ID: nht81-3.15

DATE: 09/04/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vector Cars

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 6, 1981, asking "for a 12 month exemption from FMVSS 205 (windshield glass AS-1), exemption to apply to our (one) experimental prototype car only".

Our exemption procedures would not really be responsive to your situation. They are intended for noncomplying series production where immediate compliance would cause substantial economic hardship, where an innovative safety device or low-emission propulsion system is being developed, or where an equivalent overall level of safety is being provided. Most importantly, as you need immediate relief, the process from receipt of petition, through a public comment period, to final action takes about 4 months.

Under our importation regulation, 19 CFR 12.80(b)(i)(vii) a manufacturer is permitted to import noncomplying motor vehicles for purposes of test or experiment, and operate them on the public roads for a period of one year, upon submission of information concerning the purpose of the test, the anticipated amount of road time, and the intended disposition of the vehicle at the end of the test period. The purpose of this exception is to encourage innovation. Although no comparable exception is provided under our regulation for vehicles that are not imported, in balancing considerations of safety (noncompliance of one Vector windshield with Standard No. 205) with the policy of encouraging small businesses and innovation, we have decided that the technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act involved in this instance (introduction of a nonconforming vehicle into interstate commerce), is not one which the agency would pursue. You have informed us that the Vector requires immediate development of an emission control program, that the vehicle will not be sold, and that when a conforming windshield is received it will be installed. Under the circumstances of your case we have concluded that the same exception that would be available were the car imported, should be made available to a vehicle of domestic manufacture.

SINCERELY,

VECTOR CARS

August 6, 1981

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Confirming a telephone conversation with Miss Joan Griffin and a gentleman attorney of your office, on August 6, 1981, we wish to petition for a 12 month exemption from FMVSS 205 (windshield glass AS-1), exemption to apply to our (one) experimental prototype car only.

We are currently developing a vehicle known as the VECTOR, the production version will be aimed at the prestigious GT market, historically dominated by foreign cars.

We request this exemption for the following reasons explained in more detail in the attached letter to Capt. King of the California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804.

1. We have secured an experimental permit Executive order C-170, July 1981, to allow development of our emission controls for period of 12 months.

2. Our emission controls program spans a full year and it requires the vehicle to driven on the California highways for this period.

3. Lead time to obtain a legal AS-1 glass windshield to fit our vehicle is approximately 6 months. This span subtracts from our 12 month CARB permit and leaves insufficient time to complete our program

(Graphics omitted) and obtain Emission Certificate.

4. Windshield production tooling is expensive and dependent on final production configuration. This configuration should "firm up" within the next 6 months. Tooling expenditure prior the this point would be in jeopardy of being wasted. In any case, as soon as a legal AS-1 glass can be obtained for the prototype it will be immediately installed and the plastic windshield will no longer be used.

5. The success of the VECTOR CARS program is considerably influenced by our investor who requires the vehicle to be registered by the State of California.

6. The limited use of the car negates, in a practical sense, the basic restriction to plastic as a windshield material, (the optical degeneration due to abrasion), since the wipers will seldom, if ever, be used.

7. The car will be driven by professional drivers and no safety hazards are planned in our testing program.

8. The car is a prototype and will not be sold.

In our conversation with Capt. King of the California Highway Patrol on August 6, 1981, (916-445-1865) he indicated that California would honor the NHTSA exemption. A letter from your office indicating the granting of the exemption would allow us to clear the (Illegible Word) obstacle with the California Highway Patrol in obtaining a California license.

If there is any thing more needed from us to expidite the granting of this petition, please do not hesitate to call me.

Jerry Wiegert President

July 30, 1981

Capt. C. E. King Commercial and Technical Section California Highway Patrol

Dear Capt. King:

We wish to request an experimental permit allowing the use of a polycarbonate plastic windshield in our prototype vehicle, the VECTOR W2 TWIN-TURBO.

We are currently involved in the development of an experimental prototype vehicle known as the VECTOR. This is to become a limited production sports car aimed at the prestigious GT market segment which has too long been dominated by foreign cars.

The newly completed prototype is a result of 8 years of research and it has already received a tremendous amount of publicity through both television and automotive journals internationally. Previously, we have trailered the car to track testing sights and to shows. However, we have come to the point in time where we need to have the car registered for use on California highways. This is necessary for several reasons: One is that we have already established an emissions testing program that requires operation funding for our program that requires operation of the vehicle on the highway. Secondly, any further funding for our program hinges on our investor's request to register the car with the State of California.

Our present problem is that the car meets all Federal and State requirements except for one-the plastic windshield. We of course will use an AS-1 glass windshield in our production cars, but, as you may know, glass tooling demands an extremely long tooling time and requires a large capital investment. We cannot secure the funds to pay for the tooling without first registering the car, and we cannot delay the emissions testing program.

We have already secured an experimental permit from the California Air Resources Board, executive order C-170, July 1981, to allow development of our emissions controls for a period of 12 months.

Our glass manufacturer has indicated a lead time of 6 months. Even if we had the funds now for the glass tooling, there would not be enough time to conduct our emissions work. If we have to wait until the glass windshield is installed, approximately 6 months from now.

As we understand it, from the technical viewpoint, the polycarbonate windshield (which is approved for aircraft use), is adequate for all safety requirements except on, the degradation of optical qualities caused by windshield wipers and other abrasions.

In our case the car will see limited street usage and will only be driven by a few qualified professional drivers. It will not be operated in inclement weather, negating the use of the windshield wipers which are installed on the car. Plus, the screen has a special coating to eliminate abrasions.

Since this vehicle is a prototype only and will not be sold, we would like to request your permission to obtain a temporary exemption (12 months) based on the responsibility of engineering and safety design done thus far, the VECTOR W2 is the safest production sports car ever designed for the street.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me so that we can expedite this matter as soon as possible.

Jerry Wiegert President

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

August 10, 1981

File No.: 62.A3020.A4889

Jerry Wiegert Vehicle Design Force Vector Cars Division

Dear Mr. Wiegert:

We cannot issue the experimental permit requested in your letter of July 30, 1981, for the temporary use of a plastic windshield in your prototype vehicle. Experimental permits issued pursuant to Vehicle Code 26106 are for the purpose of gathering data to support changes to statute or regulations. Issuing a permit for the purpose you requested would not be consistent with the intent of law.

Standards adopted by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) require glass type glazing complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 205 in windshields and other windows of all motor vehicles. You may wish to petition NHTSA for an exemption from FMVSS 205. Petitions should be directed to the U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, Office of Standards Enforcement, Washington, D.C. 20590.

Although we would oppose such an exemption on the basis of the safety issue involved, we would have no choice but to allow the vehicle to operate in California once the exemption is granted.

C. E. KING, Captain Commander Commercial and Technical Services Section

ID: aiam5234

"Dear Mr. Dennison: Thank you for your letter of April 27, 1993 clarifying your FAX of March 12 to which I responded on April 19. We appreciate your goal of helping people comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) and those of EPA. We can well understand why, as you put it, 'at times I do not feel I have the right answers for some of these manufacturers.' The regulation of kit cars and vehicles combining old and new parts is a complicated subject, and our opinions usually depend upon the specific facts of individual cases with the result that one may differ in degree from another. Because these are legal opinions, the Office of Chief Counsel is the proper Office within NHTSA to address questions of this nature, rather than the agency's Enforcement office. We are sorry that some of your inquirers 'are afraid to call NHTSA for fear of reprisal.' By this, I think you mean that a call from a small manufacturer might cause NHTSA to initiate enforcement action concerning nonconformance with the FMVSS or agency regulations. The potential of an enforcement action should be sufficient to encourage those engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles to discern their responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to comply with them. We are willing to assist manufacturers in interpreting the Act and regulations. If they do not wish to write or call us, they can review our interpretation letters which are available to the public in NHTSA's Technical Reference Division. Also, they can consult a private attorney. You enclosed a copy of the 'EPA Kit Car Policy' which we have reviewed, comparing it with NHTSA policy. In most respects, the two policies are congruent. Paragraph 1 of the EPA document fairly expresses NHTSA policy, fully assembled kit cars, and complete kit car packages are 'motor vehicles' under the Act, required to be certified by the manufacturer or kit supplier. If they are not certified, they must be imported by a NHTSA-registered importer (the counterpart to EPA's Independent Commercial Importer), or one who has a contract with a registered importer to certify the kit car (an allowance that we understand does not exist under EPA regulations). I shall return to Paragraph 2 later. Paragraph 3 differs from NHTSA policy, although automotive bodies are not 'motor vehicles' under either EPA or NHTSA's definitions, they are 'motor vehicle equipment' for purposes of NHTSA's jurisdiction. Paragraph 4 essentially states NHTSA policy, kit car body/chassis combinations may be imported as automotive equipment and are subject to NHTSA's regulations. Similarly, any attempt to circumvent the Act or import regulations may be viewed as a violation subject to enforcement. However, NHTSA will also regard as a 'manufacturer' any person importing kits or kit cars for resale, as well as the actual fabricator or assembler of a kit. Paragraph 2 reflects the fact that EPA regulates only engines and emission- related components. A vehicle 'will be considered to be a rebuilt vehicle of a previously certified configuration and will be considered to be covered by that configuration's original EPA certification of conformity' if the engine and all emission-related components and settings conform to those of the previously certified configuration, and if the weight of the completed kit vehicle is not more than 500 pounds greater than that of the originally certified configuration. Under EPA policy, a 'rebuilt vehicle' could be a motor vehicle all of whose parts were new and unused except for its engine and engine-related components. NHTSA has no definition of 'rebuilt vehicle' which would permit a similar interpretation, and while a vehicle as I have described could be covered by the previously existing EPA certification, NHTSA very likely would regard it as a newly manufactured motor vehicle which must be certified as meeting all contemporary FMVSS. It is here that the two agencies most diverge because of the breadth of NHTSA's regulatory authority which encompasses all motor vehicle equipment, and motor vehicles assembled from that equipment. You cite as an example of difficulty 'the treatment of FMVSS with regards to a '23 T-Bucket Hot Rod'. The first question to answer is whether the car has been manufactured primarily for use on the public roads. Factors to consider in this determination are whether the Hot Rod is intended solely for use on closed race tracks, whether it must be trailered from race to race, and whether a State would license it for on road use. If the car has not been manufactured primarily for on road use, then it is not a 'motor vehicle' as defined by the Vehicle Safety Act, and not subject to the FMVSS. If the car is a 'motor vehicle' and entirely assembled from parts from a disassembled motor vehicle or vehicles previously in use, then it is considered a 'used' vehicle, and also not subject to the FMVSS (but subject to state and local standards). On the other hand, if the kit car is entirely comprised of previously unused parts, then it is a new motor vehicle that is required to comply with, and be certified as complying with, the FMVSS (and its manufacturer may be eligible to apply for a temporary exemption from one or more of those standards under 49 CFR Part 555). If the kit car is comprised of parts both previously used and unused, NHTSA's examination of the list of components in each category will enable it to advise whether the kit car must comply with the FMVSS that apply to new vehicles. In addition, we also receive inquiries from those who wish to construct vehicles which use a 'host' chassis from a previously certified vehicle. The Act permits a manufacturer to modify a previously certified vehicle in any manner as long as it does not knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed by the original manufacturer in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. We interpret this as meaning that, if the manufacturer removes the original body, at the end of the conversion process the resulting motor vehicle must continue to comply with the FMVSS that were in effect when it was originally manufactured. However, a certain divergence from original vehicle compliance is permitted. For example, if a 1982 enclosed passenger car is modified to become a convertible, at the end of the conversion process it is no longer required to meet enclosed car FMVSS but must comply with those that applied to l982 convertibles. The Act does not require that such vehicles be certified but the manufacturer should be prepared to substantiate that it has not rendered inoperative any of the vehicle's original safety equipment, either directly or indirectly (such as a substantial increase in the weight of the vehicle that might affect its crash protection characteristics) in the event NHTSA should so ask. Finally, we note your remark that NHRA and SEMA are debating whether a policy can 'be developed which will allow these builders to produce an authentic replica and stay within the standards.' As I discussed above, the FMVSS would not appear to apply to a replica vehicle such as a Miller racing car from the 1920's that could not be licensed for on road use. However, the FMVSS do apply to vehicles composed of newly manufactured parts that replicate the look of older vehicles. For this reason, 100% authenticity cannot be achieved for a replica required to meet the current FMVSS because of equipment such as the center highmounted stop lamp, side marker lamps and reflectors, and head and other occupant restraints required for safety today. As a general rule, we would not provide temporary exemptions from these standards. In our view, the only viable candidate for an authentic replica is one that is constructed on a 'host' chassis of a vehicle manufactured before January 1, 1968, the date that the first FMVSS became effective, or entirely from used parts. I would also note that much authenticity could result from use of a 'host' chassis manufactured during calendar year l968. Although the appearance of the interior would be affected by compliance with certain FMVSS, the FMVSS requiring side marker lamps and reflectors and head restraints did not become effective until January 1, 1969. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: 86-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jerry Koh

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jerry Koh 7617 DeLongpre Ave., #1 Los Angeles, California 90046

Dear Mr. Koh:

This is in reply to your letter of February 6, 1986, to Mr. Vinson of my staff asking whether a lighting accessory you wish to import for sale is acceptable.

The device you describe is intended for installation on the rear parcel shelf of passenger cars. You state that it emits a "stream of flashing lights in continuous sequence when the driver steps on the brake (stops), turns (right or left), and when overtaking other cars." The specification sheet that you enclosed indicates that the device has an adjustable flashing speed between 66 and 140 times a minute.

This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, establishes manufacturing requirements for new motor vehicles and equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, applies to lighting equipment that is required on new motor vehicles, and to aftermarket equipment that is intended to replace the required equipment. The standard does not itself cover accessory lighting equipment such as you propose to import, and thus there is no U.S. safety standard that applies to it. Whether it is permissible for use therefore must be determined by the law of each state in which it will be sold and operated.

However, Standard No. 108 does prohibit installation of any aftermarket lighting device before initial sale of a new vehicle if that device "impairs the effectiveness" of lighting equipment that the standard requires, and you should be aware of this prohibition if you intend to sell the device to new car dealers for installation on new cars in stock. Thus, we must consider whether your device would impair the effectiveness of the center high-mounted stop lamp, and the turn signal lamps. We offer these comments: stop lamps must be activated simultaneously and not sequentially. The mode of operation of your device to indicate brake application is not clear. If all eight lights are activated simultaneously, and are steady burning, that would not appear to impair the effectiveness of the center stop lamp. If they are activated in a sequential spread, or flash if activated simultaneously, this could possibly be an impairment of the nature contemplated by Standard No. 108.

With respect to the turn signal function, the flash rate should be synchronized with that of the vehicle's standard turn signals. Under Standard No. 108, 60 to-120 cycles per minute is permissible, Thus, the highest speed attainable of your device, 110, could be viewed as a possible impairment. We do not understand the safety purpose of the overtaking function and how it operates.

If you have any further questions, we will be happy to answer them. Thank you for your interest in highway safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Taylor Vinson Legal Counsel NHTSA. U.S. Dept. Of Transportation 400 7th ST. S.W. Washington D.C.

February 6, 1986

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Please provide me a letter of interpretation regarding the following item. Thank you.

I have an illumination accessory (Highway Flasher FS-7100, made in Tiawan for automobiles which can be mounted on rear dash of each car.

The Flasher Hill emits a stream of flashing lights in continuous sequence when the driver steps on the break (stops), turns (right or left), and when overtaking other cars. It is a very good safe-guard device in which it alarms other drivers and at the same time it is a beautiful car ornamentation.

" In a way The Flasher is similar to the 3rd light that is now mandatorily required on all 1986 cars. However, it can be used on all cars that are with or without the 3rd light. For the 3rd light is always mounted in the center of the rear window; whereas The Flasher can be mounted on the rear dash board and its light will flash on either right or left or both sides of the rear window. (Figure 1)

(Insert Graphics)

In fact with the Flasher it will actually enhance the visibility of all vehicles, increase drivers' awareness at night, in heavy fog and on highways, and complement cars that already have the 3rd light.

I am thinking about importing the Flashers into the U.S. but I want to make sure it is safe and legal to do so. I am unable to find out from the manufacturer whether this product has met U.S. Highway Safety Standard or not, probably because the product is not being imported yet.

Thank you for your time and assistance.

Respectfully Yours,

Jerry Koh

Encls.

ID: aiam4033

Dear Mr. Waimey and Mr. Hansell: Thank you for your letter of September 12, 1985, concerning th applicability of S7.4.5 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*, to manual Type 2 safety belts in passenger cars. As explained below, S7.4.5 is not currently applicable to manual Type 2 belt systems in passenger cars. However, as a result of a recent amendment to Standard No. 208, the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard will be applied to manual Type 2 belt systems in passenger cars, beginning on September 1, 1989, if the automatic restraint requirements are rescinded.; As you pointed out, S7.4(b) of Standard No. 208 requires vehicles wit gross vehicle weight ratings of 10,000 pounds or less to meet the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard, including the requirements of S7.4.5. However, S7.4(b) specifically excludes manual Type 2 safety belts installed in the front seats of passenger cars from the comfort and convenience requirements. Thus, you are correct that a manual Type 2 safety belt installed in the front outboard seating position of a passenger car currently does not have to meet the requirements of S7.4.5.; In April of this year, the agency issued a notice of propose rulemaking (50 FR 14580) proposing that if the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208 are rescinded for passenger cars, then manual Type 2 safety belt systems in those vehicles would have to meet all of the comfort and convenience requirements, including the requirement of S7.4.5, beginning on September 1, 1989. On November 6, 1985 (50 FR 46056), the agency issued a final rule adopting that requirement.; I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have furthe questions, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2559

Dear Mr. Mossman: This responds to your March 29, 1977, letter asking whether severa vehicles that you describe would be considered 'vehicles other than passenger cars' for purposes of Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars*.; Vehicles other than passenger cars includes: multipurpose passenge vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, and trailers, all of which are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 571.3. Since the vehicles you describe appear to fall within the definition of multipurpose passenger vehicle or truck, they are considered 'vehicles other than passenger cars.' Accordingly, they must comply with the rim marking requirements of Standard No. 120.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht75-2.1

DATE: 10/15/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The B. F. Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your August 30, 1975, letter concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to tires which the manufacturer expects to be used on both passenger cars and trailers.

S2. of Standard No. 109 specifies:

This standard applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. . . .

Similarly, S3. of Standard No. 119 specifies:

This standard applies to new pneumatic tires designed for highway use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers and motorcycles manufactured after 1948. . . . (emphasis added)

These standards are mutually exclusive. Therefore, dual markings indicating compliance with the performance requirements of each are not permitted. A tire whose predominant contemplated use is on passenger cars is subject to Standard No. 109, even if the manufacturer knows it will also be marketed as a trailer tire. The choice of standard to which the tire will be certified should be made by the manufacturer. The NHTSA will accept a manufacturer's good faith determination of the applicable standard. You should note that if the tire is certified as conforming with Standard No. 119, its use as original equipment on passenger cars is prohibited by Standard No. 110. (The proposed Standard No. 120, however, would permit the use of passenger car tires on vehicles other than passenger cars, subject to a 10 percent load rating correction factor.)

Please note further that a tire which is subject to Standard No. 109 must be of a size designation listed in Appendix A of that standard. Conversely, any tire labeled with a size designation which is listed in that appendix is subject to Standard No. 109.

The final paragraph of your letter discussed "certain types and classes of equipment [determined by the NHTSA to be] non-trailers by definition." You appear to be referring to vehicles which are not "trailers" because they are not "motor vehicles" or items of "motor vehicle equipment" as the latter terms are defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended. No Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards apply to units which are neither motor vehicles nor motor vehicle equipment. The manufacturers of such units may equip them with tires of their choice.

ATTACH.

The B. F. Goodrich Company August 30, 1975

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

Dear Sir:

We at B. F. Goodrich seek an agency interpretation under current Rules, Regulations, Orders or Standards as to the specific performance requirements called for a passenger tire when its expected use is known or contemplated to be put into service as a trailer tire.

As you are undoubtedly aware, prior to the effective date of MVSS 119 (49CFR 571.119-effective March 1, 1975) certain sizes of passenger tires were used as trailer tires, particularly with certain light trailers such as boating and/or horse trailers. Light trailers of this class appear to meet the definition of a "trailer" as defined by 49CFR 571.3(c) as:

"Trailer means a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle."

For certain size tires. The B. F. Goodrich Company has passenger tires, which of course, in order to be marketed as a passenger tire must be in compliance with and meet all requirements of MVSS 109 (49CFR 571.109); in those instances where the tire has the potential for use on a trailer, must such tire additionally meet and comply with all requirements of MVSS 119?

We are aware that MVSS 120, as of current date, remains NPRM for which an effective date is not yet established and which when issued will, to a substantial degree, further identify and control use and application of trailer tires through the designation of rim sizes for such tires.

We additionally seek further clarification as to just how such a dual-use tire should be identified and marketed; e.g. should the tire be marked with the MVSS 109 identification (applicable when sold as a passenger tire) and separately marked with the MVSS 119 identification (applicable when sold as a trailer tire) or in the alternative, would dual identification demonstrating compliance with both passenger and non-passenger tires be acceptable?

Further, it has been brought to our attention that your agency has designated certain types and classes of equipment as non-trailers by definition; such non-trailer equipment is readily illustrated as compressor units, cement mixers, welding units and the like which are frequently used by the construction industry for portable movement in and about construction sites. Normally, such equipment is an integral unit in and by itself, in that it does not carry "persons or property" which are detachable from the unit, which factor could cause such units to be identified as "non-trailers" and accordingly not reach necessity of compliance with requirements recited by MVSS 119. It is understood that such units are not intended for highway use and that when transported from one construction site to another, they are carried on a transport trailer specifically designed for highway movement of such equipment. Many manufacturers of such units desire to continue the use of passenger tires for this type application and if prior interpretations of your agency has identified and placed such units outside the scope of S1 of MVSS 119 (e.g. "for tires for use on multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles"), we request that such classes of "construction use equipment" be identified so that our passenger tires may be properly marked for such application.

Very truly yours,

C. D. McCarty -- Staff Attorney

cc: R. D. Buehler; J. L. Ginn; W. G. Wilson

ID: 3083o

Mr. Paul Utans
Vice President, Governmental Affairs
Subaru of America
Subaru Plaza
P.O. Box 6000
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR /571.210). Specifically, you stated that Subaru would like to offer lap/shoulder belts at the rear outboard seating positions on mid-1989 model year station wagons sold in the United States. Standard No. 210 requires these station wagons to be equipped with an anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso portion of a lap/shoulder belt assembly at each forward-facing outboard seating position (S4.1.1) and requires such anchorages to be located within a specified range (S4.3.2). You stated that the subject station wagons would have such an anchorage located in the specified area.

However, the upper torso portion of the lap/shoulder belt assemblies would not be attached to the required anchorages in the subject vehicles. Instead, Subaru would provide another anchorage outside of the range specified in Standard No. 210, and the upper torso portion of the rear seat lap/shoulder belt assemblies would be attached to these additional anchorages. You stated your belief that, since Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) does not require manufacturers to install lap/shoulder belts in rear seating positions of passenger cars, Subaru's voluntary installation of rear seat lap/shoulder belts and additional anchorages for those belts is not subject to any of this agency's regulations, provided that the voluntarily installed items do not impair the functioning of any devices or elements of design required to be installed in the vehicles. Your belief is correct.

The anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210 apply to all anchorages required by the safety standards, except for those anchorages explicitly exempted by S4.3 of Standard No. 210 (anchorages for automatic and dynamically tested manual belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208). The question then becomes whether the upper anchorage to which the rear seat shoulder belts will actually be attached in these vehicles is required by the safety standards. If that upper anchorage were required by the safety standards, it would have to comply with the location requirements set forth in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210. However, we conclude that that anchorage is not required by any safety standard.

If Standard No. 208 required rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts, it would require that the point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt was actually attached to the vehicles comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in Standard No. 210. This is because S3 of Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." The point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt is attached to the vehicle is necessarily a part of the "provision" for transferring belt loads to the vehicle structure. Thus, the attachment point of the upper end of the shoulder belt to the vehicle would have to comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 210, if the shoulder belt were required to be provided at that seating position by Standard No. 208.

However, Standard No. 208 does not currently require rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts. Instead, section S4.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 208 requires that rear seating positions in passenger cars be equipped with either Type 1 (lap belts) or Type 2 (lap/shoulder belts) belt assemblies. Even though Standard No. 208 does not require lap/shoulder belts to be installed at rear outboard seating positions in passenger cars, section S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires shoulder belt anchorages to be installed for each forward-facing rear outboard seating position in passenger cars. When lap belts only are installed at these seating positions, the shoulder belt anchorage required by S4.1.1 is not, strictly speaking, a provision for transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, since there are no shoulder belt loads to transfer to the vehicle structure. Accordingly, the requirement of S4.1.1 was interpreted as meaning that an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure had to be provided for such seating positions, and that anchorage point had to comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 210.

According to your letter, your station wagons would be equipped with an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, and that point would comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in Standard No. 210. Accepting this as true, we believe that Subaru could satisfy all the requirements of the safety standards by installing lap belts only at the rear outboard seating positions in these cars. Subaru's decision to install lap/shoulder belts at these seating positions and an additional anchorage point for the shoulder belts is a voluntary choice, not a response to any regulatory requirement.

NHTSA has long said that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with Federal safety standards, provided that the additional systems or components do not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards. In a December 1, 1986 letter to Mr. Francois Louis (copy enclosed), I said that manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorages for voluntarily-installed lap belts outside of the area specified in Standard No. 210 for lap belts required to be installed by Standard No. 208, provided that the voluntarily installed lap belts do not destroy the ability of the required belt systems to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. The same reasoning would apply in this situation. That is, manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorage for the upper end of voluntarily installed shoulder belts outside of the area specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210, provided that the voluntarily installed anchorages and shoulder belts do not destroy the ability of the required anchorages and lap belts to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. There is no reason to believe that shoulder belts and the additional anchorages would in any way impair the ability of required equipment to comply with the requirements of the safety standards.

You are already aware of the fact that NHTSA has initiated a rulemaking to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts; 52 FR 22818, June 16, 1987. You should note that if the agency adopts a final rule requiring rear seat lap/shoulder belts in passenger cars, the shoulder belts that are the subject of this interpretation would no longer be voluntarily installed. If such a final rule were issued, the point at which the upper end of the shoulder belt is attached to the vehicle would have to comply with both the anchorage location requirements of S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210 and the anchorage strength requirements of S4.2.2 of Standard No. 210, as explained above.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208#210 d:l0/l3/88

ID: nht94-8.1

DATE: March 8, 1994

FROM: David A. Scott -- President, RKS International L.L.C.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to David A. Scott (A42; Part 591)

TEXT:

After contacting your Chicago representative, I was informed that you were the authoritative person qualified to respond to my inquiries.

RK Technologies, Inc. is a Wisconsin Corporation. We deal mostly with China. We are presently considering importing from China to the United States fiberglass kit cars. Our consideration is to import the cars either disassembled or partially assembled in China. We will then be providing and/or installing American parts in the U.S., for the major mechanical portions like engines, transmissions, suspension systems, tires,etc. The cars will be sold in the United States.

Please provide us with the information guidelines and/or restrictions that will have to be met to ensure compliance with the possible imports and with the assembling and circulation of cars in the U.S.

I would appreciate your prompt attention and response and I thank you in advance.

ID: nht94-1.70

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 8, 1994

FROM: David A. Scott -- President, RKS International L.L.C.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/25/94 from John Womack to David A. Scott (A42; Part 591)

TEXT:

After contacting your Chicago representative, I was informed that you were the authoritative person qualified to respond to my inquiries.

RK Technologies, Inc. is a Wisconsin Corporation. We deal mostly with China. We are presently considering importing from China to the United States fiberglass kit cars. Our consideration is to import the cars either disassembled or partially assembled in China. We will then be providing and/or installing American parts in the U.S., for the major mechanical portions like engines, transmissions, suspension systems, tires,etc. The cars will be sold in the United States.

Please provide us with the information guidelines and/or restrictions that will have to be met to ensure compliance with the possible imports and with the assembling and circulation of cars in the U.S.

I would appreciate your prompt attention and response and I thank you in advance.

ID: garymiller

The Honorable Gary Miller
Member, United States House of
Representatives
22632 Golden Spring Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765





Fax: (909) 612-1087





Dear Congressman Miller:

Thank you for your telephone inquiry seeking information for a constituent about the Federal requirements applicable to the marking of automotive wheel rims. Mr. Jonny Vong of your staff has advised us that the constituent is a rim manufacturer who believes that other rim manufacturers may not be marking their rims as required by law.

There are two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that apply to wheel rims, one for passenger cars and the other for rims for all other types of motor vehicles. Markings are only required to appear on rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. However, to be certain that I answer your question fully, I will explain our requirements for both passenger car rims and rims for use on other motor vehicles.

The two applicable standards are FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims - Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.110), and FMVSS No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120). I have enclosed copies of both these standards for your information.

For passenger cars, section S4.4 of FMVSS No. 110 specifies two requirements. First the rim must be constructed to the dimensions of one of the rims that is listed under the definition of a test rim in FMVSS No. 109. This means that the rim must comply with the dimensional requirements shown for that rim size in the current publications of specified standardization organizations, including the Tire and Rim Association, The European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization, or the Japan Automobile Tire Manufacturers Association. Second, in the event of a rapid loss of inflation pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at 60 miles per hour, the rim must retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be stopped with a controlled braking application. No markings are required on passenger car rims.

For rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, FMVSS No. 120 also specifies two requirements. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims on a vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle, i.e., be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer, pursuant to either FMVSS No. 109 or No. 119. This would be done in the publications of the standardization organizations, as explained above. This requirement is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, not the rim manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will actually be mounted on the rim.

The second requirement, set forth in S5.2, is that rims be marked with five specified items of information. These are:

(1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions;

(2) The rim size designation and, in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation;

(3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the rim manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards;

(4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark, or symbol; and

(5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.

If, after reviewing this information, your constituent continues to believe that other rim manufacturers are not complying with any applicable standard or standards, he or she may wish to contact John Finneran in NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance at (202) 366-0645.

For your constituent's information, I am enclosing fact sheets we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.





Sincerely,





Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel





cc: Washington Office





Enclosures
ref:110
d.7/31/00