ID: nht78-2.11

DATE: 07/10/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Paul Trible - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to the letter (enclosed) you received from your constituent Mr. Randy Churaman of Hampton, Virginia, concerning plexiglass covers for headlights.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in 1972 proposed rulemaking to allow fixed plastic covers over motor vehicle headlights. However, during the comment period of the proposed rule-making some controversial items that were raised regarding fixed plastic headlight covers initiated concerns with respect to motor vehicle safety. These concerns were that: (1) moisture condenses inside the plastic covers and greatly increases headlight glare to oncoming traffic, (2) the plastic covers get scratched, thus reducing headlight output and increasing headlight glare at the same time, (3) plastic headlight covers have to be removed to mechanically aim headlamps, which becomes quite expensive to the vehicle owner and (4) correct aim of headlights is often made incorrect when installing fixed plastic headlight covers. Finally, the change in air drag by use of plastic headlight covers is extremely small since the air drag is primarily related to the overall frontal area projection of the vehicle.

Because of the foregoing disadvantages, and no major advantage to fixed plastic headlight covers other than styling, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, prohibits fixed plastic covers over headlamps. Specifically, FMVSS No. 108 references SAE Standard J580a, which states in part . . . "When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens." There is, however, no prohibition on the installation of original equipment retractable clear plastic headlamp concealment devices on newly manufactured motor vehicles.

I trust the foregoing is fully responsive to your inquiry.

ENC. CONSTITUENT'S LETTER

EXECUTIVE TOWER, BOX 59 2101 EXECUTIVE DR. HAMPTON, VA 23666

Dear Mr. Trible

I own a Datsun 280 Z sports car which has a very aerodynamic front end except for the cutouts for the headlights (see sketch). In other countries there are clear plexiglass covers available for the headlights, which fit over the cutouts, and complete the aerodynamic lines. In this country these covers are illegal for reasons which are beyond my comprehension since they would reduce the air drag of the car, and therefore give better gas milage. I would like to see the law changed to permit the use of these headlight covers, or know why they are illegal.

Randy Churaman

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht93-4.20

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: David L. Degenstein -- Manager, Product Safety & Compliance, Kenworth Truck Company

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/7/93 from John Womack to David Degenstein (A41; Std. 101)

TEXT:

Kenworth Truck Company, a manufacturer of heavy duty Class 7 and 8 trucks and truck tractors, respectfully submits the following request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 101, Controls and Displays.

FMVSS 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. One of the vehicle controls regulated by this standard is the automatic vehicle speed system, or cruise control.

Kenworth is in the process of developing a new product that will locate a cruise control switch in a console that is attached to the manual transmission shift lever, adjacent to the shift knob (see the attached photographs). One switch in the console will control the SET and RESUME functions of the cruise control, and the other switches will control the engine brake. The switches are operable by the driver, and the identification is visible to the driver in accordance with S5.1 of Standard No. 101; therefore, Kenworth believes this location to be in compliance. For your information, the switch which controls the ON and OFF function of the cruise control will remain located on the dash panel. Of course, while operating, the cruise control can be disengaged by depressing the brake, or clutch pedal.

Illumination requirements for control identifications are specified in S5.3, and listed in Table 1(a), column 4, of Standard No. 101. Accordingly, Automatic - Vehicle Speed control (cruise control) is listed on Table 1(a) and accompanied by the word "yes" under column 4, indicating illumination is required whenever the headlights are activated. Exception to the illumination requirement is allowed provided the control is mounted to the floor, floor console, or steering column.

Kenworth requests an interpretation regarding the applicability of the illumination requirement to a transmission shift lever mounted cruise control switch. Kenworth believes this cruise control switch location is similar, relative to driver's accessibility and visibility of the control, to an automobile switch located on a floor console, and therefore, illumination should not be necessary or required.

Please confirm that our proposed location for a cruise control switch does not require illumination, and that the location complies with FMVSS No. 101.

We look forward to hearing from you concerning our request. In the meantime, if you have any questions or need additional information, please do not

hesitate to contact me.

(Attached photos and drawing omitted.)

ID: nht95-5.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer; Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JANE DAWSON TO WALTER MYERS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office regarding the May 9, 1995, amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding. For your future reference, Mr. Myers is no longer assigned to our school bus standards. You may address requests for interpretation directly to me.

The May 9 amendment (60 FR 24562) to FMVSS No. 217 permitted, among other things, bus manufacturers to meet the additional emergency exit area (AEEA) requirements of S5.2 by permitting manufacturers to install two emergency exit windows as an alternative to an emergency exit door. You asked what the location requirements (fore and aft) are for the emergency windows that are used as the first additional emergency exit.

FMVSS No. 217 contains no explicit fore and aft location requirements for the two additional emergency exit windows. However, the intent of the final rule was to substitute the location requirements of the side exit door when the windows are used to satisfy the requirement for the first additional emergency exit. This intention is reflected in the use of the conjunctive word "or" in Tables 1 and 2 of the May 9, 1995, amendment. If a left side exit door would have been installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a)(2)(i), then S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires that it be located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment. The same fore-aft location should be used for the windows. In cases where the fore-aft location is not specified, such as a right side exit door installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b)(2)(i), then the windows should be placed so as to provide bus passengers with maximum accessibility to an emergency exit, in accordance with what is reasonable and practicable.

Also note the explicit location requirement in S5.2.3.2(c) that exit windows be evenly divided between the left and right sides of the bus. For example, if two exit windows are used instead of a left side exit door, they should be placed on opposite sides at the midpoint of the bus.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek at this address or by calling (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-5.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Helen A. Rychlewski -- MGA Research Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/07/95 LETTER FROM HELEN A. RYCHLEWSKI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Rychlewski:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test procedure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test.

In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not specify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met under all test conditions.

The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged.

The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHTSA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the basis for your certification.

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

ID: nht95-3.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer; Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JANE DAWSON TO WALTER MYERS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office regarding the May 9, 1995, amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding. For your future referen ce, Mr. Myers is no longer assigned to our school bus standards. You may address requests for interpretation directly to me.

The May 9 amendment (60 FR 24562) to FMVSS No. 217 permitted, among other things, bus manufacturers to meet the additional emergency exit area (AEEA) requirements of S5.2 by permitting manufacturers to install two emergency exit windows as an alternative to an emergency exit door. You asked what the location requirements (fore and aft) are for the emergency windows that are used as the first additional emergency exit.

FMVSS No. 217 contains no explicit fore and aft location requirements for the two additional emergency exit windows. However, the intent of the final rule was to substitute the location requirements of the side exit door when the windows are used to sat isfy the requirement for the first additional emergency exit. This intention is reflected in the use of the conjunctive word "or" in Tables 1 and 2 of the May 9, 1995, amendment. If a left side exit door would have been installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a )(2)(i), then S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires that it be located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment. The same fore-aft location should be used for the windows. In cases where the fore-aft location is not specified, such as a ri ght side exit door installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b)(2)(i), then the windows should be placed so as to provide bus passengers with maximum accessibility to an emergency exit, in accordance with what is reasonable and practicable.

Also note the explicit location requirement in S5.2.3.2(c) that exit windows be evenly divided between the left and right sides of the bus. For example, if two exit windows are used instead of a left side exit door, they should be placed on opposite sid es at the midpoint of the bus.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek at this address or by calling (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Helen A. Rychlewski -- MGA Research Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/07/95 LETTER FROM HELEN A. RYCHLEWSKI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Rychlewski:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test proc edure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test.

In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not spe cify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met un der all test conditions.

The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged.

The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHT SA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the bas is for your certification.

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

ID: 002323cmc

Mr. Jeff Kennedy
Four Winds International
701 C.R. 15
Elkhart, IN 46516

Dear Mr. Kennedy:

This is in response to your letter dated March 3, 2003, in which you asked about the strength requirements applicable to Type 2 and Type 2a seat belt assemblies installed in the driver and front passenger seat locations. As explained below, Type 2a belts are generally prohibited, however, your understanding of the strength requirements for Type 2 belts appears correct.

In your letter you stated that you are developing upgrades for the new models of your recreational vehicles and plan on using a "Type 2 or Type 2a seat belt assembly at the driver seat and front passenger seat locations." You stated that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages, "does not appear to list any strength requirements for the anchorages used to locate the upper torso restraint [of a Type 2a seat belt]." You further stated that you understood that the "anchorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts" for both the lap and shoulder portions of Type 2 seat belt assemblies are subject to the strength requirements of S4.2.2(b) of FMVSS No. 210.

Generally, installation of Type 2a shoulder belts is prohibited. FMVSS No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, defines a Type 2a shoulder belt as "an upper torso restraint for use only in conjunction with a lap belt as a Type 2 seat belt assembly."The agency has determined that the integrated assemblies of Type 2 seat belts are safer than the Type 2a shoulder belts. Original equipment Type 2a shoulder belts may only be used at the driver seating position of vehicles intended to accommodate a wheel chair.(59 Federal Register 25826; May 18, 1994.) Since a Type 2a shoulder belt may not be used as you had intended, there is no need to further address your question regarding the strength requirements applicable to these types of belts.

Your understanding of the strength requirements for Type 2 seat belt assemblies is correct. Under S4.2.2, the anchorages, attachment hardware, and attachment bolts for Type 2 seat belt assemblies shall:

[W]ithstand a 3,000 pound force applied to the lap belt portion of the seat belt assembly simultaneously with a 3,000 pound force applied to the shoulder belt portion of the seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with S5.2 of this standard.

S5.2 establishes the positioning, force, and duration requirements for testing Type 2 seat belt assemblies under S4.2.2.

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 Council

ref:210
d.5/22/03

NCC-112:Ccalamita:mar:4/25/03:62992:OCC 002323
CC: NCC-110 Subj/Chron, Redbook (2), interp. stds. 208, 210
U:ncc\interps\210\002323cmc.doc

ID: 10526

Mr. Harry C. Gough, P.E.
State of Connecticut
Department of Motor Vehicles
60 State Street
Wethersfield, CT 06161

Dear Mr. Gough:

This responds to your letter to this office asking whether the retroreflective tape required to outline school bus emergency exits can, in the case of the rear emergency door, be placed on the door itself. The short answer is no.

You stated that the State of Connecticut requires that school bus bumpers be black. You further stated that one school bus manufacturer supplied buses with the bottom piece of the retroreflective tape installed on the rear bumper. You then noticed that a number of school buses from a different manufacturer had the bottom part of the tape installed on the door itself. You asked whether the language of S5.5.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, permitted the installation of the retroreflective tape on the door itself.

Paragraph S5.5.3 of FMVSS No. 217 (49 CFR 571.217) provides:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, . . .

This requirement was imposed by amendment to FMVSS No. 217 promulgated by a final rule published in the Federal Register on November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). In discussing this requirement in the preamble portion of the final rule, we said at 57 FR 49421:

Accordingly, the final rule requires a minimum 1 inch wide strip of retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, to be placed around the outside perimeter of the emergency exit opening, not the emergency exit itself (emphasis added).

As you may know, the buses with the tape on the emergency exit doors have been recalled by the manufacturer. For information about the recall, you can contact the bus manufacturer, Thomas Built Buses, P. O. Box 2450, High Point, NC 27261.

Enclosed for your information are two interpretative letters issued by this office on related issues pertaining to the retroreflective tape requirement. See letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner, Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company, dated July 7, 1993; and letter to Mr. Turner dated March 28, 1994.

I hope the above information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ref:217 d:3/16/95

ID: 2250y

The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino
U. S. House of Representatives
2332 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Lagomarsino:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner on behalf of your constituent, Mike Dunn. You inquired about a school bus passenger restraining device marketed by Mr. Dunn. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received an inquiry concerning a similar device in 1988. A copy of our responses, which detail the requirements applicable to such a device, are enclosed. I will summarize those requirements below.

The device being marketed by your constituent, a "safety bar" for school bus passengers, consists of a padded metal bar which is attached to the seat back of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants are to be protected by the safety bar. The bar is hinged to swing up to allow entry and exit of the occupants. The hinge mechanism also allows the bar to drop slightly from its lowered position upon impact in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of abdominal injury. The device operates much like the passenger restraint bars found on certain amusement park rides.

As explained by the enclosed letters, federal law does not prohibit the installation of your constituent's product on school buses as long its installation and use would not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the safety bars are to be installed in any new school bus, the manufacturer of the bus would have to certify that the bus with the safety bars installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.222).

As the enclosed letters explain, the use of the safety bar would not obviate the need for a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to comply with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.208). That standard requires that such vehicles be equipped with either safety belts or automatic restraints at all passenger seating positions.

In addition, as explained in the enclosed letters and information sheet, the manufacturer of the safety bars would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Such a manufacturer is responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if the company or this agency decides that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard.

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Jerry Ralph Curry

Enclosures /ref: 208, 222 d:l/8/90

ID: 22512.rbm

Mr. Todd Mitchell
Business Unit Manager - Automotive
ITW Meyercord CTG
365 E. North Avenue
Carol Stream, IL 60188





Dear Mr. Mitchell:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you have asked whether the required labels, illustrated in figures 6a, 6b, 6c and figure 8 (for vehicles with advanced air bags) of the standard, must be framed by a black border. You have also sought clarification of the requirement that these labels be permanently affixed to the vehicle sun visor.

S4.5.1(b)(2) of the regulatory text states that, except as provided, each vehicle manufactured on or after February 25, 1997, "shall have a label permanently affixed to either side of the sun visor, at the manufacturer's option, at each front outboard seating position that is equipped with an inflatable restraint. The label shall conform in content to the label shown in either Figure 6a or 6b of this standard, as appropriate, and shall comply with the requirements of S4.5.1(b)(2)(i) through S4.5.1(b)(2)(v)." These labels are referred to as "air bag warning" labels. The figure 6(c) label must be affixed to the sun visor only if the label specified by S4.5.1(b)(2) is not visible when the sun visor is in the stowed position. (See S4.5.1(2)(c).) This label is referred to as the "air bag alert" label. Vehicles certified to the advanced air bag requirements of our

May 12, 2000, final rule (65 FR 30680) must have labels that meet the requirements of figure 8.

Figures 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), and 8 specify both label content and format. Figures 6(a), 6(b), and 8 each specify that the label has a black outline, consisting of horizontal and vertical lines. Figure 6(c) does not specify that the label have any outline, although the label depicted in the figure is outlined in black. Accordingly, FMVSS No. 208 requires the air bag warning labels be framed by black vertical and horizontal lines, while the air bag alert label need not be so framed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has never defined "permanently affixed" as part of a regulation, and has specifically refused to set forth parameters that would so define the term in FMVSS No. 208. ⁽¹⁾

Rather, we have dealt with questions on whether a label is permanently affixed through legal interpretations like this one. ⁽²⁾

Specifically, NHTSA has said that a label is permanent if it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it and that the label should remain legible for the expected life of the product under normal conditions. Depending on where the label is affixed, various methods of attachment, such as sewing or heat transfer graphics, may meet these criteria.