ID: aiam4784

"Dear Mr. Mullen: This responds to your letter asking about Federa requirements for safety belts in police cars. Specifically, you asked if your police department could legally remove the automatic belts that are installed and replace them with manual lap/shoulder safety belts. You stated that the reasons for making such a substitution would be to alleviate two problems your police officers have experienced with the automatic belts that were not present in older models that had manual lap/shoulder belts at the front seating positions. First, you said that the automatic belts result in a blind spot on the driver's left side. Second, you said that the automatic belts 'prevent left arm movements' of your taller officers. I appreciate this opportunity to respond to your concerns. I have enclosed copies of two previous letters we have written on the subject of removing or replacing occupant protection features from police cars. The first of these is a July 29, 1985 letter to Corporal Frank Browne and the other is a May 25, 1989 letter to Senator Harry Reid. These letters explain that new vehicles purchased by police departments must be certified as complying with the occupant crash protection standard (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208). All cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989 must provide automatic crash protection for front seat occupants. To date, manufacturers have provided automatic crash protection either by installing air bags or automatic safety belts. General Motors, the manufacturer of the police cars in question, has chosen to comply with the requirement for automatic crash protection by installing automatic safety belts in these cars. Federal law prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from replacing the automatic belts in these police cars with manual lap/shoulder belts. Thus, none of these commercial entities could make such a replacement on behalf of the County without violating Federal law. However, Federal law does not prohibit individual vehicle owners from removing safety features from their own vehicles. Thus, McHenry County itself can replace the automatic belts in its own cars without violating any Federal law, just as any resident of McHenry County can remove any safety equipment they like from their own vehicles without violating any Federal laws. Such actions may, however, violate the laws of the State of Illinois. I recommend that you carefully consider the effects of replacing the automatic belts in your police cars, even though Federal law does not prohibit the County itself from making these modifications to its own vehicles. The automatic belts in these cars help to assure safety belt use by police officers on the job. Particularly since the McHenry County police officers face the possibility of becoming involved in high speed pursuit situations, we believe it is important that they use safety belts for effective protection in case of a crash. If you decide to replace the automatic belts in these vehicles with manual lap/shoulder belts, we would urge you to take some actions to assure that the police officers will use the manual lap/shoulder belts every time they ride in the police cars. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need some additional information on this subject, please let me know. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 001280cmc

Mr. Reginald Gray
9111 White Bluff Road, Apt. 102
Savannah, GA 31406

Dear Mr. Gray:

This is in response to your letter in which you ask if selling custom seat belts would be affected by any Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) issued by this agency. You state that you are interested in selling seat belts with various designs and logos on the seat belt webbing. However, it was unclear from your letter if the designs would be added to a vehicles existing belts or if custom belts would be manufactured to replace a vehicles existing belts. Each of these possibilities is addressed below.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our statute and regulations. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. 49 U.S.C. 30112(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 the equipment is in conformity with all applicable safety standards and is certified as being in compliance.

NHTSA has issued four safety standards that may be relevant to your custom seat belts. The first is FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The second relevant standard is FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The third relevant safety standard is FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles. FMVSS Nos. 208, 210, and 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and, not directly to items of equipment. FMVSS No. 209 applies to all seat belt assemblies regardless of whether the seat belts are originally installed in the vehicle or are installed after the vehicle has been purchased.

Because federal law operates differently depending on whether you manufacture, sell, or install the custom seat belts, I will discuss each possible scenario.

Manufacturer and Seller Requirements

The Safety Act states:

A manufacturer or distributor of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment shall certify to the distributor or dealer at delivery that the vehicle or equipment complies with applicable motor vehicle safety standards prescribed under this chapter. (49 U.S.C. 30115)

If you were to manufacture the custom seat belts, you would have to certify that the belts comply with FMVSS No. 209. As noted above, FMVSS No. 209 sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. This standard applies to all seat belt assemblies for use in motor vehicles, regardless of whether the belts are installed as original equipment in a motor vehicle or sold as replacements. Hence, any seat belt sold for installation in an existing vehicle would have to comply with, and be certified as complying with, FMVSS No. 209.

If your product were not a seat belt, but a component to be attached or added to the seat belt, there would be no NHTSA standards directly applicable. However, if you were to manufacture such a product, we would urge you to evaluate carefully whether your product would in any way degrade the performance of vehicle safety belts. For example, you should ensure that your product would not interfere with safety belt retraction, that any adhesive used with your product would not cause deterioration of the safety belt webbing, and that your product would not obscure the information required by FMVSS No. 209 to be labeled on the webbing. Safety belt webbing is designed to have some "give" to help absorb crash forces. If your product were to make the webbing too stiff, it could raise safety concerns. Finally, you should be aware that originally-installed safety belts must meet the requirements of FMVSS 302. Again, we would encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of this standard to ascertain whether your product would degrade the flammability performance of seat belts.

In either case, as a manufacturer, you would also be subject to federal requirements concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121).

Installer Requirements

Any commercial business that would install your product would also be subject to the provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act provides at 49 U.S.C. 30122(b) that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This section would prohibit any of the named type of businesses from installing your product if such installation would cause the vehicle to no longer be in compliance with FMVSS Nos. 208, 209, 210, or 302. Violations of this make inoperative prohibition are subject to a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation. Even if your product were simply modifications to a vehicles existing seat belts (e.g., stickers or additional stitching), any of the above businesses installing your product would still be subject to the make inoperative provision.

Additionally, there may be state law considerations regarding potential liability in tort in these circumstances. I have enclosed a brochure for new manufacturers that discusses the basic requirements of our standards and regulations, including the provisions relating to manufacturers' responsibilities to ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions please call Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:209
d.1/13/03

ID: 15208.og

Mr. Brent Gruenig
Crow River Industries
850 State Highway 55
P.O. Box 70
Brooten, MN 56316

Dear Mr. Gruenig:

This is in response to your letter regarding a seating system which Crow River Industries is developing for the purpose of adapting vehicles for use by less-abled individuals. As described in your letter, the seat rotates on a pivot, allowing the seat to face out of the car, and two sets of slide tracks. One set of slide tracks is used for adjustment in the vehicle. The second set of slide tracks is used for exiting the vehicle after rotation. You are concerned about the legal implications of this design. In particular, you state that you understand that Crow River Industries cannot "make the vehicle inoperable or 'out of specification' with the replacement of the OEM seat with our seat." You wish to know what exactly is "out of specification."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, each manufacturer is responsible for "self-certifying" that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish five safety standards that may be relevant to your seat design. The first is Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, which sets forth strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars. The second is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in vehicles. The third is Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which sets forth strength, elongation, webbing width, durability, and other requirements for seat belt assemblies. The fourth is Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, which establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. The final relevant safety standard is Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. This standard specifies burn resistance requirements for materials used in the occupant compartment of motor vehicles.

Because Federal law operates differently depending on when the installation of the seat occurs, I will separately discuss three possible scenarios.

Installation as Original Equipment

Standards No. 207, No. 208, No. 210, and No. 302 apply, with certain exceptions that are not relevant to your product, to vehicles and not directly to items of equipment. Thus, the vehicle manufacturer, and not the equipment manufacturer, would be responsible for certifying that the vehicle complies with these standards with the adaptive seat installed in the vehicle.

Installation Prior to First Sale

If an adaptive seat were added to a new vehicle prior to its first sale, e.g., by the dealer, the person who modified the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

Installation After First Sale

After the first purchase of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects the vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in 49 U.S.C. 30122. That section provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Any violation of this prohibition is subject to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,100 for each violation.

In situations involving a potential violation of 30122, where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have, where appropriate, been willing to consider certain unavoidable violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need. However, it is often possible to make modifications in a way that does not degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard.

If a company believes that certain modifications must be made to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, and that the modifications cannot be made without violating the "make inoperative" provision discussed above, it may write to us and request a letter stating that we will not enforce that provision. The letter should identify the specific facts at issue and why it is not possible to avoid violating that provision. It should also demonstrate that the proposed modifications minimize the safety consequences of the noncompliances.

For your information, NHTSA is considering proposing a regulation establishing conditions under which a vehicle may be modified to accommodate a person's disability so that the modifier will not be subjected to the make inoperative requirements of 30122. Enclosed is a copy of page 22101 of the agency's April 25, 1997 regulatory agenda where this possible rulemaking is described (entry number 2266).

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at this address or by phone at(202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208
d.11/14/97

ID: nht89-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: SHUICHI WATANABE -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING HOMOLOGATION SECT. STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD. JAPAN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3/27/89 FROM SHUICHI WATANABE OF STANLEY ELECTRIC CO OF JAPAN TO ERIKA JONES OF NHTSA RE: MEASUREMENT OF INCIDENT LIGHT ANGLE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to measurement of the incident light angle prescribed by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for license plate lamps. You have submitted six Figures for our consideration and reply. I regret the delay in r esponding.

Paragraph 6.5 (not 5.3.3) of SAE Standard J587 OCT81 License Plate Lamps (Rear Registration Plate Lamps) states:

"When a single lamp is used to illuminate the plate, the lamp and license plate holder shall bear such relation to each other that at no point on the plate will the incident light make an angle of less than 8 deg. to the plane of the plate, this angle be ing measured from the edge of the light emitting surface of the device farthest from the surface of the plate (see Fig. 3)."

With respect to your Figure A, you comment that, in order to determine the farthest point on the light emitting surface, "only the distance '1' between license plate and a plane runs parallel to it should be considered and not by distance 'm' nor 'n'".

In examining Figure 3 of SAE J587, you will note that the incident angle is measured by a line that extends from the edge of the light emitting surface of the lamp that is the farthest from the most distant point on the plate that the light can be expect ed to reach, to that point. With respect to your Figure A, the line "n" that extends from the edge of the lamp "p" to the bottom of the plate replicates the line shown in Figure 3, and thus is the correct one, not the perpendicular line "1".

Similarly, with respect to Figure B, a round license plate lamp, a line must be drawn from the bottom of the plate (such as line "n" in Figure A) to the farthest light emitting surface surface of the lamp (as shown in Figure 3, not your Figure B) in orde r to illustrate the farthest point.

With respect to Figures C and D, you have asked: "But if the farthest point can exist so may on a line or a plane . . . how could it be determined? Should it be for instance, left end, right end or center of them?" Figure C appears to depict an elongate d lamp in which "p"s are depicted at the left end, right end, and center. In this instance, "P2" is the edge of the light farthest from the surface of the plate, as represented by corner "Q". Though "Po" represents an edge of the lamp, at no place on t he plate is it the point "farthest from the surface of the plate". Thus, the measurement from "Q" to the tangent of the light emitting surface near "P2" is the line to be used to measure the 8 degree minimum angle.

Figure D appears also to represent an elongated lamp but one in which the lens area is directed more towards the plate. In this Figure, "P" is the edge of the lamp that is farthest from the plate. But because of the configuration of the lamp, light fro m this point is interrupted by a part other than a lens and cannot shine directly upon the plate. Your points "P1", "P0", and "P2" appear to indicate the points on the lamp surface where such interruption ceases and light shines directly upon the plate. Therefore, it is our opinion that in this instance "P2" is the edge of the lamp farthest from the plate, as represented by corner "Q".

You have also asked the same question with respect to Figures E and F. These Figures represent lamp designs with two light sources. However, in Figure E, the two light sources appear incorporated in a single lamp, and the requirements of paragraph 6.5 still apply. Thus, a line from Q, tangent to the light emitting surface of the lens near the point "P3" (and not your line "Q-"P3"), is the correct reference for angle measurement. Figure F, however, depicts the light sources as compartmentalized, and thus may be regarded as a two-lamp device. Paragraph 6.6 of SAE J587 establishes the requirement for two or more license plate lamps. It states:

"When two or more lamps are used to illuminate the plate, the minimum 8 deg incident light angle shall apply only to that portion of the plate which the particular lamp is designed to illuminate. The incident light angle shall be measured in the same wa y as provided in paragraph 6.5."

Under these circumstances the light emitting edge of the lamp farthest from the surface of the plate is the furthest edge of the lamp illuminating that portion of the plate, here represented by "P2". Thus, the angle to be measured would be determined wi th reference to a tangent line to the light emitting surface near "P2", from corner "Q".

I hope that this has answered your questions.

Sincerely,

ID: 86-5.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Curtis A. Winston

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Curtis A. Winston Regional Administrator, Region X National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 3140 Jackson Federal Building Seattle, WA 98174

Dear Mr. Curt:

Thank you for your letter of June 27, 1986, asking about how the agency regulations affect the installation of seats and safety belts in used vehicles. You explained that since the passage of a mandatory safety belt use law in Washington, your office has received numerous inquiries about this subject. I hope the following discussion will answer your questions.

I believe it may be helpful to compare how our regulations affect both new and used vehicles. Each manufacturer of new vehicles must certify that each of its vehicles meets all of the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The agency has issued the following five safety standards which apply to vehicle seats and safety belts: Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, Standard No. 207, Seating systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

After a new vehicle becomes a used vehicle (1.e., when it is sold and delivered to the first purchaser), it may be modified without limitation by its owner, but not by commercial enterprises under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits commercial enterprises, such as dealers and motor vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, in the case of a used vehicle, commercial enterprise cannot remove a safety belt that was originally installed in compliance with Federal safety standards. Violations of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

However, in adding equipment to a used vehicle, commercial businesses do not have to comply with the safety standards that would apply if the equipment was installed before the vehicle is first sold. For example, if a commercial business is asked to install a seat in the cargo area of a used van, which did not previously have a seat at that position, the business is not required by the Federal safety standards or section 108(A)(2)(a) to install safety belts for that seat. However, the business may have a duty to install safety belts for that seat under applicable State regulations and courts decisions.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owner, who may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may remove a safety belt from his or her vehicle. The agency, however, urges vehicle owners not to take such actions. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners. Therefore, it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from removing safety belts or seats from the vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have an further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht92-9.34

DATE: January 30, 1992

FROM: David Klopp -- Freedman Seating Company

TO: Mary Versailles -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to David Klopp (A39; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Freedman Seating manufactures seating systems which are used in a variety of vehicles including shuttle buses, tour buses, etc. Examples of our seats are attached. The frames are mounted to the floor and, in many cases, to the wall of the vehicle also.

We would like an interpretation of FMVSS 210 regarding seats having multiple seating positions and with their seat belt anchorages located on the seat frame. Does the strength test in FMVSS 210 require simultaneous testing of all seat belt anchorages for each seat?

Please give me a call if you require additional information.

ID: aiam5369

"Dear Mr. Love: This responds to your request for an interpretation o Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and displays and No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. I apologize for the delay in our response. You asked about the standards in connection with three options your company is considering for changing its 'Tiptronic' automatic transmission system. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter. The current Tiptronic automatic transmission system can be described as follows: The shift lever is located in the middle console, where it can be moved along either of two slots which are located essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. The left slot (automatic function) is essentially the same as a conventional automatic transmission gear shift lever, with the following positions (in order): P R N D 3 2 1. At the D position (only) of the left slot, the gear shift lever can be transferred to the M (manual) position of the right slot (manual function). The right slot consists of the following positions (in order): + M -. When the gear shift lever is in the right slot, the driver can select a higher gear (+) or lower gear (-) by tapping the shift lever. The shift lever always returns to the 'M' position after being tapped. There are two gear position displays, one on the middle console and the other on the instrument panel. The middle console display, which is not illuminated, shows each of the 10 positions where the shift lever may be placed. It also shows the position which is selected. The display on the instrument panel, which is illuminated, has two columns which correspond to the slots on the middle console. However, while the left column (corresponding to the left slot or automatic function) shows the positions P R N D 3 2 1, the right column (corresponding to the right slot or manual function) shows the positions 4 3 2 1. In other words, the right column portion of the display shows the available gears and the actual gear selected rather than + M -. For both columns, the selected position or gear is indicated by an illuminated arrow. In your letter to NHTSA, you indicate that Porsche is considering the following three options for modifying its system: Option 1. The first proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot. Option 2a. The second proposed modification would eliminate the 3, 2 and 1 positions on the left (automatic) slot and the + and - positions on the right (manual) slot. Gear selection in the manual mode would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel. Option 2b) The third proposed modification would provide only one slot with the following positions (in order): P R N D M D. In the M position, gear selection would be accomplished by shift rocker switches on the steering wheel. For each of the proposed modifications, the shift lever positions would be labeled on the middle console, in the same manner as the current system. Similarly, the middle console would not be illuminated. The instrument panel display would not change for any of the options. You ask a number of questions concerning whether the Tiptronic system, as modified under options 1, 2a and 2b, would comply with Standards No. 101 and 102. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below. I will begin by identifying the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 which are relevant to your questions. Section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102 states: Except as specified in S3.1.4.3, if the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist: (a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted. (b) The transmission is not in park. S3.1.4.4 states: Effective September 23, 1991, all of the information required to be displayed by S3.1.4.1 or S3.1.4.2 shall be displayed in view of the driver in a single location. At the option of the manufacturer, redundant displays providing some or all of the information may be provided. Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification and illumination of automatic gear position indicators. Section S5.1 requires that gear position display must be visible to the driver under the conditions of S6. Section S5.3.1 and Table 2 of the standard together require that automatic gear position displays be illuminated whenever the ignition switch and/or the headlamps are activated. The entry in Table 2 concerning the automatic gear position display references Standard No. 102. In a April 2, 1989 letter to Porsche concerning the Tiptronic system, we concluded that, given the reference in Standard No. 101 to Standard No. 102, where multiple gear position displays are provided and one complies with Standard No. 102 and the others do not, the requirements of Standard No. 101 must be met for the display which complies with Standard No. 102. With this background in mind, I will discuss the existing Tiptronic system and the three possible modifications. For the reasons discussed above and in our April 2, 1989 letter, while multiple gear position displays are permitted, one such display must comply with all of the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. Since your console display is not illuminated, it would obviously not comply with Standard No. 101. I will therefore address your letter in the context of whether the instrument panel display meets the requirements of the two standards. I assume that the instrument panel is activated during the times specified by Standard No. 102. Under section S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102, there must be a display of all of the shift lever positions in relation to each other, and there must be an indication of the position that the driver has selected. In our April 2, 1989 letter, we stated that your design has the following ten shift lever positions: P R N D 3 2 1 + M -. We noted that the right column of the alternative instrument panel displays identified in your letter showed either 4 3 2 1 or 4 3 M 2 1 instead of + M -. We concluded that if the instrument panel display was to be used to meet the requirements of Standard No. 102, it would be necessary for the display to show the 10 actual shift lever positions, including + M -. Porsche evidently did not follow the opinion provided in that letter, since Porsche neither provided illumination for the console display nor showed the 10 actual shift lever positions, identified in our letter, on the instrument panel display. While we do not understand the reason for this decision by Porsche, we believe that one could reasonably argue that the + and - locations are not really shift lever 'positions,' since the shift lever cannot be left in those locations. Under this view, + M - could be seen as 'one' shift lever position, which is represented on the instrument panel by 4 3 2 1. We would accept this as an alternative way of characterizing the current Tiptronic system, and are therefore not aware of any compliance problems. I will now turn to the three possible modifications. Once again, since the non-illuminated console display would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 101, the relevant question is whether the instrument panel display meets the relevant requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102. A common problem for all three options would be that the instrument panel display retained from the original Tiptronic system would not correspond to the shift lever positions of the modified designs. This could be corrected for options 1 and 2a simply by deleting the 3 2 1 portion of the left column. A more complicated correction would be needed for option 2a, since the display would need to show the following positions in relation to each other: P R N D M D. I have several other comments on your letter. You stated that for all three options, Porsche believes that it is not necessary to have the shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1, or to necessarily display those positions if selected automatically in the D position, as long as they as displayed when selected manually by use of the shift lever (in option 1) or shift rocker switch(es) (in options 2a and 2b). Porsche is correct that it is unnecessary to provide shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1. Moreover, to the extent that such shift lever positions are not provided but the gears are instead selected automatically in the D position or manually in the M position by tapping the shift lever or shift rocker switch, it is unnecessary to display the gears. You also stated the following: Porsche believes that under options 2a and 2b, both the shift lever and the shift rocker switch(es) would be considered as 'shift levers' during the period when they are capable of changing the transmission position. The 'shift lever position' would then be defined as the transmission position, or mode of operation, that was selected by manipulation of any combination of 'shift levers.' It follows then that identification of 'shift lever position' would entail identifying the distinct transmission operating modes, in relation to each other and the specific mode selected. . . . For options 2a and 2b, Porsche believes it is not necessary to illuminate the shift rocker switches, just as it is not necessary to illuminate the shift lever, under the provisions of FMVSS 101, as long as the display in the speedometer showing transmission position is illuminated. We would not view the shift rocker switch(es) as shift levers under any circumstances. Instead, for the vehicle designs at issue, the lever provided on the middle console would be the only shift lever. When the shift lever is in the 'M' position, the shift rocker switch(es) simply permit manual shifting that is akin to the automatic shifting that occurs when the shift lever is in the 'D' position. The rocker switch(es) could not be used to shift the transmission to P, R or N. Under these circumstances, we view the rocker switch(es) as a control which is auxiliary to the shift lever and unregulated by Standard No. 102. I note that we might take a different position if the rocker switch(es) permitted the transmission to be shifted to P, R or N, since Standard No. 102 includes requirements to prevent shifting errors. I also note that Standard No. 101 does not require transmission shift levers or controls which are auxiliary to shift levers to be illuminated. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ";

ID: nht74-4.18

DATE: 07/17/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 15, 1974, requesting that vehicles which seat 10 persons or less, but are of the same base design as buses specifically designed as school buses, be classified as school buses regardless of their intended use.

The vehicles that would be affected by the reclassification you request are currently categorized as multipurpose passenger vehicles, since they provide seating positions for 10 persons or less. In general, the multipurpose passenger vehicle category is subject to more stringent safety requirements than either the bus or the school bus categories. Further, additional standards are becoming effective for multipurpose passenger vehicles in the near future as part of the NHTSA's overall plan to extend the requirements presently applicable to passenger cars. Thus, multipurpose passenger vehicles can expect increasingly higher safety performance levels, comparable to those of passenger cars.

Vehicles used to transport handicapped children should not be reclassified in such a way as to reduce the number or the stringency of the requirements to which they are subject.

On the basis of the above reason, the NHTSA has concluded that the vehicles about which you are petitioning should not be reclassified as school buses and your petition is therefore denied.

Sincerely

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION

May 15, 1974

Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel

Sheller-Globe Corporation, Superior-Lima Division, Lima, Ohio manufacture bus bodies, including school bus bodies, activity bus bodies and special bus bodies that are used in the transport of the handicapped to and from school, health centers, and special education centers.

These special bus bodies are school bus body derivatives and are constructed similar to van buses or what is commonly referred to as Type II School Buses. The departure from the Type II School Bus is in the designated seating positions.

These special bus bodies have seating positions to accompany two to four persons, not including the vehicle operator or driver. The remaining space is designed for wheelchairs. The total passenger carrying capability will vary from seven to ten persons. This, of course, varies according to customer requirements, as to seat arrangements and/or basic van model, Dodge or Chevy-Van - the Dodge Van being 18 inches longer than the Chevy-Van.

Many of these special bus bodies are purchased by schools, private and public, and require that they be identified as school buses, as well, be equipped with the traffic controlling warning lamp systems. On the other hand, many are purchased by private, special education or health care centers and do not require the school bus identification or the warning lamp system.

These special bus bodies or buses have a place on the market due to their size. They are small enough and permit the ease of handling as required to manipulate small driveways to patient and/or student doorways and ramps provided for wheelchairs. As well, their size permits the ease of parking near the school or center and doorways and ramps provided for the off loading of the students and/or patients. Some of these special bus bodies or buses are equipped with special ramps or lift gates designed for ease of handling wheelchairs.

Our concern and, of course, the reason for this communication is pertinent to Certification and Standards Application. As we understand or interpret the law, vehicles that are designed to carry ten persons or less are Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles and, therefore, must meet the requirements of applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Until now all Van Buses or Type II School Buses were designed to carry more than ten persons and certification requirements were well defined.

Therefore, Sheller-Globe Corporation petitions the N.H.T.S.A. for an interpretation and requests that these buses of the same base design as buses specifically designed as school buses, regardless of their intended use or passenger carrying capacity for purposes of Certification and Standards Application be, in fact, classified or defined as school buses.

Sheller-Globe requests your expediting a ruling on this petition.

George R. Semark

Safety Engineer-Vehicles

Transportation Equipment Group

Vehicle Development Center

ID: nht92-8.44

DATE: February 25, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Phil Gray -- Inventor, Westech U.S.A. Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/13/92 from Phil Gray to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6925)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter asking how the laws and regulations administered by this agency would apply to a product you have invented. The device is a flexible plastic stalk that reroutes the shoulder belt to improve the shoulder belt fit for children that have outgrown child safety seats. I am pleased to have this chance to explain our laws and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). This standard requires new motor vehicles to be equipped with safety belts and requires that those belts meet specified fit and comfort requirements, as set forth in S7 of the standard. However, Standard No. 208 does not apply to aftermarket items that seek to alter belt fit and/or comfort. Hence, your company is not required to certify that this product complies with Standard No. 208 before offering the product for sale.

In addition, you are not required to get some sort of "approval" from this agency before offering this product for sale. NHTSA has no authority to "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. As stated above, this product is not subject to any safety standard, so your company does not have to make any certification.

Although none of our safety standards directly apply to this product, there are several provisions in the Safety Act that are relevant. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your belt positioning device are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. Your letter indicated that you were aware of this responsibility and your company would carry out any necessary recalls if problems should become apparent with this device when it is used by the public.

In addition, use of your product could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits manufacturer, distributors, dealers, and repair shops from knowingly "rendering inoperative," in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. There are two elements of design in a vehicle that might be

"rendered inoperative" by the use of your company's belt positioning device. One is the occupant protection afforded by belts that meet the specified fit and comfort requirements. The other element of design that could be rendered inoperative by the use of your belt positioning device is the burn resistance required by Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). The materials used in the interior of vehicles, including the seat belts, seat backs and cushions, trim panels, and headliner must comply with the burn resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 to reduce deaths and injuries in the event of a fire in the vehicle's interior. If your belt positioning device renders inoperative the belt fit and comfort requirements specified in Standard No. 208 or does not comply with burn resistance requirements, it could not be installed in a vehicle by any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop.

I have enclosed a general information sheet for new manufacturers that gives a thumbnail sketch of NHTSA's regulations and provides information on how to obtain copies of those regulations.

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

Attachments

NHTSA information sheets, dated September, 1985 entitled:

Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations

(Text of attachment omitted)

ID: 15309.ztv

Mr. Louis W. Camp
Director
Automotive Safety and Engineering Standards
Environmental and Safety Engineering
Ford Motor Company
330 Town Center Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126

Dear Mr. Camp:

This is in reply to your letter of May 29, 1997, to the Administrator asking that the term "overall width" as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 be interpreted to exclude running boards. Specifically, Ford Motor Company wishes to equip certain pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles with running boards that are wider than currently offered; however to do so would increase the vehicles' "overall width" from 79.8 inches to 85 inches.

Standard No. 108 requires trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles which are 80 inches or more in overall width to be equipped with clearance lamps and identification lamps. In 1967, the agency clarified, in Note 1 to Standard No. 108, that

"'Overall width' refers to the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle, exclusive of signal lamps, marker lamps, outside rearview mirrors, flexible fender extensions, and mud flaps, determine (sic) with doors and windows closed and the wheels in the straight-ahead position."

Although the definition of "overall vehicle width" in 571.3(b), which you quote, is substantively identical, it is the interpretation of Standard No. 108's term "overall width" that is the conformance determinant at issue.

You call our attention to the fact that "outside door handles" have also been excluded from the definition through a letter of interpretation to Iveco Trucks of North America dated December 9, 1980. Ford is unclear whether running boards should be included in the measurement for determination of "overall width" but believes that running boards should be treated in a fashion similar to door handles. You point out that the overall width of the vehicles for which you seek exemption is actually 90.5 inches when their exterior rear view mirrors are included.

Our review of the letter to Iveco indicates that we excluded door handles from "overall width" because "they are substantially similar in character to outside rearview mirrors and the other

equipment items listed." We agree that running boards are also similar to these items, and, therefore, they need not be included in the nominal design dimension of the widest part of the vehicle when a manufacturer calculates a vehicle's "overall width" for purposes of compliance with the lighting requirements of Standard No. 108, as long as they do not extend beyond the width of the other items excluded from the definition of "overall width."

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.6/17/97