ID: nht91-6.10

DATE: September 25, 1991

FROM: Marc M. Baldwin -- Parker, McCay & Criscuolo

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: Re Hanley v GLAVAL - Information regarding two-point seat belt

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Marc M. Baldwin (A38; Std. 208)

TEXT:

Please find enclosed my correspondence dated August 19, 1991 regarding information on two-point seatbelts. Kindly forward to the udnersigned the requested information at your earliest convenience. If you should have any questions in this regard, please contact my paralegal, Abgela Sabato, who will be happy to assist you.

Thank you for your cooperation and courtesies in this regard.

Enclosure

August 19, 1991 File No. 1010-0123-MMB

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 4423 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, DC 20590

RE: Hanley v GLAVAL Information regarding 2-point seatbelt

Dear Sir/Madam:

Kindly forward to the undersigned information regarding the specific date when 2-point seatbelts were outlawed. The vehicle involved in my litigation was a 1984 Firebird Trans Am which was converted from a hard top to a convertible. The conversion was done in March of 1984. Please advise if they are any specific regulations regarding convertibles. If you should have any questions in this regard, or need any additional information, please contact my paralegal, Angela Sabato, who will be happy to assist you.

Thank you for your cooperation and courtesies in this regard.

Very truly yours,

MARC M. BALDWIN

ID: aiam2675

Dear Mr. Ducker: This responds to your August 2, 1977, letter requesting copies o regulations issued pursuant to section 158(b) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (as amended) (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 *et seq.*).; I am enclosing a copy of Part 574, *Tire Identification an Recordkeeping* (Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations). This part details the recordkeeping requirements imposed by the agency upon tire manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and manufacturers of motor vehicles. In response to your question concerning the availability of customer lists, the agency has not issued any regulations on that point. You should note that these customer lists are retained by the manufacturer, not by the agency. Therefore, only the manufacturer would be in the position to divulge his customer lists. Should the agency obtain customer lists, they would not be disclosed unless disclosure was determined to be necessary to carry out the purpose of the Act as permitted by section 158(b).; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4041

Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 101, *Controls and Displays*, and NO. 102, *Transmissions Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect*. You asked about the identification and visibility requirements of these standards for the gear position indicator of an automatic transmission. As part of a design you are considering producing, a gear position indicator, using light- emitting diodes (LED's), would be located within the instrument panel. Your letter states that this system would conform with all applicable requirements when the ignition switch is in the on and start positions, but would not be visible when the ignition switch was in the accessory or off positions. Your letter states further that, in addition to this LED display, the steering- column-mounted gear shift selector would be provided with embossed position indicators conforming to Standard No. 102, except that the identifiers would only be visible from the inboard side of the steering column and thereby require the driver to lean forward and to the right for visual confirmation of the automatic gear position. The issues raised by your letter with respect to whether the design you are considering would comply with Standard No. 101 and No. 102 are addressed below.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. the following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; I will begin by identifying the requirements of Standards No. 101 an No. 102 that are relevant to your request. Section S3.2 of Standard No. 102 states that the '(i)dentification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions and of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions . . . shall be *permanently displayed in view of the driver*.' (Emphasis added.); Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location identification and illumination of automatic gear position displays. Section S5.1 requires that gear position displays must be visible to the driver under the conditions of section S6. Section S6 provides that the driver is restrained by the crash protection equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. 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 reference Standard No. 102.; I will now address these requirements in relation to the design you ar considering. As discussed below, it is our opinion that your proposed design would not meet Standard No. 102's requirement that the identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions must be permanently displayed in view of the driver.; While your design would include two automatic gear position displays *neither* display would provide identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions in view of the driver when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off position. As noted by your letter, NHTSA has interpreted the words 'permanently displayed' to require a display which can be seen regardless of the operating mode of the engine. The display on the instrument panel would not be visible when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off positions. The other display, located on the steering column, would not be visible to the driver regardless of the position of the ignition switch.; NHTSA has previously addressed Standard No. 102's requirement tha certain identification be 'in view of the driver' in connection with a request for interpretation concerning the identification of the shift lever pattern of manual transmissions. The agency concluded that the pattern 'is deemed to be 'displayed in view of the driver' if part of it may be seen from the driver's normal eye position and a reasonable amount of movement of the driver allows him to gain full view of the pattern.' (Letter to Daimler-Benz of North America, February 27, 1967); As noted above, your letter states that the display on the steerin column would 'only be visible from the side of the steering column and thereby require the driver to lean forward and to the right for visual confirmation of the automatic gear position.' This suggests that little, if any, of the display may be seen from the driver's normal eye position and that a significant amount of movement of the driver would be required to see the full display. This is further confirmed by a statement in your letter indicating that the driver would need to lean forward, utilizing the flexibility provided by an emergency locking retractor, in order to see the display, and then *return* to the normal driving position. (Emphasis added) It therefore appears that the display is not 'in view of the driver.'; While your letter suggest that the degree of visibility provided by th display might be appropriate for situations where the vehicle is not activated, Standard No. 102's requirement that the display be within the ' view of the driver' does not distinguish between whether the engine is on or off. We also note that a driver used to viewing the gear position indicator on the instrument panel might not be aware that another display, which would not be visible from a normal driving position, even exists.; Since neither display would provide identification of shift leve positions of automatic transmissions in view of the driver when the ignition switch is in the accessory or off position, it is unnecessary to address the issue raised by your letter concerning whether multiple and complementary indicator can be used to meet the requirements of Standards No. 101 and No. 102 for gear position displays, where no single indicator meets the requirements.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3076

Dear Mr. Cain: This responds to your May 7, 1979, letter asking whether any Federa law (statutes, standards, regulations or guidelines) prohibits a school district in the State of Mississippi from converting the gasoline fuel system in school buses which it owns to a butane or propane powered system. You specified that you would like this question answered both with respect to new school bus chassis equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system and older school bus chassis not equipped with such a system. As explained below, none of the laws we administer would prohibit converting any school bus, regardless of when it was manufactured.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended i 1974 ('the Act'), 15 U.S.C. *et seq.*, the agency has issued Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity* (49 CFR 571.301-75). This standard specifies performance requirements for the fuel system of certain new motor vehicles. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less, or (3) schoolbuses with a (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds.; New vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold and delivere to a purchaser for purposes other than resale) manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 may be converted to propane or butane systems. Upon the conversion of the vehicles to types of fuel systems not covered by the standard, the vehicles would cease to be subject to the standard.; Similarly, used vehicles manufactured in accordance with the standar as well as used vehicles manufactured before the effective date of the standard may be converted. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) limits tampering with the fuel systems of vehicles manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75. It does not apply at all to vehicles manufactured before that standard's effective date. The section, in essence, prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment of elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. There is no prohibition against vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. Specifically, section 108(a)(2)(A) provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render 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 ...<<<; There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection wit FMVSS 301-75 if one of the listed persons or entities converts a used gasoline powered vehicle into a propane powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another does not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems comply with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a gasoline-powered school bus to a propane or butane-powered school bus (a vehicle type not covered by the standard), the converter could not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to FMVSS 301-75 since that standard does not apply to propane or butane-powered school buses. FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F, and propane and butane reach their boiling points at a lower temperature.; This means that a school district in your state would not be prohibite from converting its gasoline-powered buses, regardless of their date of manufacture, to propane or butane-powered school buses. It also means that if the school district sought to have the conversion done by a motor vehicle repair business or some other person or entity listed in Section 108(a)(2)(A), that person or entity would not be prohibited from performing the work.; Please note, however, that if a propane or butane fuel system i installed in a new vehicle, the installer would be responsible for any safety defects in the manner in which the system is installed. Sections 151 *et seq.* of the Act provide that if vehicles are found to contain a safety defect, notification of the defect must be given and the defect must be remedied. Defects in the systems themselves would be the responsibility of the manufacturer of the systems, regardless of whether they are installed in new or used vehicles.; I hope that you will find this response helpful and you have not bee inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3807

Dear Mr. Sprafka: This is to follow-up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch o my staff concerning the application of Standard No. 301, *Fuel System Integrity*, to a school bus that has a natural gas fuel system as original equipment. As discussed below, Standard No. 301 does not apply to a natural gas fuel system.; Standard No. 301 sets fuel system integrity requirements for certai vehicle types, including school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. The standard, however, only applies to those vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Since natural gas does not have a boiling point above 32 degrees Fahrenheit, the standard would not apply.; Although there are no safety standards applicable to natural gas fue systems, manufacturers are responsible for any safety-related defects in their motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 151, *et seq*. of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a copy of which is enclosed, provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge.; I am also enclosing, for your information, an agency letter discussin the legal responsibilities of persons who converted gasoline fuel systems to use propane and other gas.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-4.39

DATE: 11/14/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of September 23, 1975, in which you inquire whether the emergency exit decal installations shown in photographs enclosed with your letter comply with paragraphs S5.5.1 and S5.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release."

It appears from the photographs you provided that some of the emergency exit markings may not comply with some of the requirements specified in FMVSS No. 217. Our specific comments are listed below:

1. Figure 1 - The emergency exit marking for the rear door appears to meet the requirements. It is to be noted, however, that revised requirements for emergency exits on school buses have been proposed which may differ from the current requirements.

2. Figures 2 and 3 - The emergency exit marking for the side push-out windows does not appear to meet the requirements of S5.5.2. Both the seat back and the adjacent seated occupant partially obstruct the marking so it is not legible from the adjoining seat or the aisle location.

3. Figure 4 - The emergency exit marking for the side door appears to meet the requirements.

4. Figure 5 - The marking for the rear window emergency exit that is adjacent to a davenport type seat with unknown seating capacity appears to contain two release mechanisms (laterally spaced at each edge) and an identical marking for each latch mechanism. We cannot determine if occupants would obstruct these markings from standees if all positions in the davenport type seat were occupied.

We also question whether the instructions are complete because it cannot be determined if both latches must be released before the window can be pushed out.

5. Figure 6 - The emergency exit marking for the transit sliding type window appears to meet the requirements.

6. Figure 7 - The center rear emergency door which contains instructions for unlatching the opening of the door in the form of an arrow only per the proposed amendment to FMVSS No. 217, Docket 75-3: Notice 1 does not meet the present requirements for emergency exit identification. The specific content of the emergency exit marking for school buses has not yet been finalized by this agency and we, therefore, cannot comment until a final rule on the proposal has been published in the Federal Register.

7. Figures 8 and 9 - The emergency exit marking for another transit sliding type window appears to meet the requirements.

It is emphasized that these comments are for your information only and are based on the contents of your photographs. This agency cannot make a final judgment concerning compliance of a bus from photographs of components. The determination of compliance or noncompliance with FMVSS No. 217 can be made only by the actual inspection and test of a complete vehicle.

I trust this information will be of assistance to you in regard to your inquiries.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

September 23, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation NHTSA

REFERENCE: (1) Letter from Francis Armstrong to Albert C. Luce, N41-21 MPa, CIR 1392 dated August 5, 1975

(2) Letter from W. G. Milby to Frank Burns (Berndt) dated August 11, 1975

As you know, reference (1) alleges non-compliance of the test vehicle with respect to FMVSS 217 in two areas:

1. The emergency exit signs do not contain concise operating instructions as required by S5.5.1.

2. The emergency exit signs are not legible to occupants seated in the adjoining seat or standing in the aisle location that is closest to the adjacent seat as required by S5.5.2.

While we do not agree with these allegations, we do wish that there be no question of our compliance with any NHTSA regulations as explained in reference (2).

Therefore, please find enclosed photographs of alternate emergency exit decals that we are proposing to use in lieu of the type used on the test bus of reference (1). In addition are proposed decals for other types of emergency exits. An explanation of each photo follows.

Figure 1 - Center rear emergency door same as on test bus of reference (1).

Figure 2 - Side pushout window same as on test bus of reference (1) with occupant in adjacent seat as viewed by standing occupant standing in aisle location that is closest to the adjacent seat.

Figure 3 - Same installation as in figure 2 but without occupant. Complete text of decal is:

"EMERGENCY EXIT TO OPEN PULL HANDLE - PUSH OUT WINDOW"

Figure 4 - Side emergency door with occupant in adjacent seat as viewed by occupant standing in aisle location that is closest to the adjacent seat.

Figure 5 - Center rear emergency window with occupant seated in adjacent davenport type seat.

Figure 6 - Transit sliding type window with pushout feature. Although not shown in photo, we would propose to use this decal on both panes of glass.

Figure 7 - Center rear emergency door same as on test bus of reference (1). As we understand it, arrow type decal is only operating instruction required by proposed amendment to FMVSS 217, Docket 75-3; Notice 1 as published in Federal Register of February 28, 1975. In addition, we understand this proposal would require an identification decal reading "EMERGENCY DOOR" both inside and outside immediately above the door in letters at least two inches high.

Figure 8 - Another transit sliding type window with pushout feature with occupant seated in adjacent seat as viewed by occupant standing in aisle location that is closest to the adjacent seat.

Figure 9 - Same as figure 8 but without seated occupant.

Please review each of these proposed decal installations and offer us an opinion whether or not they meet the requirements of FMVSS 217 regarding:

1. Concise operating instructions per S5.5.1.

2. Legibility per S5.5.2.

Your early response to this letter will be greatly appreciated so that we can make any necessary changes.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam5279

Dear Mr. Plath: This is in reply to your letter of November 15, 1993 to Taylor Vinson of this Office on trailer conspicuity. You ask for confirmation of several points. Initially, we would like to comment as follows on the 4-point procedure you have outlined: '1) A chassis for purposes of the conspicuity requirement shall be considered to be a trailer.' This is correct. Because the chassis is designed for carrying property and for being towed by a motor vehicle, it is a 'trailer' as defined for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. '2) That the total length of the chassis shall be used in computing the 50 percent coverage of high intensity reflective for each individual side.' This is correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a) of Standard No. 108, retroreflective tape 'need not be continuous as long as not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered . . . .' '3) In the case of a 48 foot chassis, the law will thus require a minimum of 24 feet of the approved reflective sheeting to be applied to each side. Further, there shall not be more than 18 inches of either red or silver reflective in a continuous strip and that there shall not be an allowed void of more than 48 inches between modules.' This is partially correct. Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), a minimum of 24 feet of reflective material must be applied to the side of a 48-foot trailer. However, S5.7.1.3(a) requires the colors to be red and white, not red and silver. Further, under S5.7.1.3(b), the permissible lengths of the sheeting are expressed as 'each white or red segment shall have a length of 300 mm +/- 150 mm.' We note that 450 mm is slightly less than 18 inches. Finally, Standard No. 108 does not specify any maximum permissible 'void . . . between modules.' Under S5.7.1.4.2(a), the spaces are to be distributed 'as evenly as practicable.' '4) * * * When the chassis is not loaded with a container, the application of 24 feet per side of a 48 foot chassis of evenly spaced reflective modules would comply with the law as we understand it. It would identify the extreme front and rear portions of the chassis. * * *' This is incorrect. Compliance by an unloaded container chassis with the conspicuity requirements is determined as if the container load were in place. S7.5.1.4.2(a) states that 'at the location chosen for conspicuity treatment , the strip shall not be obscured in whole or in part by other motor vehicle equipment or trailer cargo.' Because the container obscures the gooseneck, the conspicuity treatment mandated by Standard No. 108 cannot identify the extreme front portion of the chassis. Its front termination point will be behind the gooseneck, at a point where it is not obscured by the container. You have correctly stated this with respect to a loaded chassis but it applies to the unloaded chassis as manufactured: '. . . the entire 24 feet (50 per cent of length) shall be applied behind the gooseneck. In general this would mean that the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis would contain the 24 feet of reflective modules. Further we understand that the 50 percent requirement would be satisfied and that additional modules would not have to be applied to the gooseneck.' You conclude that a gooseneck chassis traveling without its container would be in violation of Standard No. 108 if its gooseneck were not marked 'creating a hazard and would violate the requirement stating that a void of no more than four feet is allowable.' You also ask ' i s there a benefit in applying the additional 4 feet of reflective within the rear 40 foot portion of the chassis?' As explained previously, Standard No. 108 does not require marking of the gooseneck of a container chassis, and there is no requirement limiting the spacing between segments of retroreflective material. We believe that the desired conspicuity of the trailer will be maintained by requiring the additional 4 feet of sheeting on the chassis behind the gooseneck when the gooseneck itself will be obscured with the container in place. Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a manufacturer from applying conspicuity treatment to the 8-foot gooseneck of a 48 foot trailer if it wishes to do so, however, the manufacturer is still required to apply not less than 24 feet of material in the 40-foot section behind the gooseneck. We shall be pleased to answer the following four questions you have also raised: '1) Will we need to apply 24 feet of stripping on a 48 foot chassis behind the gooseneck plus an additional 4 feet on the gooseneck?' You will have to apply 24 feet of stripping on the portion of a 48-foot chassis that lies behind the gooseneck, but you are not required to mark the gooseneck. '2) Since a chassis is considered to be treated as a trailer, shouldn't we apply the 24 feet evenly spaced from the extreme rear and front portions of the chassis?' As explained previously, the 24 feet of material is to be applied behind the gooseneck. If you wish to apply evenly spaced conspicuity treatment that includes the gooseneck, you may do so, as long as at least 24 feet of it is behind the gooseneck. '3) Is a tire considered a legal obstruction? If so, can we deduct the distance behind the tire from the 50 percent coverage?' Yes, a tire is 'motor vehicle equipment' within the meaning of S5.7.1.4.2(a) forbidding the obscuring of conspicuity treatment. No, you may not deduct the length of the area obscured by the tire from the 50 per cent coverage. You must include it in the 50 per cent computation. Thus, if a tire would obscure 3 feet of conspicuity material on the side of a 48 foot gooseneck trailer, the manufacturer must apply 24 feet of material in the 37 feet that is behind the gooseneck which is not obscured. We note in passing that the prints submitted for our review by J.Z. Peepas of Selecto-Flash depict conspicuity treatment that is above the top of the tire and apparently not obscured by it. '4) We anticipate that the slide mechanism on an extendable chassis will scrape the reflective film off the chassis. Is the operator then subject to penalties? How will the operator be able to avoid these penalties since they have no control over this process?' You are not required to place conspicuity treatment on the extendable portion of the chassis provided that not less than half of the length of the trailer is covered when the conspicuity treatment is placed elsewhere. In the event that conspicuity treatment is placed on the extendable portion and is damaged when the trailer is in use, the operator will not be subject to any penalties of this agency. Federal regulations governing the use of commercial vehicles in interstate commerce are issued by another agency of the Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA requires that vehicles manufactured on or after March 7, 1989, meet the requirements of Standard No. 108 in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle (49 CFR 393.11). Therefore, maintenance of the conspicuity treatment on trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, is required by the FHWA. If you wish to write FHWA on this topic, you may address James E. Scapellato, Director, Office of Motor Carrier Standards, FHWA, Room 3107, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20590. The individual states may have regulations in this area as well. We are unable to advise you on State requirements, and suggest that you consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va. 22203. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: nht87-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Paul Autery -- President, Auto Accessories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Autery President Auto Accessories, Inc. P.O. Box 10044 New Iberia, LA 70561

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera, of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, concerning the installation of your company's armrest in certain Volvo models. Specifically, you propose to have dealers remove the part of the front seat belt assembly that contains the buckle for the belt, straighten a metal guide that ensures that the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly will remain accessible to passengers, and discard a spacer washer that is provided with the seat belt assembly. The sp acer washer would be replaced by the armrest mounting bracket, which you stated is the same thickness as the spacer washer it would replace. You asked us whether this procedure would be permissible under the law and our regulations. As explained below, a ny dealers that follow your proposed installation procedures might violate Federal law.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208) sets forth minimum requirements for occupant protection. Additionally, section S7.2 sets forth an accessibility requirement for safety belt latch mechanisms that reads as follows:

S7.2 Latch mechanism. A seat belt assembly installed in a passenger car, except an automatic belt assembly, shall have a latch mechanism (a) Whose components are accessible to a seated occupant in both the stowed and operational positions; ...

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part , any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This statutory prohibition might be violated by any dealer that followed your proposed installation proce dures for your armrest.

For example, it may be that Volvo installed the metal guide on its front seat safety belts for the purpose of complying with section S7.2 of Standard No. 208. If this were the case, any dealer that straightened that metal guide, in accordance with your i nstallation instructions, might render inoperative a device (that metal guide) that was installed in the vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 208. In this situation, whether the dealer actually renders inoperative the metal guides by straightening the m depends on whether the buckle portion of the seat belt assembly no longer complies with section S7.2 (which requires the buckle to be accessible to the front seat occupant) after the installation.

Section 109 of the Safety Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of section 108(a)12)(A), up to a maximum of $800,000 for a related series of violations. We would consider each installation of your armrest by a dealer that render s inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 to be a separate violation. Accordingly, a dealer might be liable for a civil penalty of $1000 multiplied by the number of vehicles in which the dealer had installed armrests in accordance with your instructions.

Please do not misconstrue this letter as suggesting that this agency either approves or disapproves the proposed installation instructions for your armrests. The Safety Act does not give NHTSA any authority to approve or endorse any products. Instead, th e Safety Act places the initial responsibility for determining whether your proposed installation instructions violate a legal or regulatory requirement on your company. The agency may reexamine your initial determination in the context of an enforcement action.

To comply with your legal obligations, I suggest that you carefully reexamine the proposed installation instructions and compare those instructions with the requirements of Standard No. 208, to determine if installing your armrests in accordance with you r installation instructions would result in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 208. If it would do so, you will have to devise some other means of installing your armrests, so that dealers would not be instructed to render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208. If your proposed installation instructions do not result in a rendering inoperative of the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208, dealers can follow those instructions without violating any provisions of t he law.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ATTN: JOHN MESSERA REG: CENTER ARMREST INSTALLATION ON VOLVO 240 SEDAN.

I WOULD LIKE AN INTERPRETATION AND/OR ADVISE ON THE MODIFICATION OF THE SEAT BELT LATCH ASSEMBLY WHICH IS NECESSARY TO INSTALL OUR ARMREST. OUR A/R IS A AFTERMARKET ACCESSORY WHICH HAS BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR 6 YEARS NOW. THE A/R WAS DESIGNED TO INSTALL I NTO PRE-EXISTING HOLES ON THE TUNNEL OF THE CAR. AT THE TIME OF DESIGN AND UP UNTIL THIS YEAR THE HOLES WERE LEFT BLANK ON THE AMERICAN MODELS BUT USED IN SOME EUROPEAN COUNTRY'S. THE VOLVO CAR CORP. OF SWEDEN HAS A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT SEAT BELT LATCHES AVAILABLE. STARTING IN MID 87 VOLVO AMERICA SWITCHED SAME DESIGN USED IN EUROPE WHICH INSTALLS INTO THE HOLES OUR ARMREST WAS DESIGNED TO GO IN.

OUR ARMREST CAN STILL BE INSTALLED INTO THE HOLES IF YOU REMOVE A LARGE WASHER FROM THE SEAT BELT ASSEMBLY AND REPLACE THE WASHER WITH OUR ARMREST MOUNTING BRACKET, WHICH IS THE SAME THICKNESS .

THE LARGE WASHER THAT WOULD BE REMOVED IS A SPACER THAT IS USED TO SHOULDER UP THE BOLT TO THE FLOOR OF THE TUNNEL WHICH IS BELOW THE SAME THICKNESS OF CARPET.

THE ACTUAL SEAT BELT LATCH PIVOTS ON THE BOLT WHICH HOLDS IT IN PLACE. SO AS YOU WILL BE ABLE TO SEE FROM SAMPLES I'VE SENT AND FROM THE ILLUSTRATIONS, THAT EXCHANGING THE WASHER, FOR THE A/R MOUNTING BRACKET, WHICH IS THE SAME THICKNESS, WON'T AFFECT TH E PERFORMANCE OF THE SEAT BELT LATCH.

I'VE ENCLOSED THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR YOU TO REVIEW. THE PROCEDURE WILL BE DONE BY QUALIFIED MECHANICS AT THE INDIVIDUAL DEALERSHIPS AROUND THE COUNTRY.

WE DO A LOT OF BUSINESS WITH SEVERAL VOLVO DEALERS IN YOUR AREA, AND COULD EASILY ARRANGE FOR A DEMO OF THE INSTALLATION IF THIS WOULD BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE.

WE 15 EMPLOYEES AT AUTO ACCESSORIES WILL BE EAGERLY AWAITING YOUR INTERPRETATION AND/OR ADVISE.

SINCERELY YOURS PAUL AUTERY PRESIDENT AUTO ACCESSORIES, INC.

ID: nht81-2.30

DATE: 06/01/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letters concerning section 4.2(d) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Section 4.2(d) provides that after seat belt webbing has been subjected to an abrasion test, it must have not less than 75 percent of the strength of the unabraded webbing set in section 4.2(b) of the standard. You pointed out that section 5.2(d) is inconsistent with section 4.2(d). As explained below, section 4.2(d) correctly states the requirement intended by the agency and section 5.2(d) needs to be corrected.

The abraded webbing strength test procedure set forth in section 5.2(d) of the standard is incorrect. It specifies that the median value of the breaking strengths of the abraded and unabraded webbing are used to determine the percentage of breaking strength retained. Such a test procedure unfairly penalizes a manufacturer that produces webbing with an unabraded breaking strength far in excess of the requirements specified in section 4.2(b).

For example, section 4.2(b) specifies that Type I webbing is to have a breaking strength of 6,000 pounds. Assume that the unabraded webbing has a median breaking strength of 8,000 pounds and the abraded webbing has a median breaking strength of 5,600 pounds. The median breaking strength of the abraded webbing is substantially more than 75 percent of the 6,000 pound breaking strength specified in section 4.2(b). However, the median abraded breaking strength is only 70 percent of the median unabraded breaking strength.

The agency intends to modify the standard so that the abraded webbing strength test procedure specifies that the median breaking strength of the abraded webbing is compared to the breaking strength specified in section 4.2(b) to determine the percentage of breaking strength retained.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

British Standards Institution

JANUARY 6, 1981

F. BERNDT -- U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sirs

FMVSS

Many thanks for your letter of 12 December 1980 on the above subject.

You say in your letter that Standard Number 209 requires abraded webbing in manual belt systems for use in motor vehicles to have not less than 75% of the strength of unabraded webbing.

Clause @ 4.2(b) at the end states 'the median value shall be used for determining the retention of breaking strength in paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of this section'.

Clause @@ 4.2(d) states that 'after abrasion, the webbing shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the breaking strength listed in @@ 4.2(b). For clarity surely this should read - not less than 75% of the median value obtained during tests to clause @@ 4.2(b)'.

I would appreciate your comments.

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM SENIOR TEST ENGINEER

British Standards Institution

FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

Dear Sirs

FMVSS - 209 SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES

Clause 5.1 (b) reads . . . . the median value shall be used for determining the retention of breaking strength in paragraphs (d) (e) and (f) of the section.

Clause 4.2(d) reads . . . . shall have a breaking strength of not less than 75% of the breaking strength listed in Clause 4.2(b) for that type of belt assembly.

Please clarify the level to which the webbing strength after abrasion is to be compared. Is it:-

1. 75% of median breaking strength found under clause 5.1(b) or

2. 75% of minimum breaking strength listed in clause 4.2(b)

I have written to you on this subject before and would appreciate a speedy reply.

Yours faithfully

J E BINGHAM -- SENIOR TEST ENGINEER, MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY COMPONENTS SECTION

ID: nht80-4.19

DATE: 11/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Questor Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 4, 1980, concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether instruction booklets provided with child restraints must meet the flammability requirement of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. The answer is no. They do not have to comply with Standard No. 302.

Section 5.7 of Standard No. 213 requires each material used in a child restraint to conform to performance requirements of Standard No. 302. You asked whether the installation instructions, which are required by section 5.6 to accompany the child restraint, must comply with the flammability requirements of section 5.7. Since the installation instructions, unlike an affixed label, are not a physical part of the child restraint system, they do not have to comply with section 5.7.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Questor Juvenile Products Company

September 4, 1980

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Ref.: NOA-30

In your letter of April 22, 1980, to Mr. Don Gerken of Cosco Home Products, you indicated that Section 5.7, FMVSS 213, requires "each material used in a child restraint system" to conform to the performance requirements of Standard No. 302. You also indicated that because the label, installation diagram, and tag materials are affixed to the child restraint, they would have to comply with FMVSS 302. You further stated that if the label, diagram, and tag do not adhere at every point of contact, Section 4.2.1 requires them to meet the performance requirement of the standard when tested separately.

In previous discussion with NHTSA personnel, installation and use requirements of children's car seats indicated that an instruction booklet might be required to accompany each child restraint system in order to describe adequately the various methods of installation for multi-purpose child restraint systems. NHTSA personnel had suggested during these conversations that such an instruction booklet be provided with a pocket attached to the child restraint system for retention of the booklet. As a matter of interpretation, could you please advise if such an instruction booklet, which would normally be manufactured of paper stock, must meet the flammability requirements of FMVSS 302? To the best of my knowledge, owners' manuals furnished with automobiles are not required to meet FMVSS 302. In our attempt to provide a convenient and permanent storage location for child restraint system instructions booklets, I would hope that NHTSA would not require these booklets to meet FMVSS 302 because they would be included with the child restraint.

Since the effective date of FMVSS 213's revised requirements is fast approaching, your expeditious response to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

J. P. Koziatek, P. E. Director, Technical Services