ID: aiam4088

Dear Ms. Cheng: Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1986, concerning th requirements of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. You asked whether S4.1.2.3.1(a) of the standard requires a vehicles with a manual, nondetachable Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209, *Seat Belt Assemblies*, to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 in a perpendicular impact.; The answer is that such a Type 2 safety belt system currently does no have to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard. However, we have recently set 30 mph frontal crash protection requirements for manual Type 2 safety belts used in the frontal outboard seating positions in future passenger cars. The dynamic test requirement for manual safety belts would go into effect on September 1, 1989, if the automatic restraint requirement of Standard No. 208 is rescinded. A copy of the notice on dynamic testing of manual safety belts is enclosed.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2073

Dear Mr. Suzuki:#This is in response to your September 16, 1975, lette to Mr. John Carson of this agency, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, *Control Location, Identification and Illumination*. You requested an interpretation of the footnote to Table 1 of the standard which reads: 'Framed areas may be filled'.#The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration interprets this footnote as permitting the vehicle manufacturer the option of depicting the interior of a symbol to which it applies with the same color as the boundary of the symbol, as an alternative to depicting the interior with the same color as the background. In the hazard warning signal symbol, which consists of a triangle containing a smaller triangle, only the area between the triangles is part of the interior. The center of the small triangle is part of the background. Therefore, only the first and third of the samples submitted with your letter are permitted. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of the samples indicating which ones are permitted.#Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3730

Dear Mr. Bright: This is in reply to your letter of July 19, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of thi office. You have asked whether you are violating any Federal standards or regulations by adding 'right side steering, accelerator, brakes & turn signal controls to rural mail carriers delivery vehicles (cars, pickup, jeeps, etc.).' You have told us that you do not modify in any way the left hand side controls with which the vehicle was originally equipped.; Assuming that your modifications do not affect the performance of an of the systems with which the vehicle was equipped by its original manufacturer, your conversion operations would not be prohibited by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, with respect to any new vehicle that you modify which has not yet reached its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, you are required to affix a label identifying you as the alterer and certifying that the vehicle as altered meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This is required by Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7. I enclose a copy of Part 567 for your information.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1393

Dear Mr. Moses: This is in response to your telephone request of February 6, 1974 concerning the application of Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials.*; The standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenge vehicles, trucks, and buses. It does not apply to trailers, the vehicle category which includes mobile homes and other towed recreational vehicles, but it does apply to motor homes and to those campers that are constructed on new chassis. Accordingly, any of the components listed in paragraph S4.1 that are installed in the occupant compartments of the motor vehicles to which the standard is applicable must meet the standard's requirements.; You also asked whether a State may have a motor vehicle safety standar applicable to vehicles covered by a Federal standard that differs from the requirements of the Federal standard. The answer is no. Under the preemption provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, section 103(d), 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), State motor vehicle requirements, if any, have to be identical to the requirements of the Federal standard. Any differing requirements would be void.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0210

Dear Mr. Barnes: Thank you for your recent letter concerning the number of safety belt in your 1969 Chevrolet nine-passenger station wagon.; The present Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 requires tha seat belt assemblies be installed in each *forward-facing* designated seating position in passenger cars. The standard does not apply to side-facing or rear-facing seats. The manufacturer is not required to install safety belts for such seats, however, in the interest of safety, most manufacturers usually install lap belts for the seating positions most commonly used.; A Notice of Proposed Rule Making was issued on September 15, 1969 which would extend the applicability of Standard No. 208 to apply also to side-facing and rear-facing seats. The comments of those who responded to the Notice have been analyzed and the final rule is now being developed.; I am enclosing a copy of our present Standard No. 208 and a copy of th Notice of Proposed Rule Making for your reference.; Thank you for your interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, Clue D. Ferguson, Director, Office of Vehicle Structures Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam2610

Dear Mr. Beach: This responds to your May 6, 1977, question whether Safety Standard No 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, is applicable to all school buses or only to school buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.; You are correct in your statement that school buses are included in th broader classification, 'buses', for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless otherwise specified in a particular standard. Safety Standard No. 301-75 is applicable to passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds of less, including school buses under 10,000 pounds. The standard is also applicable to larger school buses, and the distinction is made in the standard since the large school buses are the only vehicles having a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds that are covered by the standard.; Safety Standard No. 301-75 was made applicable to all school buse pursuant to a mandate under the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392(i)(1)(A)).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam0981

Dear Mr. Monk: This is in further response to your letter of January 5, 1973, to Mrs Virginia Knauer, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 125, *Warning Devices*.; As you already know from Mr. E.T. Driver's letter of January 24, 1973 and previous correspondence from my office and the Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued the standard as an equipment item that would be suitable for use in all types of vehicles, from trucks to passenger cars.; In issuing the standard, we were concerned with the great variety o devices presently available, which can create confusion and misunderstanding to the motoring public. We were also concerned with wind stability, and your comments were most useful in our consideration of this aspect of the requirements. FMVSS No. 125 is an attempt to achieve a standardized device having a proper balance of the factors affecting shape, size, cost, visibility, wind stability and weight. These are minimum standards and the manufacture and sale of devices that exceed these requirements is not prohibited.; Again, thank you for your comments. Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam0163

Dear Mr. Hilgendorf: Mr. Frank Coy, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary o Transportation, has asked that I respond to your letter of April 16, 1969, in which you ask whether a station wagon purchased in March of 1968, equipped with two ply tires, violates Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.; The vehicle you purchased was apparently manufactured prior to April 1 1968, and therefore, it was not required to be equipped with tires conforming to Standard No. 109. However, even if the standard were applicable, because a tire is labeled '2-ply' it is not necessarily a non-conforming tire. Standard No. 109 does not specifically require tires to have a given number of plies. It does require that irrespective of any ply rating tires pass minimum performance tests. As to passenger cars, Standard No. 110 requires that passenger car manufactured after April 1, 1968, (1) must be equipped with tires that comply with Standard No. 109, and (2) the vehicle must not place a load on any of the tires greater than the load capacity of the tire specified in Standard No. 109.; Very truly yours, Howard A. Heffron, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3179

Dear Mr. Brinks: This responds to your recent letter requesting information concernin the Federal safety regulations applicable to motorcycle fuel tanks and motorcycle trailers.; The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard regarding fuel syste integrity, Standard No. 301-75, currently does not apply to motorcycles. Two safety standards would be applicable to the manufacture of motorcycle trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, *Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment* and Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; The manufacturer of a trailer, including a motorcycle trailer, woul have to certify the compliance of the trailer to these two safety standards. Part 566 of our regulations, *Manufacturer Identification* (49 CFR 566), specifies information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufacturers of motor vehicles, including trailers. Part 567, *Certification* (49 CFR 567), specifies the content and location of the certification label or tag that must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards. I am enclosing an information sheet that explains where you can obtain copies of these safety standards and regulations.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Edmund Gabler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Edmund Gabler Colonial House Apartment 507 1150 Atlantic Shores Blvd. Hallandale, Florida 33009

Thank you for your letter asking about our requirements for lap belts and expressing your views on state laws requiring the proper use of safety belts. We appreciate hearing from concerned citizens on the important subject of improved motor vehicle safety.

You asked whether safety belts on your county buses are legal if those belts are designed only as lap belts and do not restrain both the pelvic and upper torso areas of the body. The answer to your question is that those belts are permitted to be installed on buses. Some background information may be helpful. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agency is authorized to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles. Our Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires installation of safety belts in new motor vehicles.

Our belt installation requirements vary according to the type of vehicle. For large "buses" (i.e., those carrying 11 or more persons), the standard requires installation of a lap belt for the driver. The passenger seats on buses are not required to have belts, but lap belts may be installed if desired. For smaller van-type "buses" (i.e., those carrying 10 or fewer persons) and for passenger cars, the standard requires installation of lap-and-shoulder belts for the driver and right-front passenger positions, and lap belts for all other seating positions.

Safety belt usage requirements are established by the states, not by the Federal government. To date, 14 states have enacted safety belt use laws, and two other states have belt use laws awaiting gubernatorial approval. Those laws generally require belt usage only in passenger cars; we are not aware of any state which requires belt usage in buses. Moreover, as a practical matter, belt use requirements are limited to the equipment actually installed in the vehicle. This agency does urge all motorists to use safety belts wherever they are available, regardless of whether usage is required by state law.

In your letter, you stated your disapproval of state laws that require the use of safety belts by motorists. You expressed concerns that being restrained by a belt would be unsafe in an accident and that belt usage laws invade your privacy. We appreciate this opportunity to explain our position on those issues relating to belt usage laws, and hope that this discussion will help shed some light on this very important topic.

You seem to believe that the chances of escaping injury in a crash are greater if safety belts are not worn. Our accident data clearly show that safety belts substantially reduce deaths and serious injuries in a crash. Our traffic records show that venicle occupants who do not wear their safety belts are nearly twice as likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries than belted occupants. One important reason is that belt usage reduces that likelihood of being thrown outside the vehicle in a crash. We estimate that ejected occupants are 25 times more likely to be killed than those who remain inside the car. Even in the rare cases of vehicle fires or submersion under water, the use of a safety belt improves the chances for survival by keeping the occupants conscious and uninjured so that they may escape quickly.

While we believe the evidence is overwhelming as to the benefits of safety belt usage, we recognize that there are always a few exceptions to the general rule. We are aware that belt usage is not a panacea; some accidents are so severe that injuries or fatalities will result regardless of whether any occupant protection systems are used. However, we believe that the preliminary data from New York, the first state to enact a belt use law, confirms our belief in the lifesaving potential of belt usage. The New York belt usage law went into effect on January 1 of this year and belt usage climbed to roughly 60 percent, and traffic deaths during the first six months of the year declined by 18 percent compared to the same period last year.

We recognize that a safety belt use law requires an action that many people do not take voluntarily. However, all traffic laws involve some restraint on individual behavior. Most are accepted without a second thought: we drive on the right side of the road, obey speed limits and stop at red lignts. In many cases, the failure of motorists to obey these laws will have an impact on other motorists as well as themselves. The same is true for failing to wear safety belts, because automobile accidents have many "victims"--family, friends, employers and taxpayers--all of whom bear some measure of the human and economic cost. During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic injuries and deaths have resulted in an annual cost to society of $57 billion resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenues. We believe tnat the relatively small intrusion resulting from safety belt use laws is justified by the substantial societal burden of vehicle-related deaths and injury.

Thank you again for sharing your views witn us. I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel