application of Standard 209 to emergency locking mechanisms that Toyota intends to use in its 1974 models. Mr. Susuki of your staff presented Toyota's problem at greater length in a meeting with NHTSA on March 2, 1973, and the following response serves to confirm the opinion given him at that time.

Both the central G-sensing device (with its computer) and the individual(Illegible Word) on the retractors are considered to be seat belt assembly hardware for purposes of Standard 209. We do not find that the central position of the G-sensor is a sufficient reason to exclude it from the requirements of the standard applicable to hardware, including the corrosion requirements. However, any corrosion testing of the G-sensor would be performed with the sensor's(Illegible Word) in place. If the covering is imperious to water, as Mr. Susuki stated, there should be little difficult in passing the test.

A second question was raised by Mr. Susuki concerning the testing of the upper torso retractor. It is our opinion that the retractor should be subjected to the environmental tests in its installed condition, with its cover in place.

A final question presented by Mr. Suzuki concerns the allowable width for that portion of the upper torso belt that does not contact the occupant. As we informed him the August 1972 petition by JAMA on this subject is still open and we anticipate that the agency's action will be favorable.

ID: nht91-4.24

DATE: June 19, 1991

FROM: Gerald Farr -- P. Eng., Senior Compliance Engineer, Compliance Engineering and Vehicle Testing, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Directorate, Transport Canada

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: FMVSS 210 - S4.3.1.1

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-16-91 from Paul Jackson Rice (signature by Kenneth Weinstein) to Gerald Farr (A38; Std. 210)

TEXT:

I am writing at this time to determine whether or not there have been any "official" interpretations of the method used to calculate the angle specified in FMVSS 210, section 4.3.1.1. This section requires that a LINE FROM the seating reference point (or adjusted seating reference point) TO the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware attaching it to the anchorage, must extend FORWARD from the anchorage at an angle with the horizontal of not less than 20 and not more than 75 degrees.

There are two particular areas of interest.

1. When the angle of the line which joins the two points (SRP and belt anchorage) is calculated with respect to the horizontal, is the calculation made using a three dimensional protocol or a two dimensional protocol. (The two dimensional protocol would not take into account the transverse ("y") coordinate of the two points.)

2. Have any interpretations been made concerning what constitutes "the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware connecting it to the anchorage"?

I would appreciate receiving any information you can provide concerning this matter. I can be reached at (613)998-1999 if you wish to discuss this further.

ID: aiam5605

FAX: 512-476-2179 Dear Ms. Coffey: This responds to your letter askin whether a dealer would violate Federal law by disconnecting a malfunctioning motor in an automatic seat belt system of a 1990 model vehicle. You state, 'a consumer has brought their vehicle to a dealership with an automatic seat belt in which the motor on the automatic seat belt continues to run. This continuous running of the seat belt motor causes the battery on the vehicle to run down, rendering the vehicle inoperable.' In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of this office, you indicated that the automatic seat belt is stuck in one position. The consumer has requested that the dealership disconnect the motor in lieu of repairing it. You also stated that, in the event of such disconnection, the seat belt may still be connected manually. As discussed below, it is our opinion that, under the facts stated above, a dealer would not violate Federal law by disconnecting the malfunctioning motor. By way of background information, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, required 1990 model cars to be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic seat belts were one means of complying with that requirement. Federal law (49 U.S.C. 30122, formerly section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) provides that: A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . It is our opinion that this requirement does not prohibit a dealer from disconnecting a malfunctioning seat belt motor in the factual situation described above. Since the seat belt motor would already be inoperative when the vehicle was brought to the dealer, we would not consider the subsequent disconnection of the motor as making it inoperative. I note, however, that in servicing the vehicle, the dealer must not make another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. While Federal law does not require dealers or owners to repair a malfunctioning seat belt motor, NHTSA strongly urges such repair, so that the vehicle continues to provide maximum safety protection. We also note that dealers and owners may be affected by State laws in this area, including ones for vehicle inspection and tort law. In closing, we suggest that the dealer urge the consumer to contact NHTSA's toll-free Auto Safety Hotline about this problem, at 800-424-9393. The agency uses this type of information in performing its safety mission. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Glancy of my staff at (202)366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam5660

Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your letter of November 27, 199 concerning the requirement in S4.4 of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. That section provides that: Seats not designated for occupancy while the vehicle is in motion shall be conspicuously labeled to that effect. You requested confirmation that this requirement would not apply to a seat that was equipped with a folding seat back to convert the seat to a bed. You are correct. NHTSA interprets this requirement as applying only to positions that do not qualify as designated seating positions under 49 CFR 571.3. Therefore, 'designated seating positions' that convert to a non-seating use do not have to comply with the labeling requirement of S4.4. I hope this information has been helpful. If you have other questions or need some additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam4686

Dear Mr. Mathieson: This responds to your letter to former Chie Counsel Erika Jones concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release to school buses. I apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. Your letter expressed concern about a recent opinion from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which states that school buses used in interstate commerce and thus subject to FHWA's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR's) are required by the FMCSR's to comply with the provisions in Standard No. 217 applicable to buses other than school buses. Your letter included copies of a recent letter from Thomas Buses to FHWA on this issue, as well past interpretations by FHWA and this agency. As you are aware, Standard No. 217 contains specific emergency exit requirements for school buses, as well as requirements for other buses. As noted in your letter to FHWA, and in our past interpretations, including the July 5, 1984 letter to Ron Marion that you enclosed, it is NHTSA's position that all buses sold as school buses must comply with the school bus requirements in Standard No. 217. We recognize that this position may conflict with FHWA's interpretation of their regulations, and we are seeking resolution of this issue with FHWA to resolve any inconsistencies between the FMVSS's and the FMCSR's. I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam1194

Dear Mr. Hamm: This is in reply to your letter of May 15, 1973, concerning you dealer's refusal to move back the driver's seat in your new car. I apologize for the delay in our reply.; You state in your letter that adjustment of the seat was made pre-condition of the sale. A dealer who adjusts a seat prior to sale in this fashion will have to be able to certify that the seat, as modified, conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard governing passenger car seats (Standard 207) and to other standards that may be affected by the seat position, such as the seat belt anchorage standard (Standard No.210). A dealer is not prohibited from making changes in the seat so long as the modified seats continue to perform in the manner required by the standard. Often, however, dealers decide not to assume the burdens of certifying modified components and therefore decline to modify such components prior to sale.; The Federal Safety Standards do not apply to motor vehicles after the have been purchased by the consumer. After you purchase the car, the standards do not prevent you from modifying it, even if such modifications affect the ability of the car to meet the standards. If you purchased your car with the seat in its modified position, you can modify it or have the dealer modify it without incurring liability under the standards.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel