ID: aiam5412

"Dear Mr. Brekke: This responds to your letter asking about th legality of 'Belly Safe,' a device to alter the positioning of vehicle lap and shoulder belts, for the advertised purposes of improving the fit of the belts on pregnant women. As described in the material you enclosed, two long straps attached to the 'Belly Safe' are attached around the back of the seat. The occupant then sits on the 'Belly Safe,' attaches the safety belt, brings two straps from the 'Belly Safe' up between the legs, and attaches the lap belt through the Velcro on those straps. The following discussion explains the effect of our regulations on such products and concerns NHTSA has about this specific product. By way of background information, this agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. This agency does not have a safety standard that directly applies to belt positioning devices. Our safety standards for 'Occupant Crash Protection,' (Standard No. 208) and 'Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages' (Standard No. 210) apply to new, completed vehicles. In addition, our safety standard for 'Seat Belt Assemblies' (Standard No. 209) applies to new seat belt assemblies. Because the 'Belly Safe' is neither installed as part of a completed vehicle nor as part of a seat belt assembly, none of these regulations apply to the device. While none of these standards apply to the 'Belly Safe,' the manufacturer of the product is subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118- 30121). The agency does not determine the existence of defects except in the context of a defect proceeding. In addition, while it is unlikely that the 'Belly Safe' would be installed by a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business, 49 U.S.C. 30122 prohibits those businesses from installing the device if the installation 'makes inoperative' compliance with any safety standard. NHTSA is concerned that the 'Belly Safe' could be used in a way that adversely affects crash forces on the occupant. Standard No. 208 includes requirements that have the effect of ensuring that the lap and shoulder belts distribute the crash forces to the occupant's skeletal structure, a part of the body that can better withstand the forces. For example, Standard No. 208 requires the shoulder belt and the lap belt to intersect off of the abdominal area. The 'Belly Safe' places an object between the legs of the occupant. This change in the distribution of crash forces could have serious safety implications for the wearer of the belt. There are other concerns about the 'Belly Safe.' The realigning of the lap belt through the 'Belly Safe' could increase the amount of webbing in the belt system. If the straps which attach around the back of the seat or the Velcro holding the lap belt are unable to withstand the forces of a crash, there would be excessive slack in the lap belt. Slack in the lap belt would increase the risk of the occupant sliding under the lap belt (submarining) and slack in the belt system generally introduces higher crash forces, both of which would increase the risk of injury. In addition, should a non-pregnant occupant use the 'Belly Safe,' the device could do more harm than good. I have enclosed a consumer information sheet titled 'Pregnancy: Protecting Your Unborn Child in a Car.' This sheet explains that the lap belt should be placed low, across the hips and over the upper thighs. If a woman takes the time to adjust the belt as recommended (an action also needed to install the 'Belly Safe'), NHTSA is unaware of any need for a device to keep the lap belt in this 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. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam5044

"Dear Mr. Boone: This responds to your letter of September 4, 199 requesting information on standards applicable to vans you manufacture for use by day care centers. These vehicles have a 21 passenger capacity. During a September 16 phone conversation between Mary Versailles of my staff and Mr. George Croft of Van Conversions, Inc., Mr. Croft indicated that your company purchases incomplete vehicles manufactured by Ford (the E-250 chassis) and completes them into finished vehicles, by such operations as installing seats and seat belts. According to Mr. Croft, the completed vehicles have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of less than 10,000 pounds. Mr. Croft stated that your company was particularly interested in new requirements for lap/shoulder belts. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Your company would be considered a final-stage manufacturer under our regulations. As a final stage manufacturer, your company's certification responsibilities would depend on the information provided by the manufacturer of the incomplete vehicle. Under 49 CFR Part 568, the incomplete vehicle manufacturer must furnish your company with a document which states one of the following three things concerning the incomplete vehicle, for each of the safety standards: 1. The vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if no alterations are made to any identified components of the incomplete vehicle. 2. The vehicle when completed will conform to the safety standard if specific conditions are followed by the final-stage manufacturer. 3. Conformity with the safety standard is not substantially affected by the design of the incomplete vehicle, so the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard. Your company, as the final stage manufacturer, is required to certify that each vehicle you complete complies with all applicable safety standards. Such certifications may be based entirely upon the incomplete vehicle manufacturer's instructions and advice set forth in the document furnished with the incomplete vehicle. The 21 passenger vehicles your company manufactures would be considered 'buses' under NHTSA regulations. NHTSA defines a 'bus' as 'a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.' (49 CFR 571.3). In addition, your 21 passenger vehicles might be considered 'school buses' if the day care center to which you sell the vehicle would be considered a school. A day care center would be considered a school if the function of the facility was primarily educational, rather than custodial. A 'school bus' is defined as 'a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.' With respect to seat belts, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires a bus, other than a school bus, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to have a lap/shoulder belt at every outboard seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. Standard No. 208 requires a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. I am enclosing two publications for your information. The document titled 'Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations' will provide you with a summary description of the requirements of each standard, and a list of the types of vehicles to which each standard applies. The other document is a general information sheet for manufacturers which highlights the relevant Federal statutes and regulations, and explains how to obtain copies of the regulations. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam4059

Dear Mr. Ishizu: This responds to your letter asking about compliance of a propose seating design with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*. We apologize for the delay in our response.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not grant approval 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 requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; According to your letter, you are considering installing a folding sea between the driver's and assistant seats in class 6 and 7 trucks. When the seat back is folded down, the back of the seat can be used as a console box. When the seat back is raised, the seat back is 'automatically locked by the pivot of turning hinge lowering along the guide groove by the weight of the seat back.' To fold the seat back after it has been locked, one must lift the seat back manually, thereby raising the pivot, in order to release the folding lock. You asked whether the seat complies with requirements of section S4.3 of the standard.; Section S4.3 of Standard No. 207 states: >>>Except for a passenger seat in a bus or a seat having a back that i adjustable only for the comfort of its occupants, a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat or seat back and a control for releasing that restraining device.<<<; As discussed below, your proposed seat does not appear to meet sectio S4.3's requirement for a control that releases the restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs. The purpose of that requirement is to ensure that occupants in seats located behind folding seats are able to exit the vehicle.; Section S4.3 requires that your seat: (1) be equipped with self-locking device for restraining the folding seat back, and (2) have a specific control for releasing that restraining device. Your seat appears to meet the first of these requirements, since the seat back is locked automatically when the seat back is raised. However, your seat does not appear to have a specific control for releasing the restraining device. In order to release the restraining device, one must lift the seat back by hands and raise the pivot of the hinge for releasing the folding lock. Standard No. 207 requires a specific control for releasing the restraining device, such as a knob that one can turn or a lever that one can lift.; We recognize, based on the drawing provided with your letter, tha there would be no seats, i.e., no designated seating positions or auxiliary seating accommodations, behind your proposed folding seat. Therefore, the requirement for a specific control to release the restraining device does not appear to be relevant for your proposed design. However, as currently drafted, section S4.3 does not include an exception for such seats. In light of your letter, we plan to initiate rulemaking to propose such an exception. Until the issue is resolved by rulemaking, we will not enforce section S4.3's requirement for a specific control that releases the restraining device for hinged or folding seats or seat backs in vehicles where there are no seats behind the folding seat or seat back.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 7237

Ms. Anne Volmerange
11041 Vena Ave.
Mission Hills, CA 91345

Dear Ms. Volmerange:

I have been asked to respond to your letter to Mr. Clarke Harper of our Rulemaking division. Your letter requests authorization from NHTSA to replace the automatic two point shoulder belt installed in your vehicle with a manual lap/shoulder belt. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208). Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for safety belt installation in all vehicle types. In addition, S4.1.4.1 of Standard No. 208 provides that passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must be equipped with automatic crash protection. Vehicles equipped with automatic crash protection protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, when tested by this agency in a 30 mph barrier crash test.

At this time, manufacturers are not required to use a specific design of automatic crash protection to meet the requirements of Standard No. 208. Instead, each automobile manufacturer is allowed to select the particular design for the automatic crash protection installed in its vehicles. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). There are several different designs of automatic belts available, and many manufacturers are installing air bags accompanied by conventional manual lap/shoulder safety belts. Based on your description, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle has chosen to install diagonal automatic shoulder belts at the front outboard seating positions. The manufacturer has certified that, in a 30 mph frontal crash into a concrete barrier, a test dummy restrained only by the automatic belt in your car would not experience injury-producing forces in excess of the levels specified in Standard No. 208.

After a vehicle equipped with automatic crash protection has been sold to a retail purchaser, such as yourself, the provision in Federal law that affects modifications to the automatic crash protection system is section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). 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 ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

With regard to your vehicle, the automatic safety belts are a "device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." Removal of the automatic belts would render them inoperative. Therefore, Federal law prohibits your dealer, any other dealer, and any manufacturer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from removing the existing automatic belts in your car and replacing them with manual belts.

Please note that this Federal prohibition does not prevent you from removing the automatic belts from your own car. However, we encourage vehicle owners not to tamper with the occupant protection systems installed in their vehicles. If you were to remove the automatic belts yourself and improperly install manual belts, you would be putting yourself and other vehicle occupants at substantially greater risk of injury in a crash.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:5/19/92

ID: nht70-2.40

DATE: 12/08/70

FROM: D.W. TOMS -- DIR., NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY CHARLES H. HARTMAN

TO: Physicians for Automotive Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letters of November 6, 1970, to Secretary Volpe and me, concerning child restraint systems. I have taken the liberty of replying to both of your letter, as they seem to raise identical issues.

The points you raise are summarized at the conclusion of your letters. Your first is based upon your belief that no attempt has been made to require labeling on child harnesses that would enable the public "to distinguish between harnesses that provide collision protection, and those that merely serve to secure the child in one place and, at best, prevent him from being thrown forward in a sudden (but controlled) stop." You further state of the latter type of harness.

The Bureau's position in this matter is that harnesses marketed to provide restraint in panic or sudden stop situations must meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209. In addition, enforcement proceedings in this area are presently underway to climinate harnesses that do not comply with the standard. The Bureau does not consider that these inexpensive harnesses provide a satisfactory minimum level of protection when used in motor vehicles. Furthermore, consumers desirable of obtaining crash protection for their children may be induced to compromise on safety by the availability of the cheaper systems, without realizing how limited is the effectiveness of these systems. Any benefits obtained from the cheaper harnesses are more than outweighed by these deficiences.

Your second recommendation concerns child seating systems, and consists of two parts. First, you suggest banning the manufacture of child seating systems that do not comply with Standard No. 213. Second, you recommed that warning notices be required on seating systems remaining on the market after April 1, 1971, that do not comply with the standard because they were manufactured before its effective date.

With reference to your first recommendation, the Buresu has proposed to take the action you recommend. In the notice of proposed rulemaking concerning Standard No. 213, published September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14786), the Bureau has proposed to extend the Scope of the standard to include all devices for seating children in motor vehicles. This requirement would become effective January 1, 1972, and a copy of the notice is enclosed for your information. Your letters will be placed in the rulemaking docket. With reference to your second recommendation, the Bureau is not authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to require much a warning. The Act, pursuant to which Standard No. 213 and all other motor vehicle safety standards are issued, provides that only motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured after the effective date of a standard must comply with it. We could not, therefore, impose a requirement, including a warning requirement, on those seating systems manufactured before April 1, 1971.

The Bureau agrees, however, that consumers should be aware that child seating systems that do not comply with Standard No. 213 will still be available after April 1, 1971. The Bureau is planning, therefore, to issue an advisory at or about the time the standard becomes effective that will indicate how consumers may distinguish between those child seats that comply with the standard and those that do not.

Your third recommendation is that child harnesses not meeting Standard No. 209 be required to contain warnings as to their deficiencies, and that harnessen that do meet the standard be required to carry detailed information about their value in a crash. As stated above, harnesses that do not comply with the standard may not be manufactured. As to requiring harnesses that do comply to carry detailed information concerning their value, the benefits that these devices can provide will differ according to the dynamics of all individual crash, and are not, therefore, capable of precise statement. The Bureau will, however, consider other methods of informing the public as to the broad safety benefits obtainable from the use of child restraint devices.

Your continued interest in motor vehicle safety is very much appreciated.

ID: aiam4193

Dear Mr. Doi: Thank you for your letters concerning the automatic safety belt warnin requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You explained in your letters and in conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff that NSK-Warner is developing a motorized automatic belt system that would be equipped with an emergency release buckle. You also plan to provide voluntarily a manual lap belt with the system. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following discussion answers your questions.; You first asked whether you can use an automatic belt warning syste for your motorized belt system which would activate an audible signal under the following conditions: (1) the vehicle ignition is moved to the 'on' or 'start' position, (2) the motorized automatic belt is not fastened and (3) the motorized belt has not reached its locked protective position. As explained below, such a system is permissible, but is not required by the standard.; S4.5.3 of the standard sets forth the requirement for automatic bel systems. S4.5.3.3(b) requires a motorized automatic belt system to have a warning system that sounds an audible signal for between 4 and 8 seconds if the automatic belt latchplate is not fastened or the emergency release is activated and the ignition is in the 'on' or 'start' position. However, S4.5.3.3(b) does not require the audible signal to be activated until a motorized belt has reached its locked protective mode. Your system would activate the audible signal while the motorized belt is moving to its locked position and it would sound again once it has reached its locked position. Thus, NSK is voluntarily providing a warning that is not required by the standard. As stated in the preamble to the November 6, 1985 notice (50 FR 46063) adopting the new warning system requirements for automatic safety belts, a manufacturer is free to provide additional features as long as the features required by the standard still continue to comply with all the applicable performance requirements. Thus, as long as the warning system provides the warning required by S4.5.3.3(b), NSK may voluntarily provide additional warnings as well.; You also said that NSK is planning to provide an automatic belt warnin system for both the driver's and right front passenger's seating position. S4.5.3.3(b) requires an automatic belt warning system only at the left front designated seating position. Thus, the agency would consider the passenger side warning system as a voluntary system, which you may install as long as the driver's warning system will continue to meet all applicable requirements.; You also asked several questions about when and how long the audibl and light warning are to be activated. Specifically you asked whether the warnings must be reactivated when the tongue of an emergency release buckle (referred to as an ERB in your letter) is inserted into the latch mechanism and then removed again within a few seconds. You also asked if the warnings can be de-activated by insertion of the tongue of the emergency release buckle before expiration of the 4-8 seconds specification for the audible warning and the 60 second specification for activation of the warning light. As explained below, if the emergency release buckle has been fastened and then unfastened after a few seconds, the warning does not have to be re-activated until after the ignition switch has been turned 'off' and then turned again to the 'on' or 'start' position. Also if the warning begins to activate and then the emergency release buckle is fastened, the warning may immediately be cancelled and thus does not have to be activated for the full time period specified in the standard.; S4.5.3.3(b) provides that the audible warning and the warning light ar to be activated only under certain conditions. Thus, the standard provides that the warnings are to be activated when condition A (the ignition switch is in the 'on' or 'start' position) *exists simultaneously* with one of the other conditions, such as condition B (the emergency release buckle not being fastened). Thus, if the emergency release buckle is unfastened and, at the same time, the ignition is in the 'on' or 'start' position, the warnings must activate. However, if the ignition is not in the 'on' or 'start' position and the emergency buckle is released, then the warnings do not have to be activated. The agency has previously said, such as in a June 17, 1981, letter to Chrysler, that the warning is not to activate if the safety belt is buckled. Thus, the warning may be cancelled once the emergency release buckle is fastened.; Again, I regret the delay in our response. If you have any furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2620

Dear Mr. Giesguth: This responds to your May 31, 1977, letter asking whether a bil presently before the New Jersey legislautre requiring 28-inch high seat backs and seat belts in all buses would be preempted by Federal regulations. Currently, Federal regulations require all school buses to be equipped with 20-inch high seat backs (measured from the seating reference point) and school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less to be equipped with seat belts.; Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety regulations i governed by Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq.*) which states:; >>>Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established unde this title 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 the Federal Government or the government of 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 of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; "The first sentence of Section 103(d) has the effect of preemptin safety standards of the States and their political subdivisions unless they are identical to applicable Federal safety standards that regulate the same aspect of vehicle or equipment performance. The second sentence of the section clarifies tvst the limitation on safety standards of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. The second sentence does not permit, however, these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable Federal safety standards."; The law proposed in New Jersey would affect Federal requirement applicable to seat back height and seat belts. Since New Jersey requirements appear to impose a higher standard of safety than the Federal requirements in these areas, the State would be permitted to implement its standards for buses it purchases for its own use, but not for buses used by private schools. Further, it should be noted that all buses must continue to comply with the applicable Federal requirements.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: ADA3

Ms. Victoria Krull
Executive Director
Adaptive Driving Alliance
4218 W. Electra Lane
Glendale, AZ 85310

Dear Ms. Krull:

This is in response to your letter of March 11, 2002, requesting an interpretation of the vehicle certification regulations at 49 CFR Part 567.You state that the Adaptive Driving Alliance (ADA) is an organization that serves both manufacturers and dealers of vehicles for the handicapped and disabled, who are commonly referred to as members of the "adaptive driving" or "mobility" industry. You state that the ADA has learned that some final stage manufacturers and alterers may have sold to adaptive driving industry dealers vans with potential problems concerning their gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

As described in your letter, the assigned GVWR of these vehicles may be exceeded by the unloaded weight of the vehicle, when added to the weight of a full tank of gasoline and 150 pounds times the number of designated seating positions, without any cargo being added to the vehicle. You acknowledge that this presents a safety issue, in that an overloaded vehicle could be prone to failures of the suspension, axle, hubs, brakes, tires, rims, frame, and steering linkage. This has prompted you to ask a number of questions regarding the issue of gross vehicle weight, as it applies to vehicles manufactured or altered for use by the handicapped and disabled.

The Agency addressed your substantive questions regarding the computation of these vehicles GVWR in recent letters to Adaptive Mobility Inc. and Ride-Away Handicap Equipment Corporation. Copies of those letters are enclosed.

You have also asked what responsibilities a motor vehicle dealer has when it learns that a vehicle in its unsold inventory is overweight, and what responsibilities the vehicles manufacturer and alterer would have in that situation. As you point out in your letter, the situation you describe does not involve a noncompliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. If the GVWR/GAWR information on the certification label is incorrect, the manufacturer responsible for the determination of that value whether a final stage manufacturer or an alterer could be subject to civil penalties for violation of the Agencys regulation.Regardless of whether the GVWR/GAWR information on the label is correct, the vehicle could be considered to contain a safety related defect if the overloading presents a risk of a safety problem (e.g., because the axle failed or stability problems, potentially leading to a crash). Both a final stage manufacturer and an alterer could be responsible for notifying owners and remedying the defect free of charge, if the defect was introduced into the vehicle as a result of the manufacturing operations they performed.

The manufacturer, which includes an alterer, whose manufacturing operations led to the defect is responsible for making a defect determination and notifying the agency pursuant to Part 573 of the Agencys regulations. The manufacturer is also responsible for notifying the dealer that the vehicle contains a safety related defect and is subject to the recall obligations under the Vehicle Safety Act. Federal law prohibits a dealer from delivering to a purchaser a vehicle with a safety related defect or noncompliance without first repairing the defect or noncompliance. A dealer who believes a vehicle may be built in the overloaded condition described in your letter may also want to consider the impact of any applicable state laws.

You also ask whether the Agency might consider the defect to be inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Although NHTSAs empowering statute alludes to the possibility of an inconsequentiality determination with regard to a defect, the granting of such a petition would be highly unusual. The Agency has only once granted such a petition.The Agency determined that a certification label containing erroneous GVWR information was inconsequential because the correct information was also provided and the error was apparent.Since the obligation to recall and remedy a defect under the Safety Act is premised on a determination that the defect relates to motor vehicle safety, it is highly unlikely that the Agency would grant an exemption from the recall and remedy requirements. This is especially true given a situation, such as that you describe, which poses "an obvious safety issue."

If you have any further questions regarding vehicle certification requirements, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at 202-366-5238.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:567
d.9/23/02

ID: aiam0687

Dear Mr. Fefferman: This is in reply to your letter of March 22, 1972, on the subject o the application of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 to the type of swivelling seat manufactured by your company.; We understand from your letter that you are concerned about the type o swivelling seat that is not continuously fastened to its base and that can therefore come loose in a rollover accident. To avoid this problem, you have designed your seat with a stud bolt that links the seat to its base regardless of the amount of rotation. Your question to us is whether removal of the stud bolt would cause the seat not to conform to Standard 207.; The answer to your question depends in part on whether the seat withou the bolt would be able to meet the applicable strength requirements of the standard. Removal of the stud bolt would not, in itself, cause the seat not to conform to the standard. The seat would conform to S4.3 if the seat were to lock itself by means other than the bolt when returned to the forward facing position.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2842

Dear Senator Glenn: This is in response to your letter of June 7, 1978, pertaining to you constituent's, Mrs. Carl A. Koch, concerns regarding motor vehicle seat backs that do not permanently lock.; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, cop enclosed, requires that a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat or seat back and a control for releasing that restraining device. The industry is currently installing two types of seat back latches, a manual conventional type of latch and a new inertial locking device. The standard requires that the locks withstand a load 20 times the weight of the hinged portion of the seat and is not required to withstand the load of an occupant striking the seat back. Rear occupants are expected to be restrained by the rear seat belts, however, seat backs in locked position, because of some padding, do provide some protection for unrestrained occupants.; The seat back latch referred to by your constituent is an inertial sea back latch which is neither required nor prohibited by the standard. The industry, in an effort to facilitate rapid egress from a motor vehicle in emergency situations, such as a fuel fire, have introduced inertial seat back latches. The seat back latch will lock when the low forces of a panic breaking situation occurs or a high impact force occurs, releasing itself automatically when the inertial forces drop to a predetermined force, normally approximately .5g, allowing rapid occupant egress.; We believe there can be positive post-crash escape advantages for th inertial type seat back latches, however, it would appear from Mrs. Koch's experience that it may be warranted to initiate an investigation of the type of inertial latches installed in the 1978 Ford Granada. Accordingly, I am forwarding a copy of your letter to our Office of Defects Investigation for their action to determine if and what corrective action may be warranted.; I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to Mrs. Koch' inquiry. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.; Sincerely, Michael M. Finkelstein, Acting Associate Administrator fo Rulemaking;