ID: 86-6.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/19/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ted Stevens

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Bridget Ernst, regarding our regulations for safety belts on school buses. Your letter has been referred to my office for reply, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for administering Federal programs relating to school bus safety.

In her letter to you, Ms. Ernst enclosed materials issued by the National Coalition for Seat Belts on School Buses which explained why the Coalition believes safety belts should be required by Federal law on all school buses. You asked us to discuss the main counter-arguments against such a requirement, and asked also whether any Federal legislation has been introduced recently to increase the safety requirement on school buses. I am pleased to respond.

I would like to begin with some background information on our school bus regulations. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 authorizes NHTSA to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA issued a comprehensive set of motor vehicle safety standards to improve school bus safety. Our school bus safety standards apply to various aspects of vehicle performance, including school bus windows and windshields, emergency exits, fuel systems and passenger seating and crash protection.

The safety belt issue your constituent raises involves the safety standard we issued for school bus passenger crash protection, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222. Standard No. 222 requires that large school buses provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization requires that the interior of the school bus be improved with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area during an accident. They ensure that a system of crash protection is provided to passengers independent of their actions to use safety belts. Standard No. 222 requires safety belts for passengers in smaller school buses since belts are needed on those vehicles to provide adequate crash protection.

The information from the Coalition that Ms. Ernst enclosed in her letter to you states that safety belts are needed on all school buses to protect children and keep them within their seating compartment in the event of a collision or rollover. We believe that effective passenger crash protection and containment is already provided by compartmentalization and that it would be inappropriate to issue a Federal mandate for safety belts on all school buses. While the effects of compartmentalization are expected to be greater in crashes involving front or rear impacts, the standard also has potential in side impacts and rollovers by minimizing the "hostility" of the crash environment and by limiting the range of movement of an occupant in those two types of crashes.

For your information, I have enclosed a DOT report, "Seat Belts in School Buses" (June 1985),"which provides a thorough discussion of the safety belt issues raised by your constituent. As explained in the report, school buses in this country have compiled an excellent safety record. In addition to meeting compartmentalization requirements, large school buses incorporate more safety by virtue of their greater mass, higher seating height and high visibility to other motorists. Thus, the need for safety belts to mitigate against injuries and fatalities is not the same as that for other vehicles, such as passenger cars. Because the safety record of large school buses is very good, we must conclude that a Federal requirement for the installation of safety belts is not justified at this time.

The Coalition's material enclosed by Ms. Ernst included a statement indicating that NHTSA "supports local district seat belt programs." NHTSA permits the voluntary installation of safety belts for passengers on large school buses if the purchaser wishes to have belts installed. We believe that such a decision should be made by individual schools and school districts that have made a reasoned assessment of their particular pupil transportation needs. However, because there are many effective ways to improve pupil transportation safety, such as improving driver training and school bus maintenance programs, it would be inappropriate for us to endorse local district programs for safety belts on school buses. Therefore, for purposes of clarification, we neither support nor discourage school districts' decisions to install safety belts on their large school buses.

You asked about any Federal legislation that had been recently introduced to increase the safety of school buses. The Administration has not proposed any legislation affecting school buses. However, two bills were introduced in the 99th Congress concerning school buses. H.R. 3129 contained a provision calling for a school bus safety study to determine the measures most effective in protecting the safety of school children. H.R. 719 proposed incentive grants to the States encouraging the adoption and enforcement of laws requiring the use of safety belts in school buses. Neither H.R. 3129 nor H.R. 749 was enacted.

In addition, NHTSA has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 222 by setting performance requirements for safety belts voluntarily installed in large school buses. If adopted, this rule would require safety belts voluntarily installed on mew large school buses to meet Federal safety belt standards for strength and proper installation. We are evaluating the comments submitted on our proposal and a final decision on the rulemaking action is expected in the near future.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

September 24, 1986

David P. Sloane, Director Office of Congressional Relations Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Sloane:

One of my constituents, Ms. Bridget Ernst, has recently informed me of her support for seatbelt requirements on school buses. I have enclosed some information from the National Coalition for Seatbelts on School Buses which she has brought to my attention. I would appreciate your comments on the safety issues they raise.

Has any legislation been introduced recently on the federal level to increase the safety requirement on school buses? What are the main counter-arguments?

Thanks for your assistance in this matter of concern.

With best wishes,

Cordially,

TED STEVENS

Enclosure

Oct 22, 1986

The Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Stevens:

Thank you for your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Ms. Bridget Ernst.

I have transmitted your inquiry to the appropriate Departmental officials who are familiar with this matter and they will respond to you directly.

I appreciate you contacting me and hope you will not hesitate to call if I can be of any further assistance.,

Sincerely,

Edward J. Babbit Director, Office of Congressional Affairs

ID: nht88-4.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/30/88

FROM: R. H. MUNSON -- FORD MOTOR CO

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/28/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO ROBERT H. MUNSON, REDBOOK A33(4), STANDARD 208, STANDARD 209

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Request for Interpretation

Standards Nos. 208 and 209 contain apparently inconsistent provisions. For the reasons discussed below, Ford believes that the agency intended the later-promulgated provisions to limit the application of the earlier-promulgated ones, and therefore no co nflict actually exists between them. Ford respectfully asks you to confirm that its belief is correct.

In brief, S4.6.3 of Standard No. 208 exempts from the Standard No. 209 restrictions on elongation of seat belt webbing those Type 2 seat belt assemblies that are installed to comply with the manual restraint requirements (S4.1.2.3) of Standard No. 208 and are required by S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of the standard to meet its frontal crash test requirements. S4.6(a) of Standard No. 209 repeats that exemption. In contrast, S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that a Type 2 seat belt assembly that "includes a l oad limiter n1 and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of this standard may be installed in a motor vehicle only in conjunction with an automatic restraint system as

part of a total occupant restraint system." (emphasis added). Despite this apparently inconsistent provision, the rulemaking history discussed below suggests strongly that the agency intended to permit such Type 2 seat belts to be used in manual restrai nt systems if such belts also have to meet the frontal crash test requirements of Standard No. 208.

n1 The agency defined "load-limiter" in the preamble to Docket No. 80-12, Notice 2 as a "seat belt assembly component or feature that controls tension on the seat belt and modulates or limits the force loads that are imparted to a restrained vehicle o ccupant by the belt assembly during a crash." (46 Fed. Reg. 2618, January 12, 1981). Notice 2 also added a similar definition to S3 of Standard No. 209.

Discussion

In a final rule n2 modifying Standards Nos. 208 and 209, the agency amended S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 to require certain trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles built on or after September 1, 1991, and equipped with a Type 2 seat belt assembly at a f ront outboard designated seating position pursuant to S4.1.2.3 of that standard to meet the frontal crash test requirements of S5.1. The agency also added S4.6.3, a provision that exempts Type 2 seat belt assemblies subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 from the webbing width, strength, and elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 [S4.2(a)-(c)] and from the requirements for assembly performance of that standard (S4.4). In addition, the agency amended S4.6 of Standard No. 209 to reiterate t hat exemption and require that such seat belt assemblies be specially labeled.

n2 Docket No. 74-14, Notice 53; 52 Fed. Reg. 44898, November 23, 1987.

In exempting dynamically-tested belts subject to S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 from certain Standard No. 209 requirements, the agency stated in the preamble to Notice 53, under the heading "Revisions to Standard No. 209":

The agency noted that the webbing of automatic belts is currently excluded from the elongation and other belt webbing and attachment hardware requirements of Standard No. 209, since those belts have to meet the injury protection criteria of Standard N o. 208 during a crash. For dynamically-tested manual belts in passenger cars, NHTSA believed that an exclusion from the webbing width, strength and elongation requirements (sections 4.2(a)-(c) is also appropriate since these belts will also have to meet the injury protection requirements of Standard No. 208. The agency believes that for those same reasons, dynamically-tested safety belts in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles should also be excluded from those requirements of Standard No. 20. (52 Fed. Reg. at 44906). n3

n3 The agency reiterated this reasoning in Docket No. 74-14, Notice 54 (53 Fed. Reg. 5579, February 25, 1988). This Notice denied petitions for reconsideration of the agency's decision to exempt dynamically-tested manual lap/shoulder belts from the a ssembly and elongation requirements (among others) of Standard No. 209. The Notice also denied a petition to delete the provision of Standard No. 208 which exempts automatic safety belts from the Standard No. 209 webbing requirements.

S4.5(b) of Standard No. 209, provides, however, that a Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load-limiter and that does not comply with the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 may be installed in motor vehicles only in conjunction with an aut omatic restraint system as part of a total occupant restraint system. S4.5(c) of that standard also requires that any Type 2 seat belt assembly that includes a load-limiter and does not comply with these elongation requirements be marked or labeled with the following words:

This seat belt assembly may only be installed in vehicles in combination with an automatic restraint system such as an air cushion or an automatic belt. (emphasis added). n4

n4 S4.5 was promulgated in response to a Mercedes-Benz petition to allow use, in conjunction with air bag systems, of belts that did not meet the S4.2(c) elongation requirements. In the preamble to Docket No. 80-12, Notice 2, the agency explained tha t it had proposed restricting the use of load-limiting belts to vehicles equipped with automatic restraints because there are currently no dynamic performance requirements or injury criteria for manual belt systems used alone. There are no requirements to ensure that a load-limiting belt system would protect vehicle occupants from impacting the steering wheel, ins trument panel, and windshield, which would be very likely if the belts elongated beyond the limits specified in Standard No. 209. Therefore, the elongation requirements are necessary to ensure that manual belts used as the sole restraint system will ade quately restrain vehicle occupants. (46 Fed. Reg. 2618, 2619, January 12, 1981).

Ford believes that the more recently promulgated rule exempting manual Type 2 belt assemblies subject to S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 from the elongation requirements of Standard No. 209 was meant to limit the restrictions of S4.5(b) of that stan dard to manual belt assemblies not required to undergo dynamic crash testing. Clearly, the agency's reasons for restricting use of the Type 2 seat belt assemblies specified in S4.5(b) to vehicles also equipped with automatic restraints do not apply to m anual Type 2 belts subject to the dynamic crash test requirements of Standard No. 208. Contrary to the preamble language quoted in footnote 4, those manual belts are subject to "dynamic performance requirements [and] injury criteria" meant to "ensure th at a load-limiting belt system would protect vehicle occupants . . ."

Hence, the elongation requirements are no longer "necessary to ensure that manual belts used as the sole restraint system will adequately restrain vehicle occupants." Indeed the agency expressly recognized this fact in the above-quoted excerpt from the p reamble of Docket No. 74-14, Notice 53, and also in Notice 54.

For the same reasons, Ford believes that manual Type 2 belts subject to S4.6 of Standard No. 208 are intended also to be exempt from the labeling requirements of S4.5(c) of Standard No. 209 and instead to be subject to the labeling requirements of S4.6(b ) of that standard.

Ford respectfully requests your concurrence in its interpretation. If, however, the agency believes that the apparent inconsistency can be cured only by amending Standards Nos. 208 and 209, Ford asks the agency to treat this letter as a petition for rul emaking.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: THOMAS H. JAHNKE -- OASIS INDUSTRIES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/10/87 TO CHIEF COUNCIL--NHTSA FROM THOMAS H. JAHNKE, OCC-1387

TEXT: Dear Mr. Jahnke:

This responds to your letter concerning the application of our regulations and Federal motor vehicle safety standards to your company's planned manufacture of "hardtops" for convertible passenger cars. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. Y ou asked whether any Federal safety standards apply to convertible hardtops; from telephone conversations between your associate Mr. Scaravilli and Ms. Fujita of my staff, we understand that these hardtops are manufactured for sale as aftermarket items o f equipment and that they are designed to be readily removable by the user of the hardtop. Importantly, we assume that the addition of the hardtop to a new vehicle does not change the vehicle from a convertible to a different vehicle type. (The agency has defined a convertible as "a vehicle whose A-pillar (or windshield peripheral support) is not joined at the top with the B-pillar or other rear roof support rearward of the B-pillar by a fixed rigid structural member." Please note that the following i nformation is premised on our assumption that the addition of your hardtop to a convertible does not provide the fixed, rigid structural member in the described location--i.e., we assume that if your hardtop were installed on a new convertible, the vehic le's classification would not be changed to a non-convertible. Indeed, our response would be different if installation of your hardtops on a new convertible changed the classification of the vehicle.)

The answer to your question is yes, there are Federal requirements that apply to your manufacture and sale of the hardtops.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehic les and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that it s products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of

due care that its products meet all applicable Federal requirements. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. If you or the agency dete rmines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, you are obligated to notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be s ubject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. (A general information sheet describing manufacturers' responsibilities under the Safety Act is enclosed.)

The Safety Act defines the term "motor vehicle equipment" as follows: "Motor vehicle equipment" means any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or im provement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory or addition to the motor vehicle ..." (@102(4)) This definition includes the product your company wishes to manufacture since the hardtops are components manufactured and sold either as a r eplacement or improvement of the convertible top or as an addition to vehicles that have no hardtops. Since your product is considered an item of motor vehicle equipment, Oasis as the manufacturer of the equipment must ensure that the hardtops comply wi th all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and contain no safety-related defects.

There are two Federal safety standards that have a direct bearing on the manufacture of your company's hardtops. Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, sets performance requirements for glazing materials for use in new or used motor vehicles. Glaz ing incorporated in any Oasis hardtop must therefore conform to the applicable specifications set forth in Standard No. 205. The standard establishes both performance requirements, including those regulating the light transmittance and abrasion resistan ce of glazing, and labeling requirements applicable to the glazing used in your product.

The second safety standard having a bearing on your product is No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, which establishes flammability requirements for new motor vehicles. The standard specifies that certain components, including convertible tops, of a vehicle which must meet the flammability requirements in order for that vehicle to comply with the standard. However, the effect of Standard No. 302 on your product depends on the circumstances surrounding the installation of the hardtop.

The requirements of Standard No. 302 apply to a vehicle only until its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket convertible tops added to a vehicle after the vehicle's first purchase. (This discussion treats th e aforementioned glazing issue as a separate matter and hereinafter assumes that any glazing used in the hardtop conforms to applicable requirements of Standard No. 205.) You are permitted to sell aftermarket convertible tops that do not meet the flammab ility requirements, even if the addition of the hardtop to a vehicle caused the vehicle to no longer comply with Standard No. 302.

However, @108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 ..." The flammability resistance of the original vehicle is an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business could not install a convertible hardtop that does not meet the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302 in a new or used motor vehicle since to do so would render inoperative that element of design, and thus violate @108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of @108.

To summarize the above discussion, Oasis hardtops using glazing must meet applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Standard No. 302's application to the hardtops depends on the circumstances surrounding installation of the product in new and used mo tor vehicles. If the hardtop meets applicable Federal standards except for Standard No. 302, the hardtop cannot be installed in vehicles by any commercial business listed in @108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. However, those convertible hardtops may legall y be installed in vehicles by the owners of the vehicles. Oasis would still have the responsibility under the Vehicle Safety Act to recall and remedy its products which are determined to contain a defect relating to motor vehicle safety, even if the har dtops were installed by vehicle owners themselves. I note also that NHTSA discourages owners from installing any item of equipment that would degrade the safety performance of their vehicles.

I have enclosed copies of Standard No. 205 and No. 302 for your convenience. In addition, I am enclosing a copy of 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, which applies to all manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (except tir es) to which a motor vehicle safety standard applies. This rule requires your company to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufacturers to this agency within 30 days after it begins manufacture.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if we can be of further assistance.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: 7468-2

Ms. R. Marie McFadden
Cable Car Concepts Inc.
P.O. Box 6500
Deltona, FL 32728

Dear Ms. McFadden:

This responds to your June 23, 1992 letter requesting information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and seating in vehicles manufactured by your company. These vehicles are the "Mini Trolley," the "Road Train," and the "Trolley Tram." You indicated that these vehicles can be used on the highway and are motorized, licensed vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to answer your specific questions, it is necessary to determine how each of your vehicles is classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." Your literature indicates that the "Mini Trolley" has a passenger capacity of 18, and that the power unit of the "Trolley Tram" has a passenger capacity of 22. Therefore, both of these vehicles would be considered a "bus" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The power unit of the "Road Train" has seating capacity for only one passenger, and the primary use appears to be to draw the coaches. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." The coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

Your specific questions and the answers to each follow. You asked us to answer these questions for vehicles manufactured both before and after September 1, 1991.

1. Our small unit has a GVW of 12,300, we understand that we need seat belts for the driver only, this small unit is an eighteen passenger. Our largest is a thirty-two passenger unit with a GVW of 17,000 lbs.

The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

As explained below, buses such as the "Mini Trolley" and the power unit of the "Trolley Tram" are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at the driver's position; trucks such as the power unit of the "Road Train" are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position; and trailers such as the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section S4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR).

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. Trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR.

Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not required to have safety belts.

2. As you can see on our Tram specs we do have oak seats, is there a ruling on this at all.

The seating requirements are contained in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. This standard includes strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, the driver's seat in the "Mini Trolley" and the power unit of the "Trolley Tram," and all "occupant seats" in the power unit of the "Road Train" must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. The standard does not specify that seats must be made of a particular material; therefore, oak seats are permitted if they comply with the standard.

As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

We have one seat on some of our vehicles that we refer to as a jump seat it is located in front of the entrance door, this seats two people and faces the driver. Would the same ruling apply to this seat as for the other passenger seats.

As stated above, Standard No. 207 applies only to the driver's seat in buses such as the "Mini Trolley" or the power unit of the "Trolley Tram." If the jump seat is in the power unit of the "Road Train," and if it is not a side- facing seat, it must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207 if it is an "occupant seat" as defined in that standard.

Section S3 of Standard No. 207 defines an "occupant seat" as "a seat that provides at least one designated seating position." A "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as

any plain view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

Your letter does not contain enough information to determine whether your seat would be considered an auxiliary seating position. If it is, it is not subject to Standard No. 207.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:207#208 d:8/20/92

ID: 7468

Ms. R. Marie McFadden
Cable Car Concepts Inc.
P.O. Box 6500
Deltona, FL 32728

Dear Ms. McFadden:

This responds to your June 23, 1992 letter requesting information on Federal regulations concerning safety belts and seating in vehicles manufactured by your company. These vehicles are the "Mini Trolley," the "Road Train," and the "Trolley Tram." You indicated that these vehicles can be used on the highway and are motorized, licensed vehicles.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act), to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

NHTSA's safety standards specify different requirements for different types of motor vehicles. Therefore, in order to answer your specific questions, it is necessary to determine how each of your vehicles is classified under our regulations. NHTSA defines a "bus" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons." Your literature indicates that the "Mini Trolley" has a passenger capacity of 18, and that the power unit of the "Trolley Tram" has a passenger capacity of 22. Therefore, both of these vehicles would be considered a "bus" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "truck" as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment." The power unit of the "Road Train" has seating capacity for only one passenger, and the primary use appears to be to draw the coaches. Therefore, it appears that this vehicle is a "truck" for the purpose of Federal regulations.

NHTSA defines a "trailer" as "a motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle." The coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" would be considered trailers for the purpose of Federal regulations.

Your specific questions and the answers to each follow. You asked us to answer these questions for vehicles manufactured both before and after September 1, 1991.

1. Our small unit has a GVW of 12,300, we understand that we need seat belts for the driver only, this small unit is an eighteen passenger. Our largest is a thirty-two passenger unit with a GVW of 17,000 lbs.

The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle. Different requirements also apply depending on the GVWR of the vehicle. The discussion which follows is limited to vehicles with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds.

As explained below, buses such as the "Mini Trolley" and the power unit of the "Trolley Tram" are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at the driver's position; trucks such as the power unit of the "Road Train" are required to have, at a minimum, a lap belt at every designated seating position; and trailers such as the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not required to have any type of safety belt at any seating position.

The requirements for buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section S4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. Buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR).

The requirements for trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more are contained in section S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks manufactured on or after January 1, 1972 and before September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. Trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are allowed the same two options, however, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR.

Standard No. 208 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not required to have safety belts.

2. As you can see on our Tram specs we do have oak seats, is there a ruling on this at all.

The seating requirements are contained in Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. This standard includes strength requirements for all "occupant seats" in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks, and for the driver's seats in buses, except that the requirements do not apply to side-facing seats. Therefore, the driver's seat in the "Mini Trolley" and the power unit of the "Trolley Tram," and all "occupant seats" in the power unit of the "Road Train" must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207. The standard does not specify that seats must be made of a particular material; therefore, oak seats are permitted if they comply with the standard.

As with Standard No. 208, Standard No. 207 does not apply to trailers. Therefore, the seats in the coaches for the "Road Train" and the "Trolley Tram" are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 207.

We have one seat on some of our vehicles that we refer to as a jump seat it is located in front of the entrance door, this seats two people and faces the driver. Would the same ruling apply to this seat as for the other passenger seats.

As stated above, Standard No. 207 applies only to the driver's seat in buses such as the "Mini Trolley" or the power unit of the "Trolley Tram." If the jump seat is in the power unit of the "Road Train," and if it is not a side- facing seat, it must meet the requirements of Standard No. 207 if it is an "occupant seat" as defined in that standard.

Section S3 of Standard No. 207 defines an "occupant seat" as "a seat that provides at least one designated seating position." A "designated seating position" is defined at 49 CFR 571.3 as

any plain view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats.

Your letter does not contain enough information to determine whether your seat would be considered an auxiliary seating position. If it is, it is not subject to Standard No. 207.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:207#208 d:8/20/92

ID: nht92-9.46

DATE: January 21, 1992

FROM: William H. Spain -- Touch Wood

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to William H. Spain (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We have developed a lighting device for heavy duty trucks which may or may not fall under the purview of NHTSA statues.

We have very briefly discussed this with your Mr. Britell and Mr. Cavey, who suggested that we submit the information to you.

I am attaching a description of the device and as a separate item the way we feel the statues may or may not apply to it. Please be patient and understanding as I am not a lawyer.

I want to be clear in that we are not seeking an endorsement or even an opinion as such. We do not want to put you in the position of having to make a ruling. All we ask is your initial first impression as to whether or not we might have a problem. We have spent quite a bit of time and money on this device and are to the point of manufacture. If we have a problem then we need to stop now and back away from it. We do not intend to get into an argument over it, we will let it die first. We do however think it is a needed device that is totally in harmony with the stated purpose of 571.108 and that the device will save lives.

Realizing how very busy you must be as well as needing an indication at your earliest convenience, I have tried to keep the attached as brief as possible.

Your assistance is very much appreciated and we will be looking forward to hearing from you.

AUXILIARY LIGHTING DEVICE

As you are aware on trucks both the left and right turn signal circuits are separate from the tail lamp circuit. This device uses both the left and right turn signal circuit to act as either emergency/auxiliary tail lamps or as fog lamps. When in use neither of these new functions will interfere with normal operation of the turn signals. Each function shall be described separately.

These two new functions are controlled by a normal toggle switch mounted on the vehicle dash. In the toggle switches normal position, it is off.

It is not an uncommon occurrence for a tractor/trailer to lose its tail lamps due to a circuit or wiring malfunction. A obvious contributing factor is the constant switching of trailers between trucks. When this occurs the driver's only choice on the road is to switch on his hazard flashers which is not their intended purpose and is disconcerting to other motorists. It also defeats his normal turn signal circuits.

If our toggle switch is flipped upward to a position marked (on a nameplate) "EMERG T/LMPS", then two things happen. Firstly the center of the toggle switches lever, or paddle is illuminated and glows red. This is to remind the driver that he has something on that is not normal and to remind him to turn it off when it is no longer needed. Secondly a reduced voltage is fed through both right and left rear turn signal circuits to cause both turn signal lamps to illuminate at a reduced brilliance equal to that of a normal tail lamp. If either turn signal is activated then the full voltage is fed to that particular (left or right) lamp and the lamp flashes at its normal turn signal brilliance. To an observer the net effect is the same as normal turn signal operation (which it is).

In the event of a failure of the normal tail lamps this device provides a means of normal illumination on the vehicle's trailer and allows the driver to proceed in a safe manner to a location to have the failed, regular tail lamps repaired.

Another problem with all vehicles is reduced visibility in fog. In heavy fog the only present choice is for a motorist or trucker to activate their hazard flashers for increased rear visibility. Again this practice is disconcerting and defeats the use of normal turn signals. The European countries allow and on some trucks require a rear special fog lamp of increased brilliance for use in fog.

If our switch is flipped downward to a position marked R/FOG again two things happen. First the center of the switch will illumine red. Second a higher voltage is fed through both rear turn signal circuits to cause them to burn at approximately their full brilliance. If however either turn signal is activated then that particular (right or left) side reverts to normal turn signal operation. Therefore normal turn signal operation is not defeated.

The circuitry of our device is so configured that it automatically adjusts for the particular number of turn signal lamps on a particular truck/trailer.

STATUTES

First it shoUld be noted and considered that this device is totally in harmony with the stated purpose of 571.108.

There are obviously two directions to take in considering application of 571.108 to this device. It is very likely that 571.108 does not apply to this device. This is an auxiliary device. It does not affect those items which are required by 571.108 and auxiliary devices of this nature are not addressed by 571.108.

This device in its emergency tail lamp mode would be used only upon failure of the vehicle's regular lighting system. Its effect would be no different from the driver calling a wrecker which after hooking up would place the wrecker's own emergency tail lamps upon the rear of the towed vehicle. Obviously the wrecker's portable emergency/auxiliary tail lamps do not have to comply with 571.108 although they become the towed vehicle's tail lamps. Just as obviously they are needed on the rear of the towed vehicle on a temporary basis.

This device in its rear fog lamp mode would be two auxiliary lamps on the rear which do not interfere with normal operation of either the vehicle's normal tail lamps or turn signals. For that matter all new Jaguar automobiles imported into the U.S. come with two rear fog lamps as standard.

If however the position were to be taken that this device does fall under 571.108 then it becomes more complicated. S5.1.1.11 refers to minimum candlepower for turn signal LAMPS. This does not apply as it is common practice for manufacturers to utilize a common LAMP for both tail lamp and turn signal function. Although they do this by utilizing a dual filament bulb and dual circuits, there is no section of 571.108 requiring that this particular method be used. The net effect of our device would be identical to that of a dual filament bulb/separate circuit.

As our device does not impair the operation of any lamps required by 571.108 then we are in compliance with S5.1.3.

Whereas the normal location of rear turn signal lamps on any vehicle is assumed to be in compliance with 571.108 then these exact same lamps would also be in compliance when illuminated by our device (S5.3.1.1).

it is possible that we may have to configure our circuit in such a manner that when our switch is in the up position for emergency tail lamps it wold be on whenever the vehicle's headlamps were on. (S5.5.3).

Reference S5.5.10 (a) and when the turn signal lamps are used in conjunction with our device they are wired to flash. The lamps do not however become turn signal lamps until such time as the turn signal function is selected (by the operator). Prior to that time, the circuit, filaments, lamps, etc. can be used for other purposes as they are not turn signals until activated for that function and purpose. An example of this is the use of the turn signal circuit, filaments and lamps as stop lamps on many cars. The circuit, filaments and lamps are used in stop lamp mode until they are activated as turn signals at which time the stop lamp mode is interrupted on the appropriate side and they become turn signal lamps.

ID: nht75-6.16

DATE: 06/13/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: S.L. Terry, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

S. L. Terry, Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs Chrysler Corporation P. O. Box 1910 Detroit, MI 48231

Dear Mr. Terry:

This responds to your letter of May 13, 1975, requesting confirmation that Chrysler's new unibelt shoulder/lap belt system with a "window shade" tension adjustment feature satisfies the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, that the lap belt portion "adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor." You describe the seat belt assembly as of the single retractor, continuous loop type, with a B-pillar-mounted "window shade" emergency-locking retractor, and a one-way locking device in the buckle tip which prevents return of webbing to the lap portion from the torso portion when the belt assembly is in use.

Section 7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion "by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems as long as the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap bolt portion to prevent excessive slack. Because of the submarining danger of a slack lap belt, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.

One restriction, set forth in a letter to Renault, Inc., on September 25, 1972, is that "the friction in the buckle is low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder bolt cinches up the lap belt."

We would like to clarify that letter by emphasizing that, to conform to the requirements, the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as automatically adjustable." Thus, it is the manufacturer who determines whether or not the particular bolt system is designed to satisfy the requirements of the standard. In your May 16, 1975, demonstration to Messrs. Hitchcock, Nelson, Medlin, Smith, Breedon, and Ziegler of the NHTSA, we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of that continuous loop system.

The other restriction was set out in a March 9, 1973, letter to General Motors. It limits the use of "comfort clips" on the upper torso portion of continuous loop systems. The letter distinguishes continuous loop systems from systems that have separate lap and shoulder belt retractors. It concludes that "a comfort clip would be acceptable under S7.1.1 of the standard, so long as the shoulder belt is otherwise capable of adjustment as required by S7.1.1."

This restriction has since been the subject of an NHTSA proposal (Docket No. 74-32, Notice 1) which would restrict the use of "a device used to limit retractive action of an emergency-locking retractor for the comfort of the occupant" to seat belt assemblies that have "an individually adjustable lap belt." Chrysler's response to that proposal and stated plan to introduce a continuous loop belt system with a "window shade" device in the new 1976 model four-door compact car assume that NHTSA intends to permit "belt tension relief" devices on all continuous loop systems. I would like to point out that this issue is still outstanding in Docket No. 74-32.

Sincerely,

(original stamped by)

James B. Gregory Administrator

May 13, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20591

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Chrysler Corporation plans to introduce a new unibelt shoulder/lap belt system with a "window shade" tension adjustment feature for the front seat outboard seating positions during the 1976 model year. We plan to introduce this system initially in the 4-door models of our all-new compact car, and later in the model year incorporate the system in all of our other 1976 model 4-door cars, including station wagons. As indicated in my letter dated November 7, 1974 (commenting on Docket 74-32, Notice 1, based on discussions with the Administration), we understand that a unibelt system with a "window shade" adjustment feature will conform to current MVSS 208 requirements provided it otherwise complies with MVSS 209. Because the modifications to proposed Docket 74-32 are still pending and we have not yet received written confirmation of our understanding, we hereby request that the Administration review our unibelt system and provide us with written response indicating that it complies with the regulations. Since we must make commitments for final tooling almost immediately, we request your review as soon as possible.

The system consists of a continuous webbing loop with a vehicle deceleration sensitive emergency-locking retractor located in the B-pillar. The webbing is routed from the retractor to a roof rail mounted turning loop, across the occupant's upper torso to the buckle tip, across his lap and down to the floor anchor. To encourage belt usage by making them more comfortable to wear, we have incorporated a "window shade" feature in the retractor to relieve objectionable shoulder belt tension. A slight extension of the shoulder belt provides slack in the shoulder belt; a second extension of the belt releases the slack.

To maintain lap tension when shoulder belt tension has been relieved by using the "window shade" in the retractor, we have incorporated a one-way locking device in the buckle tip. This permits the belt webbing to be pulled through the buckle tip by the retractor, but prevents webbing movement in the opposite direction. It also permits the user to tighten the lap belt beyond the tension created by the retractor, if he likes a snug lap belt.

We believe that this system is a significant step forward in the design of seat belt systems. Initially, it makes the belt buckle tip easier to find since it normally stows near the roof rail rather than near the floor between the door and seat. It is easier to buckle up because the motion required by the occupant to extend the webbing from the single retractor is more nearly linear. After buckling up, the occupant can easily relieve shoulder belt tension by moving forward slightly and then returning to his normal sitting position. If the occupant wishes, greater tension can be placed and maintained in the lap belt by pulling the shoulder belt upward. Moreover, this system is automatically and conveniently stored by tripping the "window shade." It also eliminates the lap belt cinch- up problem associated with auto-locking retractors which many customers find objectionable. Because this new design will encourage the use of seat belts and as we are able to work out the problems of application of the system of other car models, we expect to offer this system on our 2-door models.

Based on our interpretation of the requirements of MVSS 208 and MVSS 209, and our understanding of the letters of interpretation issued by the NHTSA to Renault dated September 25, 1972, and to General Motors dated March 27, 1975, we believe our new system fully complies with the applicable requirements of both standards. With respect to the issue raised in those letters, we have designed the one-way lock-up feature in the buckle tip of our system to allow self-adjustment of the lap belt by the retractor. When the occupant does not snug the lap belt, our testing experience indicates that normal occupant motions will cause the slack in the system to be taken up by the retractor.

Based upon this description of our new unibelt lap/shoulder belt system that we plan to use during the 1976 model year, we request a letter of confirmation of our interpretation that this system complies with the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. If considered desirable, we would be happy to demonstrate this new system in one of our vehicles.

Very truly yours,

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

(original signed by)

S. L. Terry Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs

/ms

ID: nht69-2.51

DATE: 02/20/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H.M. Jacklin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Company, Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 30, 1968 (your reference No. GSAE-26) requesting information to a number of questions related to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I regret that we did not receive your October 5, 1968 letter and that the pressure of work has delayed my answer to your most recent letter.

I am glad to send you the following information:

a. MVSS No. 112 - Headlight Concealment Devices.

1. It is stipulated in S.4.6 that "each headlamp concealment device shall, within an ambient temperature range of -20 to +120 degrees F., be capable of being fully opened in not more than three seconds after actuation of the mechanism described in S.4.3." With regard to the temperature condition at the time of a test, if only the ambient temperature satisfies the cold temperature conditions, is it all right to pay no regard to other conditions, such as the sticking of frost, ice, etc.?

ANSWER: It is only necessary that the ambient temperature conditions (-20 to +120 degrees F.) be satisfied at the time of the test.

b. MVSS No. 114 - Theft Protection.

1. With regard to the stipulation in S.4.2 that "The prime means for deactivating the car's engine or other main source of motive power shall not activate the deterrent required by S.4.1.(b)," we have provided the ignition switch with four stages as shown in the sketch below: our key-locking system is of the mechanism that the system does not activate at the stage "Off", activates only at the stage, "Lock" and satisfies S.4.4. Does this mechanism conform to S.4.2.7

ANSWER: The system as you describe it appears to conform to S4.2; however, the Bureau does not issue approvals of any specific system, and the development of equipment to comply with this requirement is the responsibility of the individual manufacturer.

2. With reference to the stipulation in S.4.1. "Each passenger car shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent ----.", we would like to know whether or not we must provide such a mechanism as the key can be removed only at the stage "Lock" and cannot at the stage "Off".

ANSWER: A locking system having such a position that the key may be removed without activating either the cars' steering lock or its self-mobility lock would not conform to the standard in its present form, since paragraph S4.1 of the standard requires each car to have a key locking system that, whenever the key it removed, will prevent either steering or self-mobility of the car, or both.

c. MVSS No. 201 - Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

1. With regard to the interpretation of the stipulation in S.3.1 " , the deceleration of the head form shall not exceed 80 g for more than 3 milliseconds," when the deceleration wave -- shown in the chart below -- is obtained.

in case DELTA t[1] < 3 milliseconds, we interpret that the standard is satisfied even when delta t[1] +="SIGMA" t[2] t[3] t;> 3 milliseconds.

Is our interpretation correct? (Illustration omitted)

ANSWER: Your interpretation is correct. The standard permits more than one peak that exceed 80g which, cumulatively, may add to more than 3 milliseconds. No single peak may continuously exceed 80g for more than a 3 millisecond duration.

2. When the areas stipulated in S.3.1.1.(d) -- "Areas outboard of any point of tangency on the instrument panel of a 6.5 inch diameter head form tangent to an inboard of vertical longitudinal plane tangent to the inboard edge of the steering wheel," -- are illustrated, which of the following hatched portions in the figures below is in conformity to the stipulation? (Illustration omitted)

ANSWER: Figure (a) is correct for the inboard side. Present requirements do not apply to the area outboard of the steering wheel on the instrument panel.

d. MVSS No. 207 - Anchorage of Seats.

S.3.3 Folding and hinged seats. Except for folding auxiliary seats and seats with backs which are adjustable for occupant comfort only.

1. Is it correct to interpret that the underlined part is referring to seats with backs of reclining mechanism enabling to adjust the angle of the back?

ANSWER: Yes.

2. Or, should we interpret that the seats with reclinable backs come under the hinged seats?

ANSWER: No.

3. a. In the case of car with four doors, if the front seats are those with reclinable backs, these are presumed to be the ones corresponding to (1). Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

b. In the case of a car with two doors, we would like to interpret that only the reclinable seat backs with folding mechanism enabling the passengers on the rear seat to get in and out are in conformity to (2). Is our interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

S.3.3.1 The release control shall be readily accessible to the occupant of that seat and to the occupant of any seat immediately behind that seat.

1. The above stipulation is presumed to be laid down for the egress of the passengers on the rear seat. Therefore, when the reclining seats are installed in a four-door car, we would like to consider it unnecessary to pay regard to the underlined part. Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

2. In the case of a two-door car, if the control which can be easily operated by passengers on the rear seat is installed only on one side (the right side), the passengers on the rear seat can operate the control by moving to the right side. Consequently, we consider it sufficient to install only on the right side the control which is easily accessible to the passengers on the rear seat. Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: In the case of a two-door car, for a split back or bucket seat arrangement, where both seat backs fold, a release control should be provided on the outboard side of each folding seat back. If the seat back is split and only one seat back folds, only one release control is required on the outboard side.

e. MVSS No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

1. We judge that the fastening strength of the seat belt anchorage will change, depending on the shape of the eye bolt attaching the seat belt to the seat belt anchorage point.

If an anchorage is tested by using our designed seat belt assembly and the strength of the anchorage can be assured, we understand that the anchorage fully conforms to the standard, and also understand that it is not necessary to guarantee the owners of Mazda vehicles if they attach a test bolt assembly other than the one designated by us. Is our interpretation correct?

We, of course, will specify in our Operation Manual that the seat belt assembly designated by our company must be used.

ANSWER: Under Paragraph S.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages are to be tested by using a Type 1 or Type 2 seat bolt assembly as defined in FMVSS No. 209. If you follow this procedure, using a belt which complies to No. 209, and your anchorages meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, then you are in compliance with this standard.

I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of equipment or on vehicle designs. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the Standards.

ID: aiam5171

"Dear Mr. Dittert: This responds to your inquiry about how the Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affect State laws applicable to the same aspect of performance. You were particularly interested in our requirements for window tinting. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. After providing background information, I will answer the specific questions raised in your letter. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Standard 205, 'Glazing Materials,' issued under the Safety Act, has requirements that limit the amount of tinting that can be placed on windows in new vehicles. The standard currently imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70% in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. Under 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, no person shall manufacture or sell a new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not meet all applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety- related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. A manufacturer of a noncomplying product is also subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each noncomplying item it produces. The prohibition in 108(a)(1)(A) against selling complying vehicles and items of equipment does not apply to a vehicle or item of equipment after its first sale to a consumer. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act applies to modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. That section 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. Please note that the 'render inoperative' provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. I would now like to apply this background to the particular questions raised in your letter. Question One: 'Are the CFRs law and enforceable only by federal agents?' NHTSA's regulations and safety standards are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations and standards apply without State ratification to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA enforces these regulations and safety standards. Question Two: 'Are the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards law and only enforceable on new manufactured vehicles?' The FMVSS's apply to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment, and not to used vehicles or equipment. NHTSA may bring enforcement actions against manufacturers of new vehicles and new items of equipment that do not comply with applicable FMVSS's. NHTSA also enforces the 'render inoperative' provision of the Safety Act against commercial entitites that modify new or used vehicles in a manner that violates the 'render inoperative' provision. We also note that NHTSA can investigate safety defects in new or used vehicles or items of equipment. Question Three: 'Are states allowed to enact legislation that allows less stringent standards than the CFRs?' We understand you to ask this in the context of window tinting requirements, since elsewhere in your letter you ask whether a Texas law that allows light transmittance of 35 percent violates Federal law. Your question relates to 103(d) of the Safety Act, which states: Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard ... is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Whether State law is preempted under 103(d) depends in part on the conduct that is regulated by that law. Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. State law would be preempted to the extent it established performance requirements applicable to the manufacture of vehicles or glazing that differ from those in Standard 205. State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture or sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard 205. As stated above, Federal law also regulates modifications made to new and used vehicles by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses (108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act). The effect of 108(a)(2)(A) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of businesses listed in 108(a)(2)(A). These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent. A state law would be preempted if it purported to allow modifications violating Standard 205 by these named businesses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Because Federal safety standards regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles, state requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as they do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a state could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard. However, the state cannot legitimize conduct - the rendering inoperative of glazing by commercial businesses installing window tinting - that is illegal under Federal law. Question 4: 'Concerning the installation of non-complying automotive equipment, i.e., sun screening, taillamp `black out' lenses, neon license plate lamps, etc., is this allowed by the owner but prohibited installation by a commercial entity?' You are correct that 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act regulates the modifications of only the commercial entities listed in that section of the Act, and that the Safety Act does not prohibit an individual from modifying his or her vehicle such that it no longer complies with the FMVSS's. The States may have requirements governing the modification of a vehicle by individual owners. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0139

Dear Mr. Niguma: Thank you for your letter of November 30, 1968 (your reference No GSAE-26) requesting information to a number of questions reletod (sic) to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I regret that we did not receive your October 5, 1968 letter and that the pressure of work has delayed my answer to your most recent letter.; I am glad to send you the following information: >>>a. MVSS No. 112 - Headlight Concealment Devices. 1. It is stipulated in S.4.6 that 'each headlamp concealment devic shall, within an ambient temperature range of -20 to +120 degrees F., be capable of being fully opened in not more than three seconds after actuation of the mechanism described in S.4.3.' With regard to the temperature condition at the time of a test, if only the ambient temperature satisfies the said temperature conditions, is it all right to pay no regard to other conditions, such as the sticking of frost, ice, etc.?; ANSWER: It is only necessary that the ambient temperature condition (-20 to +120 degrees F.) be satisfied at the time of the test.; b. MVSS No. 114 - Theft Protection. 1. With regard to the stipulation in 5.4.2 that 'The prime means fo deactivating the car's engine or other main source of motive power shall not activate the deterrent required by S.4.1(b),' we have provided the ignition switch with four stages as shown in the sketch below: our key-locking system is of the mechanism that the system does not activate at the stage 'Off', activates only at the stage, 'Lock' and satisfies S.4.4. Does this mechanism conform to S.4.2?; ANSWER: The system as you describe it appears to conform to S4.2 however, the Bureau does not issue approvals of any specific system, and the development of equipment to comply with this requirement is the responsibility of the individual manufacturer.; 2. With reference to the stipulation in S.4.1. 'Each passenger ca shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent ----.', we would like to know whether or not we must provide such a mechanism as the key can be removed only at the stage 'Lock' and cannot at the stage 'Off'.; ANSWER: A locking system having such a position that the key may b removed without activating either the cars' steering lock or its self-mobility lock would not conform to the standard in its present form, since paragraph S4.1 of the standard requires each car to have a key locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent either steering or self-mobility of the car, or both.; c. MVSS No. 201 - Occupant Protection in Interior Impact 1. With regard to the interpretation of the stipulation in S.3.1 '___ the deceleration of the head form shall not exceed 80 g for more than 3 milliseconds,' when the deceleration wave -- shown in the chart below -- is obtained.; in case delta t sub 1 < 3 milliseconds, we interpret that the standard is satisfied even when delta t sub 1 delta t sub 2 + delta t sub 3 + ___ = sigma delta t sub i > 3 milliseconds.; Is our interpretation correct? (Illustration omitted) ANSWER: Your interpretation is correct. The standard permits more tha one peak that exceed 80g which, cumulatively, may add to more than 3 milliseconds. No single peak may continuously exceed 80g for more than a 3 millisecond duration.; 2. When the areas stipulated in S.3.1.1.(d) --' Areas outboard of an point of tangency on the instrument panel of a 6.5 inch diameter head form tangent to an inboard of vertical longitudinal plane tangent to the inboard edge of the steering wheel,' -- are illustrated, which of the following hatched portions in the figures below is in conformity to the stipulation? (Illustration omitted); ANSWER: Figure (a) is correct for the inboard side. Presen requirements do not apply to the area outboard of the steering wheel on the instrument panel.; d. MVSS No. 207 - Anchorage of Seats. S.3.3 Folding and hinged seats. Except for folding auxiliary *seats an seats with backs which are adjustable for occupant comfort only*.; 1. Is it correct to interpret that the underlined part is referring t seats with backs of reclining mechanism enabling to adjust the angle of the back?; ANSWER: Yes. 2. Or, should we interpret that the seats with reclinable backs com under the hinged seats?; ANSWER: No. 3. a. In the case of car with four doors, if the front seats are thos with reclinable backs, these are presumed to be the ones corresponding to (1). Is this interpretation correct?; ANSWER: Yes. S.3.3.1 The release control shall be readily accessible to the occupan of that seat and *to the occupant of any seat immediately behind that seat*.; 1. The above stipulation is presumed to be laid down for the egress o the passengers on the rear seat. Therefore, when the reclining seats are installed in a four-door car, we would like to consider it unnecessary to pay regard to the underlined part. Is this interpretation correct?; ANSWER: Yes. 2. In the case of a two-door car, if the control which can be easil operated by passengers on the rear seat is installed only on one side (the right side), the passengers on the rear seat can operate the control by moving to the right side. Consequently, we consider it sufficient to install only on the right side the control which is easily accessible to the passengers on the rear seat. Is this interpretation correct?; ANSWER: In the case of a two-door car, for a split back or bucket sea arrangement, where both seat backs fold, a release control should be provided on the outboard side of each folding seat back. If the seat back is split and only one seat back folds, only one release control is required on the outboard side.; e. MVSS No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages 1. We judge that the fastening strength of the seat belt anchorage wil change, depending on the shape of the eye bolt attaching the seat belt to the seat belt anchorage point.; If an anchorage is tested by using our designed seat belt assembly an the strength of the anchorage can be assured, we understand that the anchorage fully conforms to the standard, and also understand that it is not necessary to guarantee the owners of Mazda vehicles if they attach a seat bolt assembly other than the one designated by us. Is our interpretation correct?; We, of course, will specify in our Operation Manual that the seat bel assembly designated by our company must be used.; ANSWER: Under Paragraph S.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar No. 210, anchorages are to be tested by using a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly as defined in FMVSS No. 209. If you follow this procedure, using a belt which complies to No. 209, and your anchorages meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, then you are in compliance with this standard.<<<; I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items o equipment or on vehicle designs. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the Standards.; Sincerely, H. M. Jacklin, Jr., Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safet Performance Service;