ID: nht91-5.18

DATE: August 8, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: H. George Johannessen, P.E. -- Chairman, Seat Belt Technical Committee, Automotive Occupant Restraints Council

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-22-91 from H. George Johannessen, P.E. to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5858)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209). More specifically, you asked about the meaning of the requirement in S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 that "...the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain this provision.

You explained that some have asserted that a safety belt fails to comply with S4.1(b) if it actually moves off an occupant's pelvis during a crash. To reach such a conclusion, one must ignore the words "be designed to" and treat the requirement as though it read "...the pelvic restraint shall remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle." Such a reading is plainly incorrect, because it reads the phrase "be designed to" out of the regulation.

You explained that you believe S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory phrase that is essentially meaningless. According to your letter, this language first appeared in a standard developed by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), and was subsequently adopted verbatim in the safety belt standard issued by the Department of Commerce and in Standard No. 209. You asserted that the SAE committee that developed this language included it as a design goal only, since the committee members "were aware that they had no objective test procedure to confirm compliance with this design goal," and "were aware that the seat belt would not necessarily remain on the pelvis during the entire collision event in all of the varied collisions encountered in the field."

We cannot agree with your suggestion that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is merely a hortatory design goal. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires each safety standard to meet certain requirements, including, among other things, that the standard be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms. When NHTSA adopted Standard No. 209 as one of the initial Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the agency concluded that Standard No. 209, including S4.1(b), met all applicable statutory criteria.

It is true that there is no compliance test procedure specifically for S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. However, the meaning of that provision becomes clear when it is viewed in the context of the occupant protection requirements in Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No.

210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, and the rest of Standard No. 209. Standard No. 208 requires, among other things, that vehicles be equipped with safety belts and that the lap belt portions of those belts adjust to fit persons ranging in size from a 6-year-old child to a 95th percentile adult male (See S7.1.1). Standard No. 209 requires that safety belts meet specified strength, durability, and other performance requirements. Standard No. 210 requires that the anchorage holding the safety belt in the vehicle meet stringent strength requirements, so that the belt will remain attached to the vehicle in a crash, and lap belt location requirements (S4.3.1), including a minimum lap belt mounting angle, to reduce the likelihood of occupant submarining, i.e., having the lap belt move off the pelvis. See the detailed discussion of the minimum lap belt mounting angle at 55 FR 17970, at 17974; April 30, 1990.

Viewed in this context, we believe that the requirement of S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 means that safety belts must be designed to be capable of being properly adjusted and positioned on the pelvis of occupants ranging from 6-year-old children to 95th percentile adult males. The belts must also be capable of remaining on the pelvis of such occupant during collision or roll-over. A belt system that was not capable of being positioned on the pelvis and remaining there during crashes would not comply with S4.1(b).

Given this meaning and purpose, we offer the following observations. First, the fact that a lap belt moved off the occupant's pelvis during a collision would NOT of itself show that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. Compliance with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 is determined by the design of the safety belt system, not the performance of individual safety belts while in service. Second, the actual performance of a safety belt in a vehicle (e.g., a lap belt moving off the occupant's pelvis during a crash) COULD indicate that the lap belt failed to comply with S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209. If the agency had information indicating that a particular belt design was not capable of being properly positioned on the pelvis or not capable of remaining on the occupant's pelvis when installed in particular vehicles in particular crash modes, the agency might well investigate whether that safety belt design complied with S4.1(b). However, NHTSA has no such information about any safety belt systems at this time.

ID: aiam1497

Dear Mr. Shimizu: This responds to your verbal request to Mr. Herlihy of this office fo a determination that a 3-point, continuous loop, Type II seat belt assembly would meet the requirements of S4.1.2.3.1(a) of Standard No. 208 if its emergency-locking retractor were mounted at the outboard floor anchorage instead of at the roof rail. The belt is routed from the fixed upper torso end, through a slip-fitting latch and pelvic section, to the retractor.; Assuming the belt assembly meets any other adjustment requirement o S4.1.2.3.1, it would conform to S7.1 of Standard No. 208 and S4.1(g) of Standard No. 209 with the emergency-locking retractor mounted at the outboard floor anchorage. The upper torso restraint would 'adjust by means of an emergency-locking retractor' within the meaning of S7.1 as long as the continuous loop permitted slack from the floor-mounted emergency-locking retractor to reach the upper torso portion of the assembly.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1498

Dear Mr. Shimizu: This responds to your verbal request to Mr. Herlihy of this office fo a determination that a 3-point, continuous loop, Type II seat belt assembly would meet the requirements of S4.1.2.3.1(a) of Standard No. 208 if its emergency-locking retractor were mounted at the outboard floor anchorage instead of at the roof rail. The belt is routed from the fixed upper torso end, through a slip-fitting latch and pelvic section, to the retractor.; Assuming the belt assembly meets any other adjustment requirement o S4.1.2.3.1, it would conform to S7.1 of Standard No. 208 and S4.1(g) of Standard No. 209 with the emergency -locking retractor mounted at the outboard floor anchorage. The upper torso restraint would 'adjust by means of an emergency-locking retractor' within the meaning of S7.1 as long as the continuous loop permitted slack from the floor-mounted emergency-locking retractor to reach the upper torso portion of the assembly.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht91-2.13

DATE: March 6, 1991

FROM: Kent Morris -- President, Memory Motors Inc

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-22-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Kent Morris (A37; VSA 103(3); Sec. 571.7(e)

TEXT:

Per my phone conversation with Mr. Vinson today, I am writing to explain our product. I would like to know which, if any, NHTSA Guidelines our company should comply with.

Our company manufactures the M-53, a replica of the 19531955 Corvette. We sell the M-53 as a Kit and a Turnkey. We construct our body from fiberglass and do not use any used parts on it. The Kit is sold as a rolling unit. We use a used chassis from a 1978-1985 Chevrolet Monte Carlo. Because it is a unibody chassis, we cut the side frame rails out (which by the way, is the only place on the chassis that has a serial number). We then shorten the wheelbase 6", weld in an "X" frame member and new side rails. (See Drawings). The used rear axle assembly and front end components are also used. On our turnkey model we install a new engine from Chevrolet and we rebuild the automatic transmission.

Information we have received from the State of Texas says that if a vehicle is assembled using any used components (motor, frame, or body), then the person or firm assembling the vehicle is not a manufacturer. Is this correct and does it matter on a national basis?

Our production is very low, about one unit per month. Does production quantity have any bearing on compliance with federal safety laws or emissions?

I am enclosing our sales information to assist you in getting a clear picture of what we do. If you have any other questions please call. I hope you can respond soon. Thank you for your time.

Attachment

MEMORY MOTORS INC.

110 W. AVE. G CONROE, TEXAS 77301 (409)760-3500

M-53 CORVETTE REPLICA ROLLING CHASSIS

$9,500.00

* BODY IS MOUNTED ON CHASSIS AND IS SHIPPED AS A ROLLING UNIT. NO CRATING IS NECESSARY! * THE BODY IS ONE PIECE, HANDLAID FIBERGLASS. IT IS GEL-COATED IN A PRIMER COLOR AND NO BODY WORK IS NECESSARY! * FLOOR PAN, FIREWALL & DASH ARE LAMINATED INTO THE BODY * DOORS, HOOD, TRUNK, & CONVERTIBLE TOP LID ARE ALL FACTORY INSTALLED. THIS INCLUDES HINGES, LATCHES, STRIKERS & RELEASES * CORE MAT IS LAMINATED INTO VARIOUS BODY PANELS TO ADD STRENGTH & SOUND INSULATION * METAL PLATES ARE LAMINATED INTO THE BODY AT 20 DIFFERENT STRESS POINTS TO PROVIDE DURABILITY * BRACKETS ARE SUPPLIED FOR EMERGENCY BRAKE HANDLE, GAS PEDAL, BRAKE PEDAL, STEERING COLUMN & FRONT BUMPER * TRUNK & HOOD SUPPORT MECHANISMS * ALL NECESSARY WEATHERSTRIPPING * RADIATOR SUPPORTS * LATE MODEL GM CHASSIS READY FOR RECONDITIONING * WHEELBASE IS SHORTENED 6" * CUSTOM 2 X 4 "X-FRAME", MOTOR MOUNTS & BODY MOUNTS ARE WELDED INTO CHASSIS * REMOVABLE TRANSMISSION CROSSMEMBER BOLTS INTO "X" FRAME * 2"DROPPED SPINDLES ARE INCLUDED

DELUXE ROLLING CHASSIS

$10,800.00

* IN ADDITION TO THE ROLLING CHASSIS OUTLINED ABOVE, THE DELUXE CHASSIS HAS BEEN SANDBLASTED, PAINTED BLACK & RECONDITIONED WITH NEW PARTS INCLUDING: UPPER & LOWER BALL JOINTS, INNER & OUTER TIE ROD ENDS, TIE ROD SLEEVES, CENTER LINK, IDLER ARM, UPPER & LOWER A-FRAME BUSHINGS STABILIZER BAR LINK KITS & BUSHINGS, FRONT BRAKE PADS & CALIPERS, REAR BRAKE SHOES & WHEEL CYLINDERS, FRONT & REAR GREASE SEALS, BRAKE HOSES & SHOCKS * DIFFERENTIAL IS INSPECTED & SERVICED * DRUMS & ROTORS ARE RESURFACED * FRONT SPRINGS ARE MODIFIED & DROPPED SPINDLES ARE INSTALLED

PRICES EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 1990

M-53 OPTIONS

COMPLETE 65 PIECE CHROME TRIM PACKAGE..................$3,900.00 1. AUTHENTIC TIGER TEETH, GRILL BAR & OVAL 2. BODY SIDE MOLDINGS INCLUDING GULL WINGS 3. FRONT & REAR BUMPERETTES 4. HEADLIGHT BEZELS & SCREENS 5. REAR LICENSE PLATE BEZEL & PLEXIGLASS LENSE 6. EXHAUST BEZELS 7. FRONT & REAR CENTER BUMPERS

8. DEFROSTER VENTS 9. W/S WASHER NOZZELS 10. DASH & DOOR MIRRORS 11. CONSOLE, SEAT SURROUND & TOP OF DOOR MOLDINGS

UPHOLSTERY PACKAGE.....................................$1,400.00

1. SEATS, DOOR & KICK PANELS, DASH & DOOR TRIM COME FULLY UPHOLSTERED 2. QUALITY LOOP CARPETING WITH JUTE PADDING, PRE-CUT TO FIT INTERIOR & TRUNK COMPARTMENTS & SOFT TOP SHELF 3. SEAT FRAMES WITH ADJUSTABLE SLIDES ON LEFT

INSTRUMENTATION PACKAGE................................$1,600.00

1. HEAD, TAIL, PARKING & LICENSE LIGHT ASSEMBLIES 2. CLOCK, TACHOMETER, FUEL LEVEL, OIL PRESSURE & TEMPERATURE GUAGES WITH SENDING UNITS 3. CUSTOM WIRING HARNESS COMPLETE WITH FUSE 4. ORIGINAL STYLE SPEEDOMETER

WINDSHIELD KIT...........................................$975.00

1. CHROME PLATED WINDSHIELD POSTS 2. CHROME PLATED EXTRUDED ALUMINUM UPPER & LOWER WINDSHIELD FRAMES 3. ORIGINAL REPLACEMENT SAFETY GLASS WINDSHIELD 4. RUBBER GASKETS

SOFT TOP PACKAGE.......................................$1,450.00

1. ORIGINAL STYLE FOLDING FRAME WITH BODY MOUNTS 2. ORIGINAL REPLACEMENT CANVAS WITH REAR WINDOW 3. CHROME FRONT LATCHES, REAR LATCHES & RECEIVERS 4. COMPLETELY ASSEMBLED

OTHER OPTIONS

1. HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM....................$795.00 2. CUSTOM BUILT FOUR ROW RADIATOR.......................$325.00 3. 15 GALLON ALUMINUM FUEL TANK.........................$295.00 4. WINDSHIELD WIPER SYSTEM (BLADES,ARMS,CHROME BEZELS, TRANSMISSIONS, LINKAGES, MOTOR W/MOUNTING BRACKET & SWITCH)....................................$330.00

PRICES EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 1, 1990 DONOR PARTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE M-53

*CHEVROLET SMALL BLOCK W/ACCESSORIES *350 THM SHORT TAIL TRANSMISSION *DRIVESHAFT SHORTENED TO 33.5" CTC OF CAPS

*MOTOR & TRANSMISSION MOUNTS *STEERING COLUMN-FLOOR SHIFT, TILT STYLE W/SWITCHES *POWER BRAKE BOOSTER *BRAKE PEDAL ASSEMBLY *ACCELRATER PEDAL, CLIP & CABLE *HORNS *CHARCOAL CANNISTER *TRANSMISSION COOLER LINES, MODULATOR VACUUM LINE & KICKDDOWN CABLE *HEADLIGHT SWITCH ABOVE PARTS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM A 1976 AND UP "G" BODY INCLUDING; MONTE CARLO, GRAND PRIX, CUTLASS, REGAL, & MALIBU

*MASTERCYLINDER (FLAT TOP) *EMERGENCY BRAKE HANDLE ASSEMBLY AND CABLE GUIDE (1982 CHEVETTE) *HOOD RELEASE CABLE *SPEEDOMETER CABLE *FLOOR SHIFTER, FORD PN E6DZ721OF & E3DZ7218A.MODIFY PER MEMORY MOTORS *DUAL EXHAUST SYSTEM *FOUR ROW RADIATOR & HOSES *BATTERY, CABLES & TRAY *CUSTOM STEERING WHEEL *WHEELS & TIRES *FUEL FILLER NECK, HOSE & CAP *SPARE TIRE, JACK & LUG WRENCH

M-53

TURNKEY PRICING

$32,000.00 Base Price, Includes These Standard Features:

*Power Steering *Power Brakes: Front Disc/Rear Drum *New 350 Chevrolet Engine 4 BBL. *Rebuilt 350 Automatic Trasmission *Tilt Wheel *Dual Exhaust *All Around Coil Spring Suspension *Carpeting In Trunk, Soft Top & Passenger Compartments *Spare Tire, Jack And Lug Wrench *Wire Spoke Wheels *Wide White Wall Tires *12 Month/12,000 Mile Warranty

Options

$1,450.00 *Original Style Convertible Top $1,200.00 *A/C And Heater System $1,200.00 *Leather Interior $675.00 *Original Style Steering Wheel

$400.00 *Original Style Shifter $250.00 *Chrome Engine Dress Kit

Call For Information On Models In Stock *Allow 60-90 Days On Non-Stock Orders *Terms Are: 1/3 To Begin, 1/3 In 30-Days, Balance on Delivery.

M-53 CORVETTE REPLICA

ROLLING CHASSIS

$9,500.00

* BODY IS MOUNTED ON CHASSIS AND IS SHIPPED AS A ROLLING UNIT. NO CRATING IS NECESSARY! * THE BODY IS ONE PIECE, HANDLAID FIBERGLASS. IT IS GEL-COATED IN A PRIMER COLOR AND NO BODY WORK IS NECESSARY! * FLOOR PAN, FIREWALL & DASH ARE LAMINATED INTO THE BODY * DOORS, HOOD, TRUNK, & CONVERTIBLE TOP COVER ARE ALL FACTORY INSTALLED. THIS INCLUDES HINGES, LATCHES, STRIKERS & RELEASES * CORE MAT IS LAMINATED INTO VARIOUS BODY PANELS TO ADD STRENGTH & SOUND INSULATION * METAL PLATES ARE LAMINATED INTO THE BODY AT 20 DIFFERENT STRESS POINTS TO PROVIDE DURABILITY * FLOOR PAN, FIREWALL & DASH ARE LAMINATED INTO THE BODY * DOORS, HOOD, TRUNK, & CONVERTIBLE TOP COVER ARE ALL FACTORY INSTALLED. THIS INCLUDES HINGES, LATCHES, STRIKERS & RELEASES * BRACKETS ARE SUPPLIED FOR EMERGENCY BRAKE HANDLE, GAS PEDAL, BRAKE PEDAL, STEERING COLUMN & FRONT BUMPER * TRUNK & HOOD SUPPORT MECHANISMS * ALL NECESSARY WEATHERSTRIPPING * RADIATOR OR SUPPORTS * LATE MODEL GM CHASSIS READY FOR RECONDITIONING * WHEELBASE IS SHORTENED 6" * CUSTOM 2 X 4 "X-FRAME", MOTOR MOUNTS & BODY MOUNTS ARE WELDED INTO CHASSIS * REMOVABLE TRANSMISSION CROSSMEMBER BOLTS INTO "X" FRAME * 2" DROPPED SPINDLES ARE INCLUDED

DELUXE ROLLING CHASSIS

$10,800.00

* IN ADDITION TO THE ROLLING CHASSIS OUTLINED ABOVE,THE DELUXE CHASSIS HAS BEEN SANDBLASTED, PAINTED BLACK & RECONDITIONED WITH NEW PARTS INCLUDING: UPPER & LOWER BALL JOINTS, INNER & OUTER TIE ROD ENDS, TIE ROD SLEEVES, CENTER LINK, IDLER ARM, UPPER & LOWER A-FRAME BUSHINGS STABILIZER BAR LINK KITS & BUSHINGS, FRONT BRAKE PADS & CALIPERS, REAR BRAKE SHOES & WHEEL CYLINDERS, FRONT & REAR GREASE SEALS, BRAKE HOSES & SHOCKS * DIFFERENTIAL IS INSPECTED & SERVICED

* DRUMS & ROTORS ARE RESURFACED * FRONT SPRINGS ARE MODIFIED & DROPPED SPINDLES ARE INSTALLED

M-53 OPTIONS

COMPLETE 65 PIECE CHROME TRIM PACKAGE..................$3,900.00 1. AUTHENTIC TIGER TEETH, GRILL BAR & OVAL 2. BODY SIDE MOLDINGS INCLUDING GULL WINGS 3. FRONT & REAR BUMPERETTES 4. HEADLIGHT BEZELS & HEADLIGHT SCREENS 5. REAR LICENSE PLATE BEZEL & PLEXIGLASS COVER 6. EXHAUST BEZELS 7. FRONT & REAR CENTER BUMPERS 8. DEFROSTER VENTS 9. W/S WASHER NOZZELS 10. DASH & ODOR MIRRORS 11. CONSOLE, SEAT SURROUND & TOP OF DOOR MOLDINGS

UPHOLSTERY PACKAGE.....................................$1,400.00

1. SEATS, DOOR & KICK PANELS, DASH & DOOR TRIM COME FULLY UPHOLSTERED 2. QUALITY LOOP CARPETING WITH JUTE PADDING, PRE-CUT TO FIT INTERIOR & SOFT TOP SHELF 3. SEAT FRAMES WITH ADJUSTABLE SLIDES ON LEFT

INSTRUMENTATION PACKAGE................................$1,600.00

1. HEAD, TAIL. PARKING & LICENSE LIGHT ASSEMBLIES 2. CLOCK, TACHOMETER, FUEL LEVEL, OIL PRESSURE & TEMPERATURE GUAGES WITH SENDING UNITS 3. CUSTOM WIRING HARNESS COMPLETE WITH FUSE BLOCK, RELAYS & FLASHERS 4. ORIGINAL STYLE SPEEDOMETER

WINDSHIELD KIT...........................................$975.00

1. CHROME PLATED WINDSHIELD POSTS 2. CHROME PLATED EXTRUDED ALUMINUM UPPER & LOWER WINDSHIELD FRAMES 3. ORIGINAL REPLACEMENT SAFETY GLASS WINDSHIELD 4. RUBBER GASKETS

SOFT TOP PACKAGE........................................$1,450.00

1. ORIGINAL STYLE FOLDING FRAME WITH BODY MOUNTS 2. ORIGINAL REPLACEMENT CANVAS WITH REAR WINDOW 3. CHROME FRONT LATCHES, REAR LATCHES & RECEIVERS 4. COMPLETELY ASSEMBLED

OTHER OPTIONS

1. HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM......................$795.00 2. CUSTOM BUILT FOUR ROW RADIATOR.........................$325.00 3. 15 GALLON ALUMINUM FUEL TANK...........................$295.00

4. WINDSHIELD WIPER SYSTEM (BLADES, ARMS, CHROME BEZELS, TRANSMISSIONS. LINKAGES, MOTOR W/MOUNTING BRACKET & SWITCH)......................................$330.00

DONOR PARTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE M-53

* CHEVROLET SMALL BLOCK W/ACCESSORIES * 350 THM SHORT TAIL TRANSMISSION * DRIVESHAFT SHORTENED TO 33.5" CTC OF CAPS * MOTOR & TRANSMISSION MOUNTS * STEERING COLUMN-FLOOR SHIFT, TILT STYLE W/SWITCHES * POWER BRAKE BOOSTER * BRAKE PEDAL ASSEMBLY * ACCELRATER PEDAL, CLIP & CABLE * HORNS * CHARCOAL CANNISTER * TRANSMISSION COOLER LINES, MODULATOR VACUUM LINE & KICKDOWN CABLE * HEADLIGHT SWITCH ABOVE PARTS MAY BE OBTAINED FROM A 1976 AND UP "G" BODY INCLUDING; MONTE CARLO, GRAND PRIX, CUTLASS, REGAL, & MALIBU

* MASTERCYLINDER (FLAT TOP) * EMERGENCY BRAKE HANDLE ASSEMBLY AND CABLE GUIDE (1982 CHEVETTE) * HOOD RELEASED CABLE * SPEEDOMETER CABLE * FLOOR SHIFTER, FORD PN E6DZ7210F & E3DZ7213A.MODIFY PER MEMORY MOTORS * DUAL EXHAUST SYSTEM * FOUR ROW RADIATOR & HOSES * BATTERY, CABLES & TRAY * CUSTOM STEERING WHEEL * WHEELS & TIRES * FUEL FILLER NECK, HOSE & CAPE * SPARE TIRE, JACK & LUG WRENCH

ID: nht76-4.47

DATE: 01/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: American Safety Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to American Safety's December 5, 1975, question whether a state or local government agency such as a municipal police department may modify Type II seat belt assemblies to permit detachment of the upper torso restraint, and whether a seat belt manufacturer may "participate in the modifications of the vehicle and seat belt assemblies."

Section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "knowingly [rendering] inoperative, in whole or 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 [except during a repair]." This prohibition applies to changing a non-detachable upper torso restraint to a detachable upper torso restraint.

Under this language of the Act, the police department would not be prohibited from modification of the seat belts. A manufacturer could not actively participate in the modification of the vehicles. Sale of a seat belt assembly to the police department would not of itself, however, constitute a violation of the Act.

YOURS TRULY,

American Safety

December 5, 1975

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated November 18, 1975, reference N40-30, which was in response to our letter of October 10, 1975.

Apparently there has been a misunderstanding as to the question(s) raised by our October 10th inquiry, as your letter makes reference to seat belt assembly installations in newly manufactured vehicles. The first paragraph of our October 10th letter is addressed to the question of modification of seat belt assemblies in existing vehicles; this modification would result in the shoulder belt portion of the assembly being a "detachable" belt.

In any event, your letter of November 18, 1975 advised that Standard No. 209 does not prohibit the manufacture of seat belt assemblies with detachable upper torso restraints. However, while your letter does state that a municipal government could not specify Type 2 seat belt assemblies with detachable upper torso restraints at the front outboard designated seating position, it is silent in the question of whether the government agency is still free to alter the vehicle after delivery to the agency. You will note that our letter of October 10, 1975 included a copy of an NHTSA letter of May 15, 1974 addressed to Los Angeles County Sheriff, Peter J. Pitchess wherein it was stated that the sheriff was free to alter the department vehicles after delivery. We are again including a copy with this letter for your information.

Accordingly, we would appreciate hearing from you with regard to the questions:

(a) are states and their political subdivisions free to alter their vehicles after delivery by modifying the seat belt assembly wherein the shoulder belt portion of the assembly is "detachable".

(b) assuming that states and their political subdivision may alter their vehicles after delivery, may a manufacturer of seat belt assemblies participate in the modification of the vehicle(s) and seat belt assembly(s) wherein the shoulder belt portion of the assembly(s) is "detachable".

We hope this will correct any misunderstanding.

W. A. May Corporate Secretary

ID: 11814.ZTV

Mr. William J. Schultz
Principal Engineer
United States Motorcycle Manufacturers Association
Dept. 704
3700 W. Juneau Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53208

Dear Mr. Schultz:

This is in reply to your letter of April 4, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Table IV of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it applies to the location of reflex reflectors on motorcycles.

You point out that agency interpretations permit front turn signal lamps and headlamps "to rotate about the steering axis as long as they are within the location limits specified in the regulation". You ask for confirmation that this interpretation is equally applicable to front side reflex reflectors.

The answer is yes. Table IV requires front side reflex reflectors to be located "on each side. . . as far to the front as practicable." Conformance is determined with the front wheel in the straight-ahead position. The determination of practicability of location is initially that of the motorcycle manufacturer and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will not question it unless it is clearly erroneous. Thus, a front side reflex reflector may be mounted on a portion of the motorcycle that turns if the manufacturer determines that that location is as far to the front as practicable, even though, during a turn, that reflector may not be visible from the side of the motorcycle.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:5/10/96

ID: nht75-6.5

DATE: 04/25/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: New York Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1975, asking whether, consistently with Federal law, the New York Commissioner of Transportation may waive a safety rule which is based on a Federal safety regulation. You indicate that New York has rules which permit waivers of New York requirements. The case in point involves a waiver given to a bus owner who, because his vehicle was to be used only in the transportation of nursery school children, requested that the allowable occupant weight be set at 100 pounds rather than 120 pounds. The waiver was provided by giving the owner-operator of the vehicle a valid certificate of inspection.

The facts of the case, particularly how the vehicle in question is equipped and labeled, are not altogether clear from what you have told us. It appears that the manufacturer of the bus has labeled it with a gross vehicle weight rating that, contrary to the Federal certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567(g)(3)), does not equal the unloaded vehicle weight plus 120 pounds times the number of designated seating positions in the bus.

It appears from your correspondence that the certificate of inspection issued by the New York authorities fulfills purposes that differ from those of the Federal certification regulations. There is no Federal requirement that the State inspection rules incorporate the Federal requirements, as long as they do not conflict with the Federal safety standards or associated regulations. However, if the manufacturer has violated the Federal law, he is subject to its sanctions, and nothing the State can do would "forgive" the violation. If our assumptions concerning the facts of the case are correct, the State is free to deal as it sees fit with the fact that the bus does not conform to the Federal regulations.

Sincerely,

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

February 7, 1975

Karen Kreshover, Esq. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: pre-emption of state safety standards for buses: Request for interpretation

This is a formal request for an interpretation of the preemptive status of certion federal rules concerning bus safety. I spoke with you briefly on the phone on February 6, 1975 about this problem.

New York has rules (17 NYCRR 720.26 and 721.33) which permit the Commissioner of Transportation under certain conditions to, in effect, waive certain safety rules. I attach copies of these "waiver" provisions.

My question generally is, can the Commissioner "waive" or grant exception to rules adopted by New York which are based on federal requirements.

The particular application of this question concerns the definition stated in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rules concerning the definition of "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating." The rule (49 CFR 567.4) uses a 120 pound per pupil factor in determining GVWR. New York has a similar standard (17 NYCRR 720.1 (e) and 721.1 (p).

In at least one instance the Commissioner of Transportation has granted an exception concerning this rule. I am enclosing a copy of the order and report concerning this proceeding. This represents one example where a rule adopted to apply to the "average case" works hardship on a "special case." We believe that the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of New York should be free to grant exceptions in such cases.

I thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Michael D. McDonald Assistant Counsel

Historical Note

See added (Illegible Words) (Illegible Numbers)

720.26 Exception to safety regulations. (a) The commissioner upon application, may adopt an order issuing a certificate of inspection to the current owner or operator of a motor vehicle subject to this Part which falls to meet or achieve certain standards or requirements contained within this Part, if the commissioner shall determine that said vehicle as designed, constructed, altered or modified is safe to be operated within this State, and that the specific deviations from the standards and requirements contained in this Part in no way render such vehicle lens safe to passengers or to the public than had the vehicle complied with such provisions. Any order adopted pursuant to this section shall set forth the specific provisions contained in this Part with which the vehicle fails to comply, and in addition, state the reasons why the commissioner has so determined that the vehicle should be granted a certificate of inspection.

(b) The commissioner, or his duly authorized representative shall endorse clearly and legibly on the face of the certificate of inspection issued pursuant to this section that said certificate was issued pursuant to this section.

Historical Note

Sec. added, filed Mar. 29, 1974 off. Apr. 1. 1974

721.33 Exception to safety regulations. (a) The commissioner, upon application, may adopt an order issuing a certificate of inspection to the current owner or operator of a bus subject to this Part which fails to meet or achieve certain standards or requirements contained within this Part, if the commissioner shall determine that said vehicle as designed constructed, altered or modified is safe to be operated within this state, and that the specific deviations from the standards and requirements contained in this Part in no way render such vehicle less safe to passenger or to the public than had the vehicle complied with such provisions. Any order adopted pursuant to this section shall set forth the specific provisions

CHAPTER VI TRANSPORTATION REGULATION

@ 722.2 (Illegible Lines)

PART 722

REPORTS OF ACCIDENTS

(Statutory authority: Transportation Law @ 142)

See

721.0 Applicability

722.1 Reportable accidents

See

722.2 Accident report forms

722.3 (Illegible Word) to his reports

Historical Note

Part (@@ 722.0-722.2) filed Mar. 29, 1974 eff. Apr. 1, 1974.

Section 722.0 Applicability. Every operator of a motor vehicle subject to Department of Transportation inspection is hereby directed and required to comply with and obey the following rules and regulations.

Historical Note

See added, filed Mar. 29, 1974 eff. Apr. 1, 1974.

722.1 Reportable accidents. (a) Any accident in any way involving a motor vehicle subject to department inspection which results in the loss of life or injury of any passenger, employee or other person, or which was caused by mechanical failure regardless of whether or not injuries were incurred, shall be immediately reported to the department of telephone or telegraph.

(b) No work shall be performed on the vehicle involved until it is released by the Department of Transportation.

Historical Note

See, added filed Mar. 29, 1974 eff. Apr. 1, 1974.

722.2 Accident report forms. (a) An accident in any way involving a motor vehicle subject to department inspection which results in the loss of life or serious injury, or an injury requiring first aid or hospitalization at the time of the accident, shall be reported in writing to the department within 48 hours after it occurs. A written report shall be submitted within 48 hours when an accident was due to mechanical failure, regardless of whether or not personal injury occurred.

(b) Such written report may be submitted on an 8 1/2 inch by 11 inch sheet of paper duplicating such Form A. Appendix B-2, infra. In lieu thereof, such report may be submitted on a Federal Department of Transportation accident report form or on the accident report form required by the New York State Commissioner of Motor Vehicles.

2475 TR 3-31-74

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

At the Office of the Department of Transportation in the City of Albany December 23, 1974

PRESENT:

Martin D. Zell, Assistant Commissioner for Transportation Regulatory Affairs

CASE 27647 - In the Matter of the issuance of a certificate of inspection to the current owner or operator of a bus or other motor vehicle pursuant to Section 720.26 or 721.33 of Title 17 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. APPLICATION OF ABC CHILD CARE, INC. FOR EXCEPTION TO SECTION 720.1 (1).

ABC Child Care, Inc., having requested a certificate of inspection pursuant to the requirements and provisions of Section 720.26 of Title 17 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York, said certificate to be affixed to certain vehicles owned and operated by the carrier, and said vehicles having been presented for inspection and the Commissioner having determined that the vehicles deviate from certain standards set forth in his safety rules and regulations, and the Commissioner having further determined that such vehicles are safe to be operated within this State under certain conditions, and further, that the specific deviations from his safety rules and regulations in no way renders said vehicles less safe to passengers or to the public than had the vehicles complied with such provisions, it is

ORDERED:

1. To the extent and under the conditions set forth in the attached memorandum, ABC Child Care, Inc. is relieved from compliance with the requirements contained in Section 720.1 (1) of Title 17 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York, insofar as said regulations pertain to the use of certain vehicles owned and operated by the said carrier.

2. That if said vehicles otherwise complied with all of the applicable safety rules and regulations, a certificate of inspection shall be issued and affixed to said vehicles and there shall be endorsed clearly and legibly on the face of the certificate of inspection so issued a notation indicating that the certificate was issued pursuant to Section 720.26 of the above entitled regulations.

3. That this order and the certificate of inspection issued herein, shall remain in effect only for such period as said vehicles shall be used in the manner, under the conditions, and for the purpose set forth in the attached memorandum, and unless the Commissioner shall otherwise order.

4. That this order shall become effective immediately.

By the Assistant Commissioner for Transportation Regulatory Affairs

THOMAS B. TYREE Department Secretary

MEMORANDUM

APPROVED DEC 23 1974

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DATE December 12, 1974

SUBJECT CASE 27647 - In the matter of the issuance of a certificate of inspection to the current owner or operator of a bus or other motor vehicle pursuant to Section 720.26 or 721.33 of Title 17 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York.

APPLICATION OF ABC CHILD CARE, INC. FOR EXCEPTION TO SECTION 720.1 (1).

FROM M. V. Chauvin, Traffic and Safety Division, Room 720, Bldg. 7A

TO M. D. Zell, Off. of Transp. Regulatory Aff., Room 503, Bldg. 5

ABC Child Care, Inc., Woodside, New York, has requested exception to Section 720.1 (1) of rules governing the safety of motor carriers of passengers which sets passenger weight of a school child at 120 pounds.

Mr. Tom Fasciolo, director of the school, has made this request on the basis of the limited clientele (youngsters age 3 to 6) that this nursery school serves. Considering that children in the 3 to 6 age bracket will not meet or exceed a weight of 100 pounds, it seems reasonable to reduce the requirement to meet the individual situation. In discussing this with Mr. Fasciolo it was learned that these vehicles are used exclusively to transport the nursery school children when operated in service that comes under the New York State Department of Transportation jurisdiction.

Therefore, it is recommended that an order be adopted granting permission to the ABC Child Care, Inc., 66-26 Laurel Hill Blvd., Woodside, New York to use a passenger weight of 100 pounds per nursery school child, with the understanding that the vehicles will be limited to the transportation of nursery school children exclusively.

ID: aiam1720

Dear Mr. Horst: This responds to your November 22, 1974, request for an interpretatio of language in Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems, that regulates electrical failure of the antilock systems which may be installed by vehicle manufacturers to meet the standard's performance requirements. You ask whether the S5.1.6 requirement for a continuous warning light 'in the event of total electrical failure' includes (1) any failure within the antilock system other than complete loss of all electrical power, or (2) any failure in the vehicle power source to the antilock components or from the antilock components to the signal lamp in the driver's compartment. You also ask whether the S5.5.1 requirement that 'electrical failure of any part of the antilock system shall not increase the actuation and release times of the service brakes' permits an increase in actuation time while the antilock logic circuity (sic) first recognizes a failure that occurs during brake actuation and then deactivates the antilock system.; In responding to a similar request for interpretation on the meaning o 'total electrical failure' we interpreted this phrase in a May 26, 1972, letter to Wagner Electric to mean any electrical failure within the antilock electrical system circuitry which would cause loss of antilock control of every wheel on the vehicle. This requires that the signal activate when complete loss of electrical power is sensed within the antilock system. We understand that many available systems also signal partial loss of electrical integrity, and we may give future consideration to a requirement that the signal activate in response to specific 'partial failures.'; With regard to failures in the battery or in the wiring from th battery to the antilock or from the antilock to the signal in the driver's compartment, we cannot state that a failure in these systems would not be non-compliance with S5.1.6. Our other standards (e.g., *Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment) assume and require the integrity of the wiring systems necessary to meet the requirement. Of course an isolated case of battery failure or a broken wire to the signal lamp would not in itself be considered a non-compliance. It would appear that a manufacturer of antilock systems is not in a position to certify that the signal generated by his product will reach the dashboard.; You pointed out that, with regard to S5.5.1's requirement tha 'electrical failure of any part of the antilock system shall not increase the actuation and release times of the service brakes,' the possibility exists of an antilock electrical failure occurring during a brake application which would necessitate a period for recognition of the failure and deactivation of the system. This recognition period would increase the actuation time. The NHTSA believes that this period of initial recognition is desirable to detect and eliminate incorrect indications of malfunction without interfering with the antilock function. Until the wording of this section is modified to reflect this exception, the NHTSA interprets S5.5.1 to permit an increase in actuation time while antilock logic circuitry first recognizes a failure occuring (sic) during brake actuation, and deactivates the antilock system.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht95-2.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 5, 1995

FROM: C. Rufus Pennington, III -- Margol & Pennington, P.A.

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/6/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO C. RUFUS PENNINGTON, JR. (A43; STD. 108; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Versailles:

On August 1, 1994, my 13 year-old nephew, Richard L. ("Bo") Wilson, III, was injured while an occupant in a rear seat of a 1979 Porsche 911 SC. The rear seat was not equipped with any type of seat belt. The vehicle was manufactured in July 1979 and was imported by Volkswagen of America, Inc in August 1979.

The approximate size and dimensions of the two rear seats are shown in the enclosed photographs and excerpts from the owner's manual. The maximum load capacity, as stated in the owner's manual, is 529 pounds (240 kg). A label in the engine compartme nt states that there are "two front" designated seating positions (although this information is not included in the owner's manual). The top or back portion of each of the rear seats folds down, in order to allow increased storage area in the rear.

By way of additional information, the 1980 model had an increased total load capacity of 661 pounds, but still had no seat belts in the rear seats. Then, in 1981, with a load capacity of 661 pounds and with no discernible change in the configuration of the seats, seat belts were added in the rear seats.

Based upon the foregoing information and the enclosed materials, I would appreciate NHTSA's answers to the following questions:

1. Did the manufacturer's designation of "two front" passenger seats eliminate any obligation on the part of the manufacturer to provide seat belts in the rear seats under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 (49 C.F.R. @ 471.208)?

2. Did the 1979 Porsche 911 SC comply with, or did it violate the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 (49 C.F.R. @ 471.208)?

Thank you very much for your assistance in this matter.

Enclosures - photo and specifications omitted.

ID: nht88-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 9, 1988

FROM: KAREN WHITEHEAD

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 11-25-88, TO KAREN WHITEHEAD, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 213, STD 302, VSA 108(A)(2)(A)

TEXT: Enclosed is a copy of a design for a back and head rest for a child's car toddler seat I have designed.

As you know when a child falls asleep their head simply falls forward or to either side without support. The purpose of the back and head rest I have designed and true tested on many toddlers assures support of the head and shoulders in a comfortable up -right position.

The back and head rest is made from J4Lx fire retardent foam which meets the required 302 Fire retardent standards. The piece measures 18"x22" and is 3/4" thick, the sides are a contour cut measuring 3"x4" at the top, 17" long and tapered to meet flush with the back piece approximately 5" from the bottom of the back piece.

The finished back rest is covered in a cotton polyester fabric with an envelope flap in the back for easy removal. The cover is machine washable and dryable.

The back rest is ancored by slipping the car seat belt through the back rest elastic loops around the toddler seat and buckling the seat belt in the usual manner.

Please send me the regulations for this type of item.

CHILD REATRAINT BOOSTER SEAT

AUTO SEAT

LAP SEAT BELT